On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. 
>> Now that's something I'd back.
> 
> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
> 
> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
> adverts.  What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work. 
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.

Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't 
really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle.  The 
entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money 
from advertising, generally speaking.

That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.  The industry 
hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some 
attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka; 
effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent 
people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote 
for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that 
could do that already).  The problem is that until they make it 
impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip 
commercials, one way or the other.

Jim

Post a reply to this message