/dev/null Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 You really think BET would survive? The article I linked said no. SciFi? Sorry, not that many SciFi fans, so that network would probably be gone. Lifetime? Forget about it. You'd have maybe 10 channels to choose from. Well, in that case, why even pay extra for it at all? I beg to differ BET and Lifetime are catered to specific demographics. I'm not a member of either demographic, but I know a few folks in each demographic who are regular viewers SciFi (actually now SyFy). You can have my Syfy, History, and Discovery Channels when you pry the remote from my cold dead hand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I beg to differ BET and Lifetime are catered to specific demographics. I'm not a member of either demographic, but I know a few folks in each demographic who are regular viewers SciFi (actually now SyFy). You can have my Syfy, History, and Discovery Channels when you pry the remote from my cold dead hand! From the article: According to Mr. Moffett’s analysis, if every African- American family in the country subscribed to the Black Entertainment Network, it would still have to raise its fees by 588 percent. He adds, “If just half opted in — still a wildly optimistic scenario — the price would rise by 1,200 percent.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Really? When it is over the air free. To me paying for TV just goes to show how a society is progressing and throw money down the drain... Much like the use of toilet paper. Yes, I use and pay for both. That's actually a good point, I hadn't thought of. So how is it that the network channels can stay in business for free, but all these cable channels have to have us pay for them to stay in business? HBO and the like make sense because they don't have commercials. But, yeah, why do we have to pay for all these stations when they get money through their advertising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 That's actually a good point, I hadn't thought of. So how is it that the network channels can stay in business for free, but all these cable channels have to have us pay for them to stay in business? If you have cable (or sat), you're paying for the local networks as well -- they charge the carriers a "retransmit" fee, just like the non-local networks do. I don't know how the local networks get permission to transmit over the air. I'm assuming they have to pay for that themselves, but I'm not 100% sure how that part works. That said, the majority of people are paying for the locals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 That's actually a good point, I hadn't thought of. So how is it that the network channels can stay in business for free, but all these cable channels have to have us pay for them to stay in business? easy answer to the bolded question. higher household penetration rate which leads to higher ratings, which in turn leads to higher cost to businesses for commercials to advertise their product. everyone with a tv has access to abc, nbc, cbs and fox. with or without cable,sat, fios,ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts