My challenges with the streaming services

[fhmiii]

Not quite.  No one's "reservation price" for Cartoon Network is $60 (well, okay, maybe some billionaire out there, but c'mon).

Not sure how you know that, but it really makes no difference to the economics, it just makes the example easier to understand.

If their cable package is $50, and Cartoon Network drives that decision purchase, the actual reservation price for CN is probably something like $10 or $15.  The remaining $35 to $40 is paid because of the supply surplus, which is part of the reason bundles are so effective: the customer feels like they're getting more, so they're willing to pay more, even if it's not entirely valuable to them.  They figure every once in a while they're turn on the Weather Channel or something.  Few people turn down the free toaster, even if it's cheap junk and that's not why they went to the car dealership, anyway.  This is the internal disconnect between perceived utility and actual utility.  If the cable company attempted to charge the customer $60 just for Cartoon Network, the customer would most likely balk at the idea.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

If their reservation price does not exceed the price of cable they do not consume, period. Your premise is that you somehow know better what their reservation price and utility is than they do. This is just semantics. No matter how you dice it, they have a reservation price for cable of $60. Now if $20 of that is actually CN and the other $40 is the rest of the package then so be it. But basically the argument that they are being duped by the bundle and their real reservation price is not $60 is nonsense. You may not think they get enough utility for the rest for that to work, but they make that decision, not you. If the mental peace of knowing they have 59 other channels to watch in case CN fails them is worth $40 to them then so be it, its not something I can question because I don't have their preferences. (Mind you, I would agree with you that the other channels are not worth that in my utility function, which is why I never had cable until It came with the internet)

Look at MLB.TV.  The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal.  Last I checked, it was something like $20 over the course of a season.  For some people that's enough, and there are many people getting single-team packages, but most people just buy the full MLB.TV subscription even if they're only watching one team.

That example actually proves my point so lets examine it a bit.

Suppose we have 20 teams, and 200 consumers. It costs $20 for the full package, $19 for a single team.
If each team has 9 fans, who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $2 to see other teams, they buy the full package, because their surplus is $12 versus $11 when they buy the single team package.
Assume the other 20 people are super fans who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $0 to see other teams, they buy the single team package.
As you can see, that fits the results you describe while still showing that no one has more than a token reservation price for the other channels.

So as you said The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal. Which is exactly my point. A la carte is not meaningfully cheaper because people are already paying for what they value, and the rest is just along with the ride.

Add to that, all economic decisions are made on the margin.  If the choice is between a $50 cable package that includes Cartoon Network and a bunch of channels you don't care about, and not having the Cartoon Network option at all, then many people will opt for the package because they perceive, at that moment, that having cable TV is more important than saving the money they're spending for the "excess" channels.

Okay...so when the choice is between the package with CN, and no CN at all, many people will opt for the package because they like cable TV? Not sure that there is any marginal component of that statement. Also, if all of those people had $60 reservation prices for CN then they would all buy the package, not because they cared at all about cable, but because they care about CN.

I'd have been willing to go with an a la carte cable package back in the day, if it included ESPN, Science Channel, my local TV channels...  and that's really about all I wanted.  Maybe I'd have gotten History, FX, and/or TNT, but I'm not sure I would have.  If that cost me $30 ($8 for ESPN, $2 for Sci, $5 for local broadcast, and $15 as a "service access fee") instead of $95 for for the third-tier package that includes 8 channels I might watch one day and 285 channels I would never watch, all just so I could get Science Channel, I'd have jumped at it.  That was never an option, so I never upgraded and for many years I just didn't have cable (my neighbors and friends and local sports bars all had ESPN, so I just went to them to watch college football).

So if you could get something for your reservation price you would buy it in other words, which is exactly my point. Now in your case, your reservation price was very low, probabally lower than market clearing prices, so no such a la carte package would have been offered. The only way the cable company would let you have ESPN for $30 would probabally have been if they accomplished first degree price discrimination via some mind reading technology built into your set. But barring that if they came along to offer a la carte the package you describe would almost certainly have been more than $30.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with your original thesis.  I just think your analogy of CN being worth $60 to someone was terribly unrealistic, except in the most unique cases; and I'm pointing out that perceived value from bundling can create a situation where people are willing to spend more for things that don't actually give them utility, when they might chose not to bundle if given the option and if they take the time to make a rational decision; they would realize that the "surplus" (bundled channels) isn't that valuable to them.  Different people are differently capable of making those rational choices, of course!  Some would quickly choose a la carte if they had the option, but many would continue buying the bundle.  Based on my experience, I think if a la carte cable service had been implemented (or legally enforced), a relatively small percentage of people would have opted for it, but it would have had a significant financial impact for those who did.

Also, I got a lot more than the a la carte package I described from Sling for $25, just without Science Channel.

[Scott5114]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

[jeffandnicole]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary.  If a business tries to employ people at $8 an hour and get no or not qualified employees, they'll raise the salary to meet the quality and quantity of employees they need.  But they won't overpay; they'll rather deal with fewer employees or technology to compensate.

[bugo]

Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

This is supposed to be a modern country, you shouldn't have to choose between the two.

There you go again with that "just move" bullshit. Conservatives love to use that one, thinking that everybody has throwaway money like they do so they can just up and move on a whim. The real world doesn't work that way.

[Rothman]

Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

This is supposed to be a modern country, you shouldn't have to choose between the two.

There you go again with that "just move" bullshit. Conservatives love to use that one, thinking that everybody has throwaway money like they do so they can just up and move on a whim. The real world doesn't work that way.

Progressives don't have throwaway money?

[Rothman]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary.  If a business tries to employ people at $8 an hour and get no or not qualified employees, they'll raise the salary to meet the quality and quantity of employees they need.  But they won't overpay; they'll rather deal with fewer employees or technology to compensate.

No, when businesses can't hire at the salaries they desire, they start telling Boomers it's because no one wants to work so the Boomers support even more cuts to public services and the like to force people to work for pennies.

[bugo]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

[Scott5114]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary. 

There's no such thing as the economy.

[hotdogPi]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

[Rothman]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

That's just luck.  I've had CDs get scratched up somehow within the case over the decades.

[SectorZ]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

That's just luck.  I've had CDs get scratched up somehow within the case over the decades.

That's not luck, I have 2000+ CDs, some confirmed back to 1984 (that I bought used), and only about 5 have had issues getting it to upload into iTunes, and even then it was a problem with the first track. They're pretty damn durable.

[HighwayStar]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

Yes I have. But not only is it relatively rare (I have encountered maybe 1 CD in my life that had it out of hundreds), it is also a problem that was solved long ago with the advent of FLAC ripping.

[ZLoth]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[HighwayStar]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Huh, its almost like the exact thing I told cord cutters about has happened. Except when I tried to tell them they acted like I had just shot Santa Claus

[brad2971]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

[HighwayStar]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

[brad2971]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

[SP Cook]

There will never be live major sports on FAST.  They are paying millions and want you to pay them back.  They are not going to give it to you for free.

[HighwayStar]

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

The SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

There is no "fooling around", you install what is required and appropriate for your location then watch TV. No internet BS, any TV made after 2006 will work, you can DVR/Record whatever you please. FAST TV is the crap version of broadcast.

[vdeane]

To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

What about the local news and broadcast prime time programming?  I don't believe the OTA networks are free to stream anywhere.  At least not legally.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Who needs TV or the entertainment industry in general?  Youtube videos of police bodycam encounters with criminals are far more entertaining.

[mgk920]

WGA and SAG-AFTRA couldn't have picked a better time to call a major strike!!!  (hehehe) Their reaction to advancements in technology is the same thing that spelled the end of the Big Bands and the rise of country music in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when coin-op jukeboxes and high-fidelity records and players were introduced.

Mike

[SP Cook]

This is correct.  The Hollywood unions live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of economics do not apply. 

Not that long ago, this was not that different from any other industry.  In a linear system, if there is no new movie to show next week, the theatre is closed; if there is no new show to broadcast, then the TV station has to make do with filler programming.  Not that different from an auto strike or a steel strike or so on.

In a non-linear system, it will take YEARS for them to run out of material, and the only profitable streaming service (Netflix) sources much of its material outside of the Hollywood union's jurisdiction anyway.   

So, these unions make linear TV look bad (this fall will feature game shows, faux reality shows, news commentary, reruns and sports), and the movies look bad; while the streaming services can just sit back and wait, unaffected and perhaps even enhanced by this strike.  The truth the unions don't understand is that TV and movies are mega profitable, so profitable they can pay insane 1%er wages to even minor stars and even to writers.  Meanwhile, streaming, it is clear, simply is not a thing that can make money.  And if they don't make money, the employees don't make money.

[mgk920]

I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

[brad2971]

There will never be live major sports on FAST.  They are paying millions and want you to pay them back.  They are not going to give it to you for free.

I'll revisit this comment when the Colorado Buffaloes play the West Virginia Mountaineers in Big12 conference play in a few years, and FOX Sports will put that game on Tubi. Last I checked, the current TV contracts for the major conferences do not have any prohibitions on putting additional game inventory on a FAST app. And if they did, we'll be seeing the Big 10, Big 12, even the SEC, unraveling in another decade.