Further assorted links

Comments

2+4. Soooo...Will Barry be extending the unemployment for Blue Dogs?

I really don't think a true a'la carte model will end up on top, mostly because people are resistant to micropayments. For whatever reason, the perceived difference between free and $0.50 is far greater than between $0.50 and $1.00.

For that reason, IMHO Netflix' model - a monthly subscription combined with on-demand viewing - achieves the best balance between perceived marginal value (per show) and low cost of choice (you pay the same price for whatever show you want to watch).

I don't need to buy individual shows, but I do want to select which channels I want to watch. If you pay per show, how will you know what you want to start watching? There's a lot you can miss. In contrast, if I get specific channels, I weed out everything I don't want, but still keep some variety.

I could live with 15-20 good channels, which includes all the local channels. Those are the 15 channels I actually alternate through even if there are 100 channels. It's very rare to ever watch a different channel than those. I expect most people do the same even though our 15-20 channels would be different.

Even if the cable company only offered a set number of channels - say minimum 20, 30, 40, etc., I could still work with that. I might add some marginally interested channels I wouldn't buy if my true # of channels only resulted in 18. But I could live with that. And of course, the cable company could have an extra channel that they use to rotate all the channels I don't get in the hopes I like something enough to later add more.

The current way cable companies bundle channels is outrageous. Cox Cable has several different bundles, none of which offers the exact channels I want. I must sacrifice some channels regardless. Plus I'm forced to buy 60-100 channels I have zero interest in. I think all cable companies are the same way.

Comments for this post are closed