2009 cable scripted originals rankings
David
New & Improved WQ
> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8447
All of which only goes to prove once again that why would anyone need
a dozen cable networks to do essentially the same job that a single
cable network could do? Put all those scripted shows together into
one lineup and you could have yourself one full season's worth of
primetime on just one channel. And think of how much money you'd save
on your cable bill, too. Less is more.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 1:03�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8447
>
>All of which only goes to prove once again that why would anyone need
>a dozen cable networks to do essentially the same job that a single
>cable network could do? Put all those scripted shows together into
>one lineup
And you'd go broke. 64 scripted shows. That's what, 50 hours? Where
would you put the sports, reality shows, movies, syndicated imports
and oldies that pay the rent?
New & Improved WQ
wrote:
> realized you actually understand television programming *less* well than
> the average person.
Yeah, and you’ve come up with some brilliant ideas yourself of how to
run a network. Not. You can't even figure out your own gender.
New & Improved WQ
Man, you're such a TV simpleton. How long have you been watching it
and you still don't get it? Those 62 scripted shows [my more accurate
count] are simply for primetime and would cover half a year's worth,
with a fall cycle of one group of shows and a winter cycle of another
group of shows, with the other half of the year made up of reruns of
those shows. With all-scripted primetime programming the network
becomes increasingly more attractive and visible to viewers,
generating increased advertising revenue. And then there's also a
whole other programming universe for that same channel that includes,
daytime, fringe prime, late-night, and weekends too! Imagine that, an
additional 146 hours beyond primetime’s 22 hours per week to also
program. That's where you can stuff all your stupid little sports
events, reality shows, movies, syndicated imports and oldies to help
pay the rent. You could even include them as specials or short-run
series in primetime just to break up the monotony of all that
disgusting first-run scripted fare, if you want. On top of which,
just think of all that cable revenue that would subsidize that single
network as well, just like it does with all those other cable networks
that keep staying on the air like cockroaches you can't kill. Wake up
out of your coma already.
New & Improved WQ
> Fantasize About Having Programming Skills" game enough to your liking?
> Oh dear, oh dear.
Now that's so limp-wristed, lip-lisping gay. You're just too freaky,
Ronnie. Eww.
>
> > You can't even figure out your own gender.
>
> The sheer lameness of this troll is always a shock. Incidentally, you
> wouldn't even wonder if you knew more about television.
>
> But do go on pushing your astoundingly naive "Hey, why doesn't one
> network just buy all the top-rated series?" idea.
That's *your* astoundingly naive idea. Mine is simply that there
doesn't need to be a dozen channels to do the job that one could do.
In an ideal universe they could all merge into that single channel.
But we're not living in an ideal universe, and proof of that is that
you inhabit the same nightmare we're all stuck in.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
And they'll make a lot less money there, so your profit margin
evaporates. Why the hell would a channel move the actual shows that
get the biggest ratings, sports, out of prime time?
New & Improved WQ
> brilliantly insightful?
Why do anything at all? Life is fundamentally pointless as it is.
>
> Hey, I have an idea: Why doesn't one network get Johnny Depp to star in
> every one of its series? The ratings would be killer.
Sorry, 21 Jump Street didn't exactly set the world on fire. Shows
what you know, huh?
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>
>That's *your* astoundingly naive idea. Mine is simply that there
>doesn't need to be a dozen channels to do the job that one could do.
>In an ideal universe they could all merge into that single channel.
The problem is, you have a fundamental misconception of what job it is
that various cable channels exist to do. It isn't to deliver first
run scripted adult live action. That's just a sideline at best. That
it's all that you are interested in doesn't change that.
New & Improved WQ
What did I say? I said you could have your sports in primetime to
break up the monotony of all those boring scripted shows if you want.
What the network would do is no different than what ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX do with respect to how they air their sports, specials and
movies. But each network has its own sports focus and most, if not
all, of the big draws are already locked up by those networks, so what
it would be for this network would be entirely up to what it would
deem would best fit its needs and whatever is available for them to
get. Besides, how many of those dozen cable channels listed carry any
significant or high-profile amount of sports programming or any sports
at all, anyway? Two, maybe three, and yet all of them have still
managed to survive all these years with or without them?
New & Improved WQ
I know what the cable networks are in it for, it's corporate welfare.
That's what they get when they're subsidized by cable companies in
order to be able to operate. So long as their existence is possible
due to handouts to keep them afloat, since very few of them, if any at
all, could survive on simply ad revenue alone, then yeah, it's only
about making money for them without having to really work for it, as
in delivering polished scripted fare 22/7. That's why I admire the
broadcast network model. They succeeded on investment capital and
advertising revenue, they didn't go begging for any additional amounts
from the public in order to stay afloat (although that might change
now in the near future). Even FOX did it on its own. But when the
marketplace determines that you can't make it, like it did with WB and
UPN, then a network should go under or morph into a new one, like the
latter two did into CW. And that's all I'm saying. A dozen networks
now could simply pool all their scripted shows together and air them
on a single network which would obviously get a higher profile from
being the new first-run scripted series network on the block 22/7,
Saturdays included, than any of those other networks have now with
only a handful or less scripted series that they each air sporadically
and scatteredly themselves. Who needs the glut of junk programming
they predominantly air besides their few, more attractive fare?
Nobody. Except maybe David Johnston holed up in the middle of nowhere
where the sun don't shine and the ambiguous gender Ronnie Batemen
who'd be better off playing with dolls and singing to him/herself, "I
feel pretty, so very pretty, as pretty as can be."
New & Improved WQ
No, I don't wonder that at all. I just keep plowing along, regardless.
New & Improved WQ
wrote:
> producing scripted series as ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX do. It makes me
> giggle.
They have a place for people like you if that's what makes you giggle.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 5:49�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:02:19 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>
>> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That's *your* astoundingly naive idea. �Mine is simply that there
>> >doesn't need to be a dozen channels to do the job that one could do.
>> >In an ideal universe they could all merge into that single channel.
>>
>> The problem is, you have a fundamental misconception of what job it is
>> that various cable channels exist to do. �It isn't to deliver first
>> run scripted adult live action. �That's just a sideline at best. �That
>> it's all that you are interested in doesn't change that. �
>
>I know what the cable networks are in it for, it's corporate welfare.
>That's what they get when they're subsidized by cable companies in
>order to be able to operate.
Why do the the cable companies do that? Are cable companies
philanthropic organizations?
New & Improved WQ
Are you that out of it? They do it because they have to. It's
retransmission fees. Your monthly cable bill pays for all those
channels you want and don't want. I get 60 channels. Do I want 60
channels? No. I'd be happy with maybe a dozen or 15, I don't need
the other 45+ channels. But I'm given no choice, it's all or
nothing. So 15 channels get my support, and the other 45 channels get
my subsidy, even though I don't want them. That's the problem.
There'd be no problem if it was all strictly a la carte, just pick and
choose each individual channel you want, if it's 3 or 30 or 300, and
that's all you pay for, $3 or $30 or $300, and then may the strongest
channels win and all the rest simply fade away. That's real
competition. The way it is now is just artificial competition, it's a
system that supports the undeserved and weak and one that only
unnecessarily pollutes the airwaves with excessive needless junk, all
to do little more than fatten the wallets of people sponging off
viewers' reluctant support for the most part and who have absolutely
no interest in bettering the TV universe in return. Well, as it is, I
may be giving up cable once and for all because of that and get an LCD
TV with a digital antenna so I can watch free TV again. I'll still
get all the regular channels and some new surprise digital channels,
and whatever I might miss on the cable channels I won't get any
longer, no real big loss because I can always stream a view or
download. Why do I have to support cable networks I'm not interested
in? Why does anybody? Especially when one can do the job of twelve.
Less is more.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 6:53�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:28:49 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 30, 5:49�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:02:19 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>
>> >> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >That's *your* astoundingly naive idea. �Mine is simply that there
>> >> >doesn't need to be a dozen channels to do the job that one could do.
>> >> >In an ideal universe they could all merge into that single channel.
>>
>> >> The problem is, you have a fundamental misconception of what job it is
>> >> that various cable channels exist to do. �It isn't to deliver first
>> >> run scripted adult live action. �That's just a sideline at best. �That
>> >> it's all that you are interested in doesn't change that. �
>>
>> >I know what the cable networks are in it for, it's corporate welfare.
>> >That's what they get when they're subsidized by cable companies in
>> >order to be able to operate. �
>>
>> Why do the the cable companies do that? �Are cable companies
>> philanthropic organizations? �
>
>Are you that out of it? They do it because they have to.
No they don't.
It's
>retransmission fees.
Retransmission fees are only necessary if you retransmit something
New & Improved WQ
Cable TV systems impose a monthly fee depending on the number and
perceived quality of the channels offered. Cable TV subscribers are
offered various packages of channels one can subscribe to. The cost of
each package depends on the type of channels offered (basic vs.
premium) and the quantity. These fees cover the fees paid to
individual cable channels for the right to carry their programming.
Call it retransmission or anything you want, the fact of the matter is
that cable companies use subscribers' fees to pay the cable networks
for carrying them. It doesn't come out of the cable company's pocket,
it comes out of yours to support the many channels you don't want
along with the few you do. I know you're not as stupid as you make
yourself out to be, but by golly, you're doing a damn fine job of
trying to fool me.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
So they buy a product from the owner. How is that a subsidy?
New & Improved WQ
Okay, you are officially stupid, then.
Steve Newport
Radio!
Steve Newport
at all. I just keep plowing along, regardless.
Hateman may be the least quoted poster on rec.arts.tv.
David Johnston
Say you buy a box of assorted chocolates. But you hate the caramels.
Is the store subsidizing the caramel suppliers by buying from a
company that includes them?
New & Improved WQ
It's stupid to buy chocolates that way. You buy them a la carte.
Sometimes you gotta teach people how to live properly if they're going
to live a life that makes any sense.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 10:09�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:22:12 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>
>> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> >> >Call it retransmission or anything you want, the fact of the matter is
>> >> >that cable companies use subscribers' fees to pay the cable networks
>> >> >for carrying them. �
>>
>> >> So they buy a product from the owner. �How is that a subsidy? �
>>
>> >Okay, you are officially stupid, then.
>>
>> Say you buy a box of assorted chocolates. �But you hate the caramels.
>> Is the store subsidizing the caramel suppliers by buying from a
>> company that includes them? �
>
>It's stupid to buy chocolates that way. You buy them a la carte.
That kind of chocolates doesn't come ala carte.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:49:05 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
><w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 30, 10:09�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:22:12 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>>
>>> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>>> >> >Call it retransmission or anything you want, the fact of the matter is
>>> >> >that cable companies use subscribers' fees to pay the cable networks
>>> >> >for carrying them. �
>>>
>>> >> So they buy a product from the owner. �How is that a subsidy? �
>>>
>>> >Okay, you are officially stupid, then.
>>>
>>> Say you buy a box of assorted chocolates. �But you hate the caramels.
>>> Is the store subsidizing the caramel suppliers by buying from a
>>> company that includes them? �
>>
>>It's stupid to buy chocolates that way. You buy them a la carte.
>
>That kind of chocolates doesn't come ala carte.
But suppose it did. Suppose that you get a box of chocolates that
costs 20 bucks. It has 40 chocolates in it, but you only like half of
them. Would it be smarter to buy the chocolates you like at 10
dollars a pop?
New & Improved WQ
Where I get them they do.
New & Improved WQ
No. But I wouldn't spend $20 on a box that has half the chocolates I
wouldn't eat, either. It's bad enough I do that with cable, and I
have to draw the line somewhere.
The point simply comes down to this. Any cable network's existence is
not possible unless subscribers to a cable package subsidize it, which
is unlike a broadcast network, each of which emerged into existence on
their own via investment capital and ad revenues. You either believe
in the capitalist process that allowed the broadcast networks to
succeed and thrive on their own merits and shrewdness and, in some
cases, fail on their own demerits and ineptitude, or you believe in
the socialist process that allows all cable networks to be
artificially propped up by subscriber fees, especially when in most
cases those fees are being paid for channels viewers would rather not
have.
If it's going to be completely capitalist in nature, then cable
networks can not and should not be supported by subscribers' fees,
just as broadcast networks never have been and still aren't. Cable
companies themselves shouldn't be charged at all for carrying any
networks, the way it used to be, and their charge to you as a
subscriber should only amount to what's necessary to cover the cost of
relaying their signals to your set with some profit thrown in. That
way, you'd get everything you get now but at probably a quarter of the
cost. I remember when my cable bill used to be only $7 a month back
in the early 80s, which was for all the regular local and some distant
Canadian and U.S. channels at the time, along with a few odd cable
station [as opposed to network] channels. The cable paid nothing to
the broadcast networks then, just as they still do now, and for the 15
or so channels I got, $7 was a reasonable price for the package I had
at the time, which was the exact same one for everybody who ordered
cable, in order to receive the extra free signals I couldn't get by
antenna and get them with a clearer, crisper picture on all of them.
That was capitalism at its functional best. Everything worked
perfectly because the channels themselves were all supported by
advertising revenue and as broadcast networks, they were, and still
technically are, free to air entities, not something you should have
to pay for at all. It was only when the cable networks began to rear
their ugly little heads that the cable bill began mounting at an
increasing rate so that by the end of the 80s I was paying three times
as much for twice the channels and I didn't even want half of the new
channels I got. It's when something is thrust upon you and forces you
to support it when you don't want to, that's when capitalism goes all
screwy and creates phony success stories. Subtract the subsidy and
then you'll see just exactly how "successful" any of those cable
networks will still be. They won't be. But you can't say the same
about the broadcast networks, because they get no subsidy at all from
you in order to exist and they'd still be around long after all the
cable networks dropped dead from lack of subsidization.
Now let's apply that to chocolates. A box comes with various
flavors. But not all the flavors are popular and some might disappear
entirely if they weren't lumped together with the popular ones. The
question is: why even bother throwing in less popular flavors in with
the more popular ones when few people wouldn't want to eat them
anyway? The less popular flavors are being artificially propped up as
valid flavors when, in fact, if you kept them out of the box and put
them in a box of their own, then you'd see how quickly those
artificially popular flavors would fade from view. The only reason
why coconut or marzipan or something with uncrunchable nuts still
exists is because they keep riding on the backs of the popular
chocolates and not because people really want them. Let every
chocolate stand on its own merit, just as every cable network should
stand on its own merit as well - without subsidization, the way
broadcast networks do it.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
Misuse of the word socialist. How cable companies operate is ever bit
as capitalists as how networks operate. What's more, you frequently
propose that it would be better if the networks were reduced back to
three in order to reduce the competition you face, so you obviously
aren't married to competition as a virtue.
that allows all cable networks to be
>artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
They are not artificially propped up. On a regular basis failing
cable networks are reinvented as something new. TLC for example. A&E
for another. Cable nets still have to get viewers. Otherwise they'll
lose their place in the roster.
especially when in most
>cases those fees are being paid for channels viewers would rather not
>have.
>
>If it's going to be completely capitalist in nature, then cable
>networks can not and should not be supported by subscribers' fees,
Cable companies and their material providers sell shares in their
enterprise and raise capital with bonds. That's capitalism.
>That was capitalism at its functional best. Everything worked
>perfectly because the channels themselves were all supported by
>advertising revenue and as broadcast networks, they were,
Getting stuff for free is not particularly how capitalism works.
Steve Newport
But trying to screw the system can be fun!
New & Improved WQ
It doesn't have to be just 3 networks. It can be as many that can
survive without subsidization. Even in this current climate, there
are 5 main ones plus 2 minor ones, ION and MyTV, along with 2 Latino
ones in the U.S. that are standing on their own ad revenue merits
without public subsidization. That's at least 9 networks right
there. I even have no gripe against premium cable networks like HBO
and Showtime because no one is forced to subscribe to them if they
don't want to and, in fact, all the other cable networks should go
that route too. But they won't because they all know they'd be out of
business real quick once the subsidies dry up. They only exist as
corporate welfare basket cases and not because there's any real need
for or interest in those networks on any level that can support them
without subsidization.
>
> that allows all cable networks to be
>
> >artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
>
> They are not artificially propped up. On a regular basis failing
> cable networks are reinvented as something new. TLC for example. A&E
> for another. Cable nets still have to get viewers. Otherwise they'll
> lose their place in the roster.
They keep getting reinvented while still being subsidized. Sure,
that's easy to do. Try to reinvent yourself without the
subsidization. It can happen without subsidization, as it did with
PAX morphing into ION and WB and UPN merging into CW, but that's the
only 2 instances I can remember of it happening with broadcast
networks. Hmm, I wonder why. Maybe because the capital and ad
revenues needed for reinvention aren't as easy to come by when you're
not subsidized?
>
> especially when in most
>
> >cases those fees are being paid for channels viewers would rather not
> >have.
>
> >If it's going to be completely capitalist in nature, then cable
> >networks can not and should not be supported by subscribers' fees,
>
> Cable companies and their material providers sell shares in their
> enterprise and raise capital with bonds. That's capitalism.
Yeah, so? They can do whatever they want with my money. I'm not
talking about them. I'm talking about useless cable networks sponging
off unwilling subscribers.
>
> >That was capitalism at its functional best. Everything worked
> >perfectly because the channels themselves were all supported by
> >advertising revenue and as broadcast networks, they were,
>
> Getting stuff for free is not particularly how capitalism works.
It worked beautifully until the 80s, and the networks even got paid
well, too - by their advertisers.
Ian J. Ball
> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8447
I only got as far as ABC Family to see that he totally forgot to
include "Make It or Break It" which was actually ABC Family's #2
show.
If he can't even get that right, I have no hope about the accuracy of
the rest of the list, so I stopped reading...
:/
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> that allows all cable networks to be
>>
>> >artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
>>
>> They are not artificially propped up. �On a regular basis failing
>> cable networks are reinvented as something new. �TLC for example. A&E
>> for another. �Cable nets still have to get viewers. �Otherwise they'll
>> lose their place in the roster.
>
>They keep getting reinvented while still being subsidized. Sure,
>that's easy to do. Try to reinvent yourself without the
>subsidization. It can happen without subsidization, as it did with
>PAX morphing into ION and WB and UPN merging into CW, but that's the
>only 2 instances I can remember of it happening with broadcast
>networks.
Oh come on. The big nets do it every time they decide to replace
cowboys and gameshows with cops and doctors. It's how they've
survived for so long.
>>
>> >If it's going to be completely capitalist in nature, then cable
>> >networks can not and should not be supported by subscribers' fees,
>>
>> Cable companies and their material providers sell shares in their
>> enterprise and raise capital with bonds. �That's capitalism.
>
>Yeah, so? They can do whatever they want with my money. I'm not
>talking about them. I'm talking about useless cable networks sponging
>off unwilling subscribers.
That woudl be the material providers of the cable companies. And if
you say the the cable companies can do whatever they want with my
money, that includes paying to get the Golf Channel.
>
>
>>
>> >That was capitalism at its functional best. �Everything worked
>> >perfectly because the channels themselves were all supported by
>> >advertising revenue and as broadcast networks, they were,
>>
>> Getting stuff for free is not particularly how capitalism works.
>
>It worked beautifully until the 80s,
Thanks to a lack of competition.
New & Improved WQ
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:39:08 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>
> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
> >> that allows all cable networks to be
>
> >> >artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
>
> >> They are not artificially propped up. On a regular basis failing
> >> cable networks are reinvented as something new. TLC for example. A&E
> >> for another. Cable nets still have to get viewers. Otherwise they'll
> >> lose their place in the roster.
>
> >They keep getting reinvented while still being subsidized. Sure,
> >that's easy to do. Try to reinvent yourself without the
> >subsidization. It can happen without subsidization, as it did with
> >PAX morphing into ION and WB and UPN merging into CW, but that's the
> >only 2 instances I can remember of it happening with broadcast
> >networks.
>
> Oh come on. The big nets do it every time they decide to replace
> cowboys and gameshows with cops and doctors. It's how they've
> survived for so long.
Program reinvention is not the same as corporate reinvention. I
assumed you were talking about the latter. But even in talking about
the former, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A
network can air whatever it wants to air. The issue is should I have
to support it when I don't want to just so I can get the networks that
I do want and consequently, do those networks deserve to be networks
at all if they can't function without my unwilling support?
> >> >If it's going to be completely capitalist in nature, then cable
> >> >networks can not and should not be supported by subscribers' fees,
>
> >> Cable companies and their material providers sell shares in their
> >> enterprise and raise capital with bonds. That's capitalism.
>
> >Yeah, so? They can do whatever they want with my money. I'm not
> >talking about them. I'm talking about useless cable networks sponging
> >off unwilling subscribers.
>
> That woudl be the material providers of the cable companies. And if
> you say the the cable companies can do whatever they want with my
> money, that includes paying to get the Golf Channel.
The material providers are only there because they're subsidized by
you into existing, not because they can thrive on their own. Only the
broadcast networks and premium cable networks are legitimate corporate
entities as material providers. I don't know how deeply dense you
are, but I'm not sure I can explain it any more or better than I have
so far. Aside from public broadcasting, subsidized cable networks are
probably the only other media businesses that get public handouts in
order to survive. In fact, all cable networks can be considered to be
like the CBC, accepting both on-air advertising and public handouts,
without one of which they would just collapse. Not so with the
broadcast networks. But I'm just going around in vicious circles here
with you because you've been sitting too much in your darkened room in
that land without sun to see any light.
> >> >That was capitalism at its functional best. Everything worked
> >> >perfectly because the channels themselves were all supported by
> >> >advertising revenue and as broadcast networks, they were,
>
> >> Getting stuff for free is not particularly how capitalism works.
>
> >It worked beautifully until the 80s,
>
> Thanks to a lack of competition.
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, an independent station or two, even a distant
channel or two, that's up to 8 channels one could receive on just an
antenna alone in high-density areas. That's competition. Real
competition. The kind that didn't rely on public handouts in order to
compete by cheating. Even Canada had competition. Toronto had
several Canadian networks and stations with CBC, CTV, TVO, Global,
CHCH, CityTV and a couple of other distant channels that could be
received by rabbit ears. In Toronto, one could receive as many 15
U.S. and Canadian channels with a good rooftop aerial - all not
subsidized by the public, except for the public networks CBS, TVO and
PBS. There was plenty of competition, and at least it was relevant
competition and they all delivered the same kind of programming you
get now, minus the humongous amount of reality crap. How many more
different versions of an animal nature series or local arena junior
hockey games do you really need? What you had then was programming
minus the fat; now it's fat minus the programming. And by what I
read, you look like you watch a tons load of fat. You must be turning
into a real porker.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 12:07�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:39:08 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>>
>> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> >> that allows all cable networks to be
>>
>> >> >artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
>>
>> >> They are not artificially propped up. �On a regular basis failing
>> >> cable networks are reinvented as something new. �TLC for example. A&E
>> >> for another. �Cable nets still have to get viewers. �Otherwise they'll
>> >> lose their place in the roster.
>>
>> >They keep getting reinvented while still being subsidized. �Sure,
>> >that's easy to do. �Try to reinvent yourself without the
>> >subsidization. �It can happen without subsidization, as it did with
>> >PAX morphing into ION and WB and UPN merging into CW, but that's the
>> >only 2 instances I can remember of it happening with broadcast
>> >networks.
>>
>> Oh come on. �The big nets do it every time they decide to replace
>> cowboys and gameshows with cops and doctors. �It's how they've
>> survived for so long. �
>
>Program reinvention is not the same as corporate reinvention.
If anyone was going to reinvent themselves as a corporation, they stop
showing television, and start making flanges or something.
I
>assumed you were talking about the latter. But even in talking about
>the former, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A
>network can air whatever it wants to air. The issue is should I have
>to support it when I don't want to just so I can get the networks that
>I do want
If you don't like it...stop. It isn't like you have no alternative.
Start buying or renting their series through itunes or DVDs. The
option _is_ available to you. Money does go from those sales back to
the original producers. The days when cable was a near-monopoly are
long gone. I've considered those options and decided I had a better
deal this way, but for you if it's that important the same may not be
true.
and consequently, do those networks deserve to be networks
>at all if they can't function without my unwilling support?
Actually at least some of those networks are in fact supporting the
channels you like which could not function without being bundled with
them, not vice versa, considering that you apparently aren't a sports
fan and more people get cable for sports than for the first run live
action action series.
> I don't know how deeply dense you
>are, but I'm not sure I can explain it any more or better than I have
>so far. Aside from public broadcasting, subsidized cable networks are
>probably the only other media businesses that get public handouts in
>order to survive.
Me paying a business which in turn buys things from another business
so that it can have things to sell is not a public handout. It's
commerce. Capitalistic commerce. And part of capitalism as an
ideology is the freedom of people to run their business as they damn
well please, with the assumption that the way that makes money for
them will eventually turn out to the benefit of the consumer because
if it doesn't, consumers will go elsewhere and they'll stop making
money. This idea falls apart when there is no other place to go, but
it's been a long time since there was no other place to get video
entertainment. Yes, sure I'd like it if my satellite offered me a
package that contained only the stuff I want and nothing I don't want
and didn't cost any more than the package I have now, but economies of
scale don't work like that and neither does capitalism.
The fact of the matter is, your cable provider has offered you a deal.
You have decided (so far) that the downsides of that deal do not
outweigh the upsides. That isn't socialism or a public handout. It
is no more a subsidy, than I was subsidizing the power window
manufacturers when I bought a car that had power windows even though I
didn't want power windows.
New & Improved WQ
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:48:23 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>
>
>
>
>
> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 12:07 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:39:08 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>
> >> <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
> >> >> that allows all cable networks to be
>
> >> >> >artificially propped up by subscriber fees,
>
> >> >> They are not artificially propped up. On a regular basis failing
> >> >> cable networks are reinvented as something new. TLC for example. A&E
> >> >> for another. Cable nets still have to get viewers. Otherwise they'll
> >> >> lose their place in the roster.
>
> >> >They keep getting reinvented while still being subsidized. Sure,
> >> >that's easy to do. Try to reinvent yourself without the
> >> >subsidization. It can happen without subsidization, as it did with
> >> >PAX morphing into ION and WB and UPN merging into CW, but that's the
> >> >only 2 instances I can remember of it happening with broadcast
> >> >networks.
>
> >> Oh come on. The big nets do it every time they decide to replace
> >> cowboys and gameshows with cops and doctors. It's how they've
> >> survived for so long.
>
> >Program reinvention is not the same as corporate reinvention.
>
> If anyone was going to reinvent themselves as a corporation, they stop
> showing television, and start making flanges or something.
You sure they didn't release you too early from some loony bin? WB
+UPN = reinvention called CW. PAX = reinvation called ION. And so on
and so on. Same biz, but reinvented under a new TV identity and
moniker.
> >assumed you were talking about the latter. But even in talking about
> >the former, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A
> >network can air whatever it wants to air. The issue is should I have
> >to support it when I don't want to just so I can get the networks that
> >I do want
>
> If you don't like it...stop. It isn't like you have no alternative.
> Start buying or renting their series through itunes or DVDs. The
> option _is_ available to you. Money does go from those sales back to
> the original producers. The days when cable was a near-monopoly are
> long gone. I've considered those options and decided I had a better
> deal this way, but for you if it's that important the same may not be
> true.
Well, cable and even satellite are becoming somewhat outdated, unless
they offer a la carte, and even then you're forced to take a pre-
selected group of channels before you can begin to choose the ones you
really want. There are other options and I'm seriously considering
going the route of getting an LCD and just living off antenna signals
and downloads. What's holding me back is that none of the LCDs I've
seen are perfected yet to my liking.
>
> and consequently, do those networks deserve to be networks
>
> >at all if they can't function without my unwilling support?
>
> Actually at least some of those networks are in fact supporting the
> channels you like which could not function without being bundled with
> them, not vice versa, considering that you apparently aren't a sports
> fan and more people get cable for sports than for the first run live
> action action series.
Bull.
>
> > I don't know how deeply dense you
> >are, but I'm not sure I can explain it any more or better than I have
> >so far. Aside from public broadcasting, subsidized cable networks are
> >probably the only other media businesses that get public handouts in
> >order to survive.
>
> Me paying a business which in turn buys things from another business
> so that it can have things to sell is not a public handout.
You just get stupider and stupider the further we go along, don't
you? It's not about the cable companies, it's about the cable
networks themselves. Screw your brain on right and maybe you'll begin
to grasp the real premise of the discussion.
It's
> commerce. Capitalistic commerce. And part of capitalism as an
> ideology is the freedom of people to run their business as they damn
> well please, with the assumption that the way that makes money for
> them will eventually turn out to the benefit of the consumer because
> if it doesn't, consumers will go elsewhere and they'll stop making
> money. This idea falls apart when there is no other place to go, but
> it's been a long time since there was no other place to get video
> entertainment. Yes, sure I'd like it if my satellite offered me a
> package that contained only the stuff I want and nothing I don't want
> and didn't cost any more than the package I have now, but economies of
> scale don't work like that and neither does capitalism.
>
> The fact of the matter is, your cable provider has offered you a deal.
It did. Once.
> You have decided (so far) that the downsides of that deal do not
> outweigh the upsides.
To everything there's a tipping point, and that tipping point began to
peep through in the late 80s. We're way beyond the tipping point and
fully submerged in mud now.
That isn't socialism or a public handout. It
> is no more a subsidy, than I was subsidizing the power window
> manufacturers when I bought a car that had power windows even though I
> didn't want power windows.
Question: Where do the cable networks get their money from?
Answer: Advertising and...? Cable companies. But it's not the cable
companies that are paying them out of their own pockets. Their the
middle man between your monthly fees and the cable networks getting
those fees from you. To some networks you give willingly, to others
you only give because you have to take what you don't want in order to
get what you do want. What you don't want and yet still pay for via
the middle man cable company is a subsidy, almost an extortion-like
subsidy. Your money is allowing something to exist when you don't
want it and when it itself would cease to function without your
involuntary support of it. That's a subsidy.
I'm wrapping things up for the decade.
David Johnston
<w...@reborn.com> wrote:
TLC and A&E didn't change their names. Just everything they did.
>> and consequently, do those networks deserve to be networks
>>
>> >at all if they can't function without my unwilling support?
>>
>> Actually at least some of those networks are in fact supporting the
>> channels you like which could not function without being bundled with
>> them, not vice versa, considering that you apparently aren't a sports
>> fan and more people get cable for sports than for the first run live
>> action series. �
>
>Bull.
Let's have a look:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_en_tv/us_cable_nielsens
Football
Wrestling
Old episodes of NCIS
Spongebob Squarepants
And of course The Closer.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/03/11/top-cable-shows-march-3-9-unc-bests-duke-and-spongebob/2908
Basketball
Wrestling
Reality Show
A news special event
Spongebob Squarepants
Ah, here we have something
Football
Wrestling
Spongebob
A tweener movie
Royal Pains
The Closer
Reality shows
An awards show
Tweener movies
Wrestling
Auto Racing
A teenage live action series
An NCIS rerun
And the Closer, Royal Pains and Burn Notice
Who is supporting whom? Sports and the pseudo sport of wrestling are
there every week along with the kids stuff. And the Closer is doing
quite well.
>
>>
>> > �I don't know how deeply dense you
>> >are, but I'm not sure I can explain it any more or better than I have
>> >so far. �Aside from public broadcasting, subsidized cable networks are
>> >probably the only other media businesses that get public handouts in
>> >order to survive. �
>>
>> Me paying a business which in turn buys things from another business
>> so that it can have things to sell is not a public handout. �
>
>You just get stupider and stupider the further we go along, don't
>you? It's not about the cable companies,
Wrong. It is about the cable companies. They are the ones who offer
you those packages you dislike so much. They are the ones who decide
how to bundle channels. It isn't the cable "nets".
>
>> You have decided (so far) that the downsides of that deal do not
>> outweigh the upsides.
>
>To everything there's a tipping point, and that tipping point began to
>peep through in the late 80s.
Really. And it's been 20 years, and still you haven't tipped. Curious
that.
>�That isn't socialism or a public handout. �It
>> is no more a subsidy, than I was subsidizing the power window
>> manufacturers when I bought a car that had power windows even though I
>> didn't want power windows. �
>
>Question: Where do the cable networks get their money from?
Where do power window manufacturers get their money from?
>
>Answer: Advertising and...? Cable companies. But it's not the cable
>companies that are paying them out of their own pockets.
Yes they are. The money comes out of their bank accounts.
WQ 3.0
I repeat to the blind, deaf and dumb: Program reinvention is not the
same as corporate reinvention.
> Who is supporting whom? Sports and the pseudo sport of wrestling are
> there every week along with the kids stuff. And the Closer is doing
> quite well.
In order to support themselves, cable channels charge "subscriber
fees" in addition to airing commercials. These fees are collected
directly from the cable service provider, who passes the cost onto the
customer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States#Subscriber_Fees
---
What? The fees are collected from the cable service provider who
passes them on to the customer? You mean cable companies don’t dig
deep into their own pockets to support the cable networks, they have
to extract the money from their customers and then hand it all over to
the cable companies while, of course, skimming a little off the top
for themselves in the process? Sure sounds like the cable company is
playing the middle man, essentially being a conduit of cash flow
between viewers and cable networks.
---
Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a
monthly fee per subscriber for their programming.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/12/30/free_tv_could_get_its_curtain_call/
---
What? Cable networks make most of their money from subscriber fees?
Who would’ve thunk? So does that mean if they no longer got
subscriber fees, they’d all tank? Sure sounds like their existence is
being subsidized to prevent that from happening.
---
Cable networks have always counted on revenue from both advertising
and subscriber fees. So even as ad sales have declined, cable channels
have stayed afloat on those fees, which have remained steady.
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/news/time-warner-cable-might-lose
---
What? Even as ad revenue declines, cable networks still get to stay
afloat thanks to subscriber fees? If that isn’t corporate welfare of
GM/Chrysler bailout money proportions, I don’t know what is. What
happened to just good old-fashioned relying on only advertising
revenues like the real networks have done? I’ll tell you what
happened. They full well know they wouldn’t survive that way as the
major broadcast networks have.
Now, you find something that’s contrary to all of that, because
anything you‘ll counteract with, without any source to support it,
will just be little more than day-old ka-ka dribbling out of your
brain.
> >> > I don't know how deeply dense you
> >> >are, but I'm not sure I can explain it any more or better than I have
> >> >so far. Aside from public broadcasting, subsidized cable networks are
> >> >probably the only other media businesses that get public handouts in
> >> >order to survive.
>
> >> Me paying a business which in turn buys things from another business
> >> so that it can have things to sell is not a public handout.
>
> >You just get stupider and stupider the further we go along, don't
> >you? It's not about the cable companies,
>
> Wrong. It is about the cable companies. They are the ones who offer
> you those packages you dislike so much. They are the ones who decide
> how to bundle channels. It isn't the cable "nets".
It's about the cable nets. They're the ones that can't survive
without your subsidies. Cable companies can. They proved it when
there was no such thing as cable nets.
> >Answer: Advertising and...? Cable companies. But it's not the cable
> >companies that are paying them out of their own pockets.
>
> Yes they are. The money comes out of their bank accounts.
And I repeat again to the blind, deaf and dumb:
Cable networks have always counted on revenue from both advertising
and subscriber fees. So even as ad sales have declined, cable channels
have stayed afloat on those fees, which have remained steady.
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/news/time-warner-cable-might-lose
No mention about them relying on cable companies. Care to find
something that disputes that? Try not to dribble day-old ka-ka when
you do.
David Johnston
wrote:
Then why did you bring it up when it was irrelevant? (And yes,
changing your corporate name is irrelevant. Sci-Fi changed it's name
without changing content at all.)
>---
>
>What? The fees are collected from the cable service provider who
>passes them on to the customer?
What? You mean that that price of products from produce suppliers are
collected from the supermarket who passes them on to the consumer?
>What? Even as ad revenue declines, cable networks still get to stay
>afloat thanks to subscriber fees? If that isn�t corporate welfare of
>GM/Chrysler bailout money proportions, I don�t know what is.
Obviously not because it isn't anything like the bailout, in which
government gave them money with their only goal being preventing their
collapse. It was not a commercial relationship where the car
companies agreed to provide the government with cars to sell to the
public in return for which the government would pass on a chunk of the
proceeds.
What
>happened to just good old-fashioned relying on only advertising
>revenues like the real networks have done?
Cable nets charged subscriber fees from the very earliest days of
their existence. In fact initially, they survived exclusively on
subscriber fees since the only advertising they did was of their own
coming attractions.
>> >> so that it can have things to sell is not a public handout.
>>
>> >You just get stupider and stupider the further we go along, don't
>> >you? �It's not about the cable companies,
>>
>> Wrong. �It is about the cable companies. �They are the ones who offer
>> you those packages you dislike so much. �They are the ones who decide
>> how to bundle channels. �It isn't the cable "nets". �
>
>It's about the cable nets. They're the ones that can't survive
>without your subsidies. Cable companies can. They proved it when
>there was no such thing as cable nets.
Only in areas that had no access to broadcast television.
>
>
>> >Answer: Advertising and...? �Cable companies. �But it's not the cable
>> >companies that are paying them out of their own pockets. �
>>
>> Yes they are. �The money comes out of their bank accounts. �
>
>And I repeat again to the blind, deaf and dumb:
>
>Cable networks have always counted on revenue from both advertising
>and subscriber fees.
No, they haven't. As said earlier, they started out relying
exclusively on subscriber fees.
>http://www.financialnewsusa.com/news/time-warner-cable-might-lose
>
>No mention about them relying on cable companies.
Kindly cite the existence of a cable net that survives without using
cable companies. And please, explain how they do it.
WQ 3.0
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:04:39 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
I told you not to dribble day-old ka-ka out of your brain.
SFTV_troy
New & Improved WQ wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:14 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:36:36 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
> >
> > <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
> > >On Dec 30, 1:03 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8447
> >
> > >All of which only goes to prove once again that why would anyone need
> > >a dozen cable networks to do essentially the same job that a single
> > >cable network could do? Put all those scripted shows together into
> > >one lineup
> >
> > And you'd go broke. 64 scripted shows. That's what, 50 hours? Where
> > would you put the sports, reality shows, movies, syndicated imports
> > and oldies that pay the rent?
>
> Man, you're such a TV simpleton. How long have you been watching it
> and you still don't get it? ...
You're the one who doesn't get it. Each one of those stations (TNT,
FX, USA, Syfy, etcetera) collects about 60 cents per home, and that
money provides enough funds to create 2 maybe 3 original shows per
year. NO WAY could a single channel (for example TNT) afford to fund
60+ shows on that paltry income.
Well... they could, but they'd have to increase their monthly
subscriber fee from 0.6 to around 20 dollars per home per month. No
cable company like Comcast or Time-warner is going to allow that to
happen.
And that's why you see the shows spread-out across multiple channels,
not just one channel. They produce the 2-3 original scripted shows
they can afford to support, and nothing more.
SFTV_troy
>
>
> I told you not to dribble day-old ka-ka out of your brain.
You're the one who is spouting ka-ka. Each one of those stations
(TNT, FX, USA, Syfy, etcetera) collects about 60 cents per home, and
that money provides *just enough* funds to create 2 maybe 3 original
WQ 3.0
None of which was what I was discussing or arguing. Go back and read
the whole thread, absorb with whatever minimal reading comprehension
level you have the actual premise of my point, and then come back with
a more relevant two cents' worth.
WQ 3.0
More irrelevant ka-ka from you.
SFTV_troy
> On Jan 2, 11:05 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > New & Improved WQ wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 3:14 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:36:36 -0800 (PST), "New & Improved WQ"
>
> > > > >a dozen cable networks to do essentially the same job that a single
> > > > >cable network could do? Put all those scripted shows together into
> > > > >one lineup
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Man, you're such a TV simpleton. How long have you been watching it
> > > and you still don't get it? ...
>
> > You're the one who doesn't get it. Each one of those stations (TNT,
> > FX, USA, Syfy, etcetera) collects about 60 cents per home, and that
> > money provides enough funds to create 2 maybe 3 original shows per
> > year. NO WAY could a single channel (for example TNT) afford to fund
> > 60+ shows on that paltry income.
>
>
Yes it was what you were discussing. You said all 60+ shows should
appear on a single cable channel ("Put all those scripted shows
together into one lineup"), but no single channel has enough funds to
produce that many shows.
If you're the CEO of TNT, for example, and it cost $3 million per
episode/ $60 million per full year of a show, and your budget is only
$200 million, then you only have enough funds to produce *3* shows,
not 60.
Simple math
Well simple for me, but maybe not for the village idiot
WQ 3.0
One of the points I made is that all those shows could air on a single
network, and they could. There's enough of them to create a full
season's worth of primetime, repeats included. So why pay $12 a month
for 12 channels when you can still pay $12, and maybe even less, for
one channel that would include all those shows? Even the more popular
non-scripted shows from those dozen channels would air on that single
channel at other times of the day and week, like daytime, late night
and weekends. That way, you get all the cream of the crop, you leave
all the rest of the crap and pointless reruns out [you do realize that
practically all cable networks repeat the same programming 2, 3 or
more times throughout the day just to artificially stretch out their
schedule to 24 hours, so no great loss if all that goes, which is
easily 3/4 of all cable nets' total lineups], you get to pay no more
than what you do now and conceivably less, and you get to see it all
on just a single channel, making it a less cluttered, less confusing,
more streamlined viewing experience of having everything under a
single roof which can only help you better keep track of where all
those shows are. Essentially it's a cable network adopting a
broadcast network model, but remaining as a cable network, if only
because most of its shows wouldn't be considered broadcast network-
friendly, according to the FCC.
> Simple math
Right. Simple math. 12 into 1 = cream of the crop minus all the junk
at the same or less cost to you.
>
> Well simple for me, but maybe not for the village idiot
Right. Simple for me, but maybe not for the village idiot.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 1:03�pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because those 12 channels are real, and the one channel is both
imaginary and impossible.
Even the more popular
>non-scripted shows from those dozen channels would air on that single
>channel at other times of the day and week, like daytime, late night
>and weekends. That way, you get all the cream of the crop, you leave
>all the rest of the crap and pointless reruns out [you do realize that
>practically all cable networks repeat the same programming 2, 3 or
>more times throughout the day just to artificially stretch out their
>schedule to 24 hours,
That isn't artificial. Since people tend to watch most cable in the
gaps in their network viewing, it pays off to run the same show
multiple times a week so that people can more easily fit it into their
viewing schedule.
WQ 3.0
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:55:52 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
They said FOX would be impossible, and that wasn't even a cable
channel. It also didn't need subscriber fees to get started and keep
it going either. Try to make some sense.
>
> Even the more popular
>
> >non-scripted shows from those dozen channels would air on that single
> >channel at other times of the day and week, like daytime, late night
> >and weekends. That way, you get all the cream of the crop, you leave
> >all the rest of the crap and pointless reruns out [you do realize that
> >practically all cable networks repeat the same programming 2, 3 or
> >more times throughout the day just to artificially stretch out their
> >schedule to 24 hours,
>
> That isn't artificial. Since people tend to watch most cable in the
> gaps in their network viewing, it pays off to run the same show
> multiple times a week so that people can more easily fit it into their
> viewing schedule.
How do you know how and when people tend to watch most cable? Just
because you've got some weird viewing habits doesn't mean the majority
of the population is tuned to the tube the way you are. In fact, if
you just go by ratings, nobody watches cable. And by that I mean that
even The Jay Leno Show gets more viewers each and every night than
easily 99% of all cable shows. And trying to catch reruns in some
obscure time slot is not the viewing pursuit of 99.9999999% of
viewers, so there's nothing justifiable about a cable having to repeat
its lineup 2-4 times a day. All they're doing is artificially
stretching out their lineups because they're all just too broke to
program first-run material for at least half of each day.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 3:41�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Oh come on. You know that's bullshit. The ratings are relatively low
because the audience is greatly subdivided between many different
alternatives.
WQ 3.0
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:56:37 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
The ratings are low because nobody cares what's on those networks.
Otherwise, they'd by high, like, you know, with Two and a Half Men,
any of the CSIs, American Idol, even Jay Leno, whose ratings outnumber
that of 99% of what's on cable. Are you justifying invisible
viewership and subsidy payments for networks that appeal to no one?
Is this the crux of your argument? You're going to have to do a
better job than that to validate all but the top 13 highest-rated
cable networks. The top 13 are the ones that manage to snare anywhere
between 1 and 2 million households on average in primetime, out of
about 115 million U.S. households. That's not much of an average when
they're each just at The CW level of reach.
SFTV_troy
Only if you pretend the shows cost nothing to produce... which is an
unrealistic (and frankly stupid) presumption.
> all the rest of the crap and pointless reruns out [you do realize that
> practically all cable networks repeat the same programming 2, 3 or
> more times throughout the day just to artificially stretch out their
> schedule to 24 hours, so no great loss if all that goes
I like the reruns. When I'm traveling in various hotels, the daytime
reruns give me a chance to catch-up on old episodes of NYPD Blue or
CSI or Law&Order that I've never seen. In fact my favorite rerun
block is Syfy's daily 8-hour marathon of classic shows. I saw
Roswell, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Angel, and others I'd
never seen.
David Johnston
wrote:
>The ratings are low because nobody cares what's on those networks.
>Otherwise, they'd by high, like, you know, with Two and a Half Men,
>any of the CSIs, American Idol, even Jay Leno, whose ratings outnumber
>that of 99% of what's on cable. Are you justifying invisible
>viewership
There's nothing invisible about it. About 90% of the North American
population pay for cable or satellite. They wouldn't be doing that if
they weren't getting anything they wanted.
WQ 3.0
What's stupid is your incapability to understand basic math. How many
people subscribe to cable and satellite? About 50 million. Let's say
the dozen channels that I said could be merged into one comes at a
cost of about $12 to you. That's $600 million a month that goes to
those 12 cable networks split among themselves at whatever rate they
each get. That's $7.2 billion a year. Now get rid of those channels
and replace them with one. That one channel could do very well at
just half the cost to you. For $6 a month from all its subscribers,
it would get $3.6 billion in a year all for itself, in addition to
maybe a billion from advertising revenue, more than enough to cover
the cost of all its programming because the broadcast networks
themselves get about $4 billion in a year. And it would be a billion
from ad revenue because the channel would be a high-profile one,
unlike the dozen bargain basement operations, that would air all 62
scripted cable series on it, not just 1 or 2 or 5, and so would
actually appeal to a wider viewership. This way, you get all your
cable scripted shows under one primetime roof and even the higher-
rated non-scripted shows from those dozen channels slotted throughout
the rest of the day, in late night and on weekends. What do you lose
out in the process? Nothing. Except multiple repeats and the junkier
non-scripted shows that nobody but bedridden comatose people tune
into. What do you gain in the process? $6 a month while keeping all
the same scripted shows in primetime and the more popular non-scripted
stuff elsewhere.
Your real argument is...?
>
> > all the rest of the crap and pointless reruns out [you do realize that
> > practically all cable networks repeat the same programming 2, 3 or
> > more times throughout the day just to artificially stretch out their
> > schedule to 24 hours, so no great loss if all that goes
>
> I like the reruns. When I'm traveling in various hotels, the daytime
> reruns give me a chance to catch-up on old episodes of NYPD Blue or
> CSI or Law&Order that I've never seen. In fact my favorite rerun
> block is Syfy's daily 8-hour marathon of classic shows. I saw
> Roswell, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Angel, and others I'd
> never seen.
Reruns are for losers.
WQ 3.0
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:57:04 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
TLC gets an average daily viewership of about 450,000 homes out of 115
million U.S. homes. That's just barely more than one-third of a
percent, or about 100 out of 30,000 homes, meaning 29,900 homes don't
tune in. That's invisible viewership for TLC. The same goes for the
hundreds of other cable networks out there that even get lower
viewership than that.
Patty Winter
In article <c5e8bb68-9b34-446d...@r10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
WQ 3.0 <wq...@post.com> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 12:09�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>> About 90% of the North American
>> population pay for cable or satellite. �They wouldn't be doing that if
>> they weren't getting anything they wanted. �
>
>TLC gets an average daily viewership of about 450,000 homes out of 115
>million U.S. homes. That's just barely more than one-third of a
>percent, or about 100 out of 30,000 homes, meaning 29,900 homes don't
>tune in. That's invisible viewership for TLC.
Obviously TLC doesn't consider their audience "invisible." Whether
the size of that audience is 450,000 or some other number, it's
enough to make it one of the most popular cable channels, and well
worth Discovery's time to keep it going.
Over the past few days, I've watched programs on Sundance, BBC America,
HGTV, and RFD. Clearly I'm not the only one, as those channels have
been viable for years. You may look down on them because they don't
have programming you like, but Discovery and the other owners don't
care what you think.
Patty
WQ 3.0
> In article <c5e8bb68-9b34-446d-919c-429ab184f...@r10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Of course Discovery doesn't care what I or anybody else thinks. As
long as they're extracting money from the 450,000 that watch it and
the 49,550,000 that don't watch it, they're happy. If I set up a
network like that, I'd be happy too if only 450,000 watched it and all
the money I got was really from the 49 million that didn't. That only
goes to show how "popular" TLC really is. It used to be that popular
actually meant popular, as in top 10, 20 or 30. Now popular has been
so bastardized as to include the bottom of the top 500, with barely
one-third of 1% of people tuning in. Define your definition of
popular properly and maybe you'll actually understand it correctly.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 12:09�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:57:04 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The ratings are low because nobody cares what's on those networks.
>> >Otherwise, they'd by high, like, you know, with Two and a Half Men,
>> >any of the CSIs, American Idol, even Jay Leno, whose ratings outnumber
>> >that of 99% of what's on cable. �Are you justifying invisible
>> >viewership
>>
>> There's nothing invisible about it. �About 90% of the North American
>> population pay for cable or satellite. �They wouldn't be doing that if
>> they weren't getting anything they wanted. �
>
>TLC gets an average daily viewership of about 450,000 homes out of 115
>million U.S. homes.
Thank you for that totally meaningless statistic.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 1:16�pm, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
TLC isn't popular. Jon and Kate Plus Eight is popular.
WQ 3.0
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:04:18 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
You mean just as meaningless as your 90% of the North American
population pay for cable or satellite?
WQ 3.0
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:56:05 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
Which could've aired on Sundays 6 p.m. on The ONT Channel [One Not
Twelve]. Your point is?
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 3:01�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
That you are wrong when you use the average performance of a random
cable channel to decide that nobody is watching cable.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 3:00�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
No, I don't. The average daily viewership of a single cable channel
means nothing because it's a channel most of it's viewers only watch
one day a week, and because it's only one channel in a field of 60+,
most of which cater to specialized tastes.
WQ 3.0
> rOn Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:11:25 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
Don't get too ahead of yourself. None of the other cable networks do
that well either. Only about 13 of them can do better than 1 million
households. That's within The CW range, and who the hell watches CW
but 14 year-old girls still trying to get a handle on their puberty?
Only 2 of those 13 can manage to just barely top 2 million, with No. 3
coming in at a half-million behind them. Every channel from No. 14
downwards gets less than a million, with just a half-million
households tuned in already popping up at No. 17 - wow, that was
quick. The drop becomes even more precipitous the further down the
list you go - hey, it's the fast disappearing viewership! On a good
night, the combined total audience of the Big 4 can still outdo
whatever all the cable networks together can draw in. Meanwhile,
conversely, the top 4 cable networks can never, and will never be able
to, outdraw the top 4 broadcast networks because all of them simply
don't have the national reach that the broadcast networks do. For
that to happen, the 4 broadcast networks would have to sink to 2
million households on average, and they still have quite a ways to go
before any of them, including NBC and FOX, are at The CW stage.
WQ 3.0
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:09:08 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 3, 3:00 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:04:18 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 3, 12:09 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:57:04 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The ratings are low because nobody cares what's on those networks.
> >> >> >Otherwise, they'd by high, like, you know, with Two and a Half Men,
> >> >> >any of the CSIs, American Idol, even Jay Leno, whose ratings outnumber
> >> >> >that of 99% of what's on cable. Are you justifying invisible
> >> >> >viewership
>
> >> >> There's nothing invisible about it. About 90% of the North American
> >> >> population pay for cable or satellite. They wouldn't be doing that if
> >> >> they weren't getting anything they wanted.
>
> >> >TLC gets an average daily viewership of about 450,000 homes out of 115
> >> >million U.S. homes.
>
> >> Thank you for that totally meaningless statistic.
>
> >You mean just as meaningless as your 90% of the North American
> >population pay for cable or satellite?
>
> No, I don't. The average daily viewership of a single cable channel
> means nothing because it's a channel most of it's viewers only watch
> one day a week, and because it's only one channel in a field of 60+,
> most of which cater to specialized tastes.
What's the point of having and paying for a channel you're only going
to watch just one day a week? Just download or stream the show
instead.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2:23�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
So pretty good then since you have to combine the total audience of
all of the Big 4 to beat them.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2:27�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
On a different day, you might watch a different channel.
Just download or stream the show
>instead.
There are only a few people who are dedicated pirates to that extent.
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:42:16 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
I think it's lost on you that we're not talking about apples and
apples but apples and oranges. If it can take only 4 apples to beat
400 oranges, then there's really no strength in numbers for the
oranges, is there?
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:46:26 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
And what good is that channel if you're only going to watch it on just
one other different day of the week when all it gives you is just a
show or two? A show or two from a dozen different channels put on one
single channel will have you watching that one single channel most
days of the week, and paying less for it than you pay for a dozen
channels.
>
> Just download or stream the show
>
> >instead.
>
> There are only a few people who are dedicated pirates to that extent.
You don't have to be a pirate to stream.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 4:03�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Your claim started out as "Nobody watches cable". It has now mutated
to "Somewhat fewer people watch cable than watch network television on
a typical day". To which I would certainly agree without being all
that impressed.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 4:06�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Only if it was the right show or two. It wouldn't be of course.
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:31:37 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
It's so obvious, but to you, that if 20 million watch American Idol
and only 20 thousand watch Having Munchies with Baby Jane, who's
watching and who's not? But being as literal-minded as you are,
figurative language does go over your head, I guess.
SFTV_troy
WQ 3.0 wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:59 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > WQ 3.0 wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > > One of the points I made is that all those shows could air on a single
> > > network, and they could.
> >
> > Only if you pretend the shows cost nothing to produce... which is an
> > unrealistic (and frankly stupid) presumption.
>
> What's stupid is your incapability to understand basic math. How many
> people subscribe to cable and satellite? About 50 million. Let's say
> the dozen channels that I said could be merged into one comes at a
> cost of about $12 to you. That's $600 million a month that goes to
> those 12 cable networks split among themselves at whatever rate they
> each get. That's $7.2 billion a year. Now get rid of those channels
> and replace them with one. That one channel could do very well at
> just half the cost to you
Yes and government would be a hell of a lot more efficient if it were
run by a single dictator, rather than tens-of-thousands of elected
leaders. BUT that's now how the world works.
If you object to the idea of having to pay ~40 cents to a whole string
of channels you never watch, then you ought to petition for A La Carte
(i.e. pick what channels you want), so you have the freedom to remove
all the fluff from your monthly bill and reduce the cost.
> > I like the reruns. When I'm traveling in various hotels, the daytime
> > reruns give me a chance to catch-up on old episodes of NYPD Blue or
> > CSI or Law&Order that I've never seen. In fact my favorite rerun
> > block is Syfy's daily 8-hour marathon of classic shows. I saw
> > Roswell, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Angel, and others I'd
> > never seen.
>
> Reruns are for losers.
(shrug) Whatever. I like seeing old shows I've not seen, or
classics I want to see again. Of course today we have DVDs so it's
not really necessary to have cable, but still if I'm in a hotel with
free cable piped to my room, I'll watch the reruns.
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:34:57 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
Judging by what you normally watch and so many, many, many other
people don't, it probably wouldn't be. But who cares what you want to
watch anyway. This is about appealing to the masses at any given time
and making as much money off them as possible via advertisers, not
subsidies.
WQ 3.0
> WQ 3.0 wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:59 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > WQ 3.0 wrote:
>
> > > > One of the points I made is that all those shows could air on a single
> > > > network, and they could.
>
> > > Only if you pretend the shows cost nothing to produce... which is an
> > > unrealistic (and frankly stupid) presumption.
>
> > What's stupid is your incapability to understand basic math. How many
> > people subscribe to cable and satellite? About 50 million. Let's say
> > the dozen channels that I said could be merged into one comes at a
> > cost of about $12 to you. That's $600 million a month that goes to
> > those 12 cable networks split among themselves at whatever rate they
> > each get. That's $7.2 billion a year. Now get rid of those channels
> > and replace them with one. That one channel could do very well at
> > just half the cost to you
>
> Yes and government would be a hell of a lot more efficient if it were
> run by a single dictator, rather than tens-of-thousands of elected
> leaders. BUT that's now how the world works.
Mussolini did make the trains run on time.
> If you object to the idea of having to pay ~40 cents to a whole string
> of channels you never watch, then you ought to petition for A La Carte
> (i.e. pick what channels you want), so you have the freedom to remove
> all the fluff from your monthly bill and reduce the cost.
I'm all for a la carte, and one that doesn't come with any basic
package you have to get before you get a la carte. It's gotta be
strictly pay for what you want, don't pay for what you don't want,
simply as that. Anything else is nonsense and merely designed for the
benefit of corporate interests, not your personal interests. Each
network should only be able to exist on the basis of what real, and
not artificial through piggybacking, interest there is in it,
otherwise it should fail.
Default User
> That you are wrong when you use the average performance of a random
> cable channel to decide that nobody is watching cable.
Are you really redoing this discussion with WQ? Talk about your reruns.
Brian
--
Day 336 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 5:45�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Which of course is what makes cable worth the money. It offers
viewers so much more than the homogenized lowest common denominator
pablum that survives year after year on the nets.
But who cares what you want to
>watch anyway. This is about appealing to the masses at any given time
>and making as much money off them as possible via advertisers,
We already have the broadcast networks for that. Why would we need
another when the market is showing that it has trouble supporting the
ones we already have?
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:03:17 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
It offers nothing more than what the 3 nets did themselves back in
their day. You had your primetime, you had your movies, you had your
sports, you had your talk shows, game shows, newsmagazine and public
affairs shows, travelogues, wildlife shows, religion shows, kids
shows, syndicated shows, yes, even reruns ... you had everything on
those 3 networks that you now have way, way, way too much of on 300
networks, and most of what's too much is the bad and cheap stuff.
Consequently, the ratio of good to bad was higher then than it is now.
>
> But who cares what you want to
>
> >watch anyway. This is about appealing to the masses at any given time
> >and making as much money off them as possible via advertisers,
>
> We already have the broadcast networks for that. Why would we need
> another when the market is showing that it has trouble supporting the
> ones we already have?
You really don't pay attention, do you? The network I've been
proposing all along is for a single cable network to replace a dozen
cable networks. Default User was right: you're just rerunning this
discussion, but apparently you"re still not getting it.
David Johnston
wrote:
>> >Judging by what you normally watch and so many, many, many other
>> >people don't, it probably wouldn't be. �
>>
>> Which of course is what makes cable worth the money. �It offers
>> viewers so much more than the homogenized lowest common denominator
>> pablum that survives year after year on the nets. �
>
>It offers nothing more than what the 3 nets did themselves back in
>their day.
Do you have trouble keeping a straight face as you write that?
You had your primetime, you had your movies, you had your
>sports, you had your talk shows, game shows, newsmagazine and public
>affairs shows, travelogues, wildlife shows, religion shows, kids
>shows, syndicated shows, yes, even reruns ...
Bunk. You had 3 choices an hour. I had two. In this hour I have a
wider variety of genres than an entire week of evenings back then. In
fact, probably more than a entire week of full broadcasting days.
>
>>
>> But who cares what you want to
>>
>> >watch anyway. �This is about appealing to the masses at any given time
>> >and making as much money off them as possible via advertisers,
>>
>> We already have the broadcast networks for that. �Why would we need
>> another when the market is showing that it has trouble supporting the
>> ones we already have?
>
>You really don't pay attention, do you? The network I've been
>proposing all along is for a single cable network to replace a dozen
>cable networks.
Uh-hunh. It would go broke trying to fill a niche that is already
filled by the broadcast networks.
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:27:43 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Judging by what you normally watch and so many, many, many other
> >> >people don't, it probably wouldn't be.
>
> >> Which of course is what makes cable worth the money. It offers
> >> viewers so much more than the homogenized lowest common denominator
> >> pablum that survives year after year on the nets.
>
> >It offers nothing more than what the 3 nets did themselves back in
> >their day.
>
> Do you have trouble keeping a straight face as you write that?
>
> You had your primetime, you had your movies, you had your
>
> >sports, you had your talk shows, game shows, newsmagazine and public
> >affairs shows, travelogues, wildlife shows, religion shows, kids
> >shows, syndicated shows, yes, even reruns ...
>
> Bunk. You had 3 choices an hour. I had two. In this hour I have a
> wider variety of genres than an entire week of evenings back then. In
> fact, probably more than a entire week of full broadcasting days.
You had 3 choices an hour, which was more than enough, provided you
had a life to deal with besides that, which most people do and
obviously you don't. If you're wondering who's watching all those
obscure channels with invisible viewers, it's people with no lives.
> >> But who cares what you want to
>
> >> >watch anyway. This is about appealing to the masses at any given time
> >> >and making as much money off them as possible via advertisers,
>
> >> We already have the broadcast networks for that. Why would we need
> >> another when the market is showing that it has trouble supporting the
> >> ones we already have?
>
> >You really don't pay attention, do you? The network I've been
> >proposing all along is for a single cable network to replace a dozen
> >cable networks.
>
> Uh-hunh. It would go broke trying to fill a niche that is already
> filled by the broadcast networks.
Yeah, sure, it would go broke. I already did the math. $3 billion
from subscriber fees [$6/subscriber/month in a year from 50 million
subscribers) and $1 billion from advertisers, which is about what 12
cable networks get collectively. That's $4 billion - just what each
of the Big 4 get. Need another rerun?
Invid Fan
<a3d80812-ca1e-48ac...@q41g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, WQ
3.0 <wq...@post.com> wrote:
Or have them delivered to me via a cable channel right to my Tivo. Less
effort, and given I prefer downloads to streaming and iTunes costs
money, it's cheaper this way.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
SFTV_troy
> On Jan 4, 6:02 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you object to the idea of having to pay ~40 cents to a whole string
> > of channels you never watch, then you ought to petition for A La Carte
> > (i.e. pick what channels you want), so you have the freedom to remove
> > all the fluff from your monthly bill and reduce the cost.
>
> I'm all for a la carte, and one that doesn't come with any basic
> package you have to get before you get a la carte.
That won't happen. Even when I had limited 15-channel service with
Comcast, I still had to pay a minimum $5 "service fee" which covered
the cost of the cable running to my home, plus service if it stopped
working. A La Carte would likely be the same: $5 for the connection,
plus $1 or $2 per cable channel.
I personally don't need cable anymore since I have tvpc.com to watch
different shows, but if I had kids, I might buy Disney Channel to keep
them entertained, for a grand total of ~$7 a month.
I am wholly-and-completely in favor of A La Carte to be *added* to the
existing packages offered by companies.
> channel should only be able to exist on the basis of what real, and
> not artificial through piggybacking, interest there is in it,
> otherwise it should fail.
Agreed. The reason I canceled cable long-ago is because (1) it was
outrageous to see the price increase from $30 to $65, (2) I was
actually getting fewer channels (they took-away TCM), and (3) was
tired of paying money for channels I never watched like Non-music
Television or the Woman's channel.
David Johnston
<SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 6:15�pm, "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 6:02�pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > If you object to the idea of having to pay ~40 cents to a whole string
>> > of channels you never watch, then you ought to petition for A La Carte
>> > (i.e. pick what channels you want), so you have the freedom to remove
>> > all the fluff from your monthly bill and reduce the cost.
>>
>> I'm all for a la carte, and one that doesn't come with any basic
>> package you have to get before you get a la carte. �
>
>
>That won't happen. Even when I had limited 15-channel service with
>Comcast, I still had to pay a minimum $5 "service fee" which covered
>the cost of the cable running to my home, plus service if it stopped
>working. A La Carte would likely be the same: $5 for the connection,
>plus $1 or $2 per cable channel.
More like 5 bucks per channel. Maybe ten.
David Johnston
wrote:
>> Your claim started out as "Nobody watches cable". �It has now mutated
>> to "Somewhat fewer people watch cable than watch network television on
>> a typical day". �To which I would certainly agree without being all
>> that impressed.
>
>It's so obvious, but to you, that if 20 million watch American Idol
>and only 20 thousand watch Having Munchies with Baby Jane, who's
>watching and who's not?
Who cares? American Idol sucks.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 12:04�am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:27:43 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Judging by what you normally watch and so many, many, many other
>> >> >people don't, it probably wouldn't be. �
>>
>> >> Which of course is what makes cable worth the money. �It offers
>> >> viewers so much more than the homogenized lowest common denominator
>> >> pablum that survives year after year on the nets. �
>>
>> >It offers nothing more than what the 3 nets did themselves back in
>> >their day. �
>>
>> Do you have trouble keeping a straight face as you write that? �
>>
>> You had your primetime, you had your movies, you had your
>>
>> >sports, you had your talk shows, game shows, newsmagazine and public
>> >affairs shows, travelogues, wildlife shows, religion shows, kids
>> >shows, syndicated shows, yes, even reruns ...
>>
>> Bunk. �You had 3 choices an hour. �I had two. �In this hour I have a
>> wider variety of genres than an entire week of evenings back then. �In
>> fact, probably more than a entire week of full broadcasting days. �
>
>You had 3 choices an hour, which was more than enough,
Not if you didn't like those three choices.
>>
>> Uh-hunh. �It would go broke trying to fill a niche that is already
>> filled by the broadcast networks.
>
>Yeah, sure, it would go broke. I already did the math. $3 billion
>from subscriber fees [$6/subscriber/month in a year from 50 million
>subscribers) and $1 billion from advertisers, which is about what 12
>cable networks get collectively. �That's $4 billion - just what each
>of the Big 4 get. Need another rerun?
Except of course that the Big 4 can't field that many first one live
action series either and no single cable channel can collect that much
money from the cable service providers either. The key to their
business model is offering a lot of channels serving specialised
interests, not one generalized channel.
WQ 3.0
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:01:14 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Your claim started out as "Nobody watches cable". It has now mutated
> >> to "Somewhat fewer people watch cable than watch network television on
> >> a typical day". To which I would certainly agree without being all
> >> that impressed.
>
> >It's so obvious, but to you, that if 20 million watch American Idol
> >and only 20 thousand watch Having Munchies with Baby Jane, who's
> >watching and who's not?
>
> Who cares? American Idol sucks.
As you've just proven again, it's so obvious but to you. Advertisers
care. And networks care about advertisers' money. The more people
tune in, the more advertisers pay and the more networks get. Not like
cable networks. They don't have to care about anything because they
know they'll just keep getting most of their money from subsidies on
top of what minimal ad revenues they get, no matter what they program
and regardless of how few people watch them.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 11:19�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Right. So instead of American Idol, I get stuff I want to watch.
Which is why cable/satellite is awesome
WQ 3.0
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 20:47:07 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
You should thank my monetary contribution to those channels you watch
that I don't. Without it, you'd really be in the dark.
David Johnston
wrote:
>> Right. �So instead of American Idol, I get stuff I want to watch.
>> Which is why cable/satellite is awesome
>
>You should thank my monetary contribution to those channels you watch
>that I don't.
Who I should be thanking, is all those crazed hockey fans who are
supporting my viewing by getting some of those channels along with the
12 NHL channels they really got cable to watch. After all, thanks to
the CRTC, the channels I get are mostly not the channels you get. Your
indirect contribution is basically minute, particularly since what
little stuff you watch isn't all that popular either.
WQ 3.0
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:04:51 -0800 (PST), "WQ 3.0" <w...@post.com>
Every little penny counts for all those cable beggars.
chicagofan
I'm already paying $5 per channel, considering have 2 tiers that I only
watch 1 channel on each tier. I'm considering dropping them, after I
see what the increase in my bill will be this year.
bj