So I understand that business-wise it works and there is money to be made by charging people to watch TV, but I’m wondering what dish/direcTV/etc actually do in terms of innovating and getting entertainment on the air? My understanding is that the money from commercials goes straight to the networks, what incentive is there for the networks to not just allow free streaming on their websites so that more people see the show and the commercials in it?
In: 24
To add to what others have said, at this rate, there might not be cable companies anymore in a few years. People are replacing them with streaming on a massive scale.
Commericals are not from the cable company they are from the networks
Cable takes your money and uses that money to keep the infrastructure running and pay networks like nbc and Disney to show their channels.
The networks run ads to make more money.
The networks also buy content to run. That’s why sometimes the same show can be on multiple channels and movies and stuff.
Commericals are not from the cable company they are from the networks
Cable takes your money and uses that money to keep the infrastructure running and pay networks like nbc and Disney to show their channels.
The networks run ads to make more money.
The networks also buy content to run. That’s why sometimes the same show can be on multiple channels and movies and stuff.
To add to what others have said, at this rate, there might not be cable companies anymore in a few years. People are replacing them with streaming on a massive scale.
Cable companies, and satellite carriers like Dish and DirecTV are infrastructure. They carry content and charge a user fee for it. It’s up to the individual channels to innovate and keep viewers glued. No different than an ISP, they just bring you web content, it’s up to the websites to provide that content.
The channels carried by cable companies are paid a carriage fee, they basically get a cut of the subscriber revenue in exchange for licensing the right to rebroadcast or carry their content. This means the individual channels actually earn more when viewed over cable, rather than online from their own website.
It’s also worth considering that media licensing can be complex, and just because a channel can license content for broadcast, that license doesn’t necessarily include streaming rights. In most cases nowadays it does, but the channels have to include some form of geolimiting to ensure their streaming broadcast is only within the geographical area they’ve licensed the content for.
Cable is dying, but it’s a slow death. Cable infrastructure is solid and reliable, and pervasive in most populated areas. It still has a large user base and still provides lucrative revenue for channels. Advertising revenue is based on eyeballs, and cable generally delivers more viewers than an individual website alone would attract.
Cable companies, and satellite carriers like Dish and DirecTV are infrastructure. They carry content and charge a user fee for it. It’s up to the individual channels to innovate and keep viewers glued. No different than an ISP, they just bring you web content, it’s up to the websites to provide that content.
The channels carried by cable companies are paid a carriage fee, they basically get a cut of the subscriber revenue in exchange for licensing the right to rebroadcast or carry their content. This means the individual channels actually earn more when viewed over cable, rather than online from their own website.
It’s also worth considering that media licensing can be complex, and just because a channel can license content for broadcast, that license doesn’t necessarily include streaming rights. In most cases nowadays it does, but the channels have to include some form of geolimiting to ensure their streaming broadcast is only within the geographical area they’ve licensed the content for.
Cable is dying, but it’s a slow death. Cable infrastructure is solid and reliable, and pervasive in most populated areas. It still has a large user base and still provides lucrative revenue for channels. Advertising revenue is based on eyeballs, and cable generally delivers more viewers than an individual website alone would attract.
>what incentive is there for the networks to not just allow free streaming on their websites so that more people see the show and the commercials in it?
Cable companies are the Middle Men, so to speak. They provide the service, but each channel has an agreement with the cable company for a fixed rate of $ *per user*. ESPN has historically been the most expensive channel, charging something like $3-4 per subscriber, while other channels make between say, 25c and $1 per subscriber.
Networks *want* users on cable TV, because its guaranteed cash flow. When cable was standard, most people spent $70-$100 just on cable to watch a handful of the 60 channels included in a base package. They don’t need to compete for viewers, and online reve ue pales in comparison to guaranteed money
I know after the success of breaking bad and mad Men, AMC launched a sister channel, and would only sell its as a bundled package (cable providers couldn’t buy AMC on their own), and instead of charging say, $1 for amc, they wanted to charging, I dunno, $1.30 for the whole package. That extra channel did not cost much to produce, but they were leveraging their popularity to try to increase revenue.
>what incentive is there for the networks to not just allow free streaming on their websites so that more people see the show and the commercials in it?
Cable companies are the Middle Men, so to speak. They provide the service, but each channel has an agreement with the cable company for a fixed rate of $ *per user*. ESPN has historically been the most expensive channel, charging something like $3-4 per subscriber, while other channels make between say, 25c and $1 per subscriber.
Networks *want* users on cable TV, because its guaranteed cash flow. When cable was standard, most people spent $70-$100 just on cable to watch a handful of the 60 channels included in a base package. They don’t need to compete for viewers, and online reve ue pales in comparison to guaranteed money
I know after the success of breaking bad and mad Men, AMC launched a sister channel, and would only sell its as a bundled package (cable providers couldn’t buy AMC on their own), and instead of charging say, $1 for amc, they wanted to charging, I dunno, $1.30 for the whole package. That extra channel did not cost much to produce, but they were leveraging their popularity to try to increase revenue.
The cable company makes money by delivering the channels to customers. They have to maintain the connections to every customer’s home.
The networks (channels) make money by selling ad space on those channels in between the shows they make. If the network has good shows, more people watch, if more people watch, their ad space becomes more valuable.
>what incentive is there for the networks to not just allow free streaming on their websites so that more people see the show and the commercials in it?
Cable companies are the Middle Men, so to speak. They provide the service, but each channel has an agreement with the cable company for a fixed rate of $ *per user*. ESPN has historically been the most expensive channel, charging something like $3-4 per subscriber, while other channels make between say, 25c and $1 per subscriber.
Networks *want* users on cable TV, because its guaranteed cash flow. When cable was standard, most people spent $70-$100 just on cable to watch a handful of the 60 channels included in a base package. They don’t need to compete for viewers, and online reve ue pales in comparison to guaranteed money
I know after the success of breaking bad and mad Men, AMC launched a sister channel, and would only sell its as a bundled package (cable providers couldn’t buy AMC on their own), and instead of charging say, $1 for amc, they wanted to charging, I dunno, $1.30 for the whole package. That extra channel did not cost much to produce, but they were leveraging their popularity to try to increase revenue.
Latest Answers