Where are the TV show downloads?
If the networks had half a brain between them, they'd start offering downloadable TV shows for around 5 bucks apiece. It'd be free money for them, plus people wouldn't be able to fast-forward the commercials (as they can with TiVo, Replay, etc.). Someday they'll get a clue...
posted by Rick Broida @ 10:41 AM
9 Comments:
At January 09, 2005 2:24 PM,
Dave said…
Five bucks per episode???? Are you insane???
I might pay 99 cents per episode, but no more than that. After all, my entire satellite bill is only around $50 per month.
At January 09, 2005 3:25 PM,
Rick Broida said…
99 cents per episode would never happen; there's a higher "perceived value" for TV than for a song. Five bucks might be on the high side, but if you were a rabid Alias fan and missed an episode (and didn't have the time or knowledge to get the torrent), it might seem like a reasonable price. OTOH, that's about what you pay for downloable movies, so they'd probably charge
$2.99 per episode or something. I guarantee that when it happens, the shows will cost more than 99 cents apiece.
At January 09, 2005 6:26 PM,
Dave said…
Well, Rick, you've proven that being wrong never goes out of style.
I disagree with your premise. I can buy an entire season of TV shows on DVD for $25 or $30. That's about a dollar an episode -- and that contains all sorts of premium extras, like commentaries, deleted scenes, blooper reels, trailers, and so on. And as I said, my entire satellite bill is $50/month, and that's good for *hundreds* of hours of TV. Many people pay far less for their TV. Some people get TV for free. So I think you're about as wrong as pants on a frog when you say that TV shows have a higher perceived value than a buck an episode.
That said, there's nothing to stop a network from trying to sell shows for $3 a piece. I just think such a plan will fail fairly spectacularly, because who in their right mind would pay $60++ over the course of a season to download episodes of a single series when you can get the whole damned thing on DVD for half that?
At January 10, 2005 9:34 AM,
Rick Broida said…
Rick: Well, Dave, once again you've missed the point entirely.
For starters, you can't buy an entire season of a TV show on DVD during its initial run. Usually you have to wait 6-12 months--sometimes longer. If you're hanging on the edge of your seat during every episode of, say, 24, and you accidentally miss one, wouldn't it be great if you could download the show the next day to keep up with the plot? No one said anything about buying entire seasons this way; obviously the studios make big bucks with the DVD approach. But for the occasional missed episode or something you might like to watch while traveling, the download-and-go option would be invaluable. Or worth a couple bucks, to be sure.
At January 10, 2005 10:19 AM,
Dave said…
While I applaud your new job as a shill for the TV studios, I must humbly disagree with your pricing plan. It's true that your solution admirably gouges the hapless soul who forgets to record Joey once or twice a season (huzzah to the studios!), it does not help the guy who wants to download the entire season, such as if he only gets basic cable and needs Curb Your Enthusiasm from HBO or who wants to see 24 in HD but it's not broadcast that way locally. While I admit that it gouges this second kind of customer as well -- making you and your evil minions very happy -- the sheer ludicrousness of the pricing exposes the plan as unworkable. I humbly submit that this second kind of customer will not be lured into your sticky web of excessive prices.
At January 10, 2005 11:20 AM,
Rick Broida said…
Obviously if the networks were ever to offer a "download the whole season" option, my pricing suggestion wouldn't make a lick of sense. You're not really paying attention, here, are you...
In any case, it looks like we may both be wrong. Microsoft appears to be working on a subscription model for Web-based TV, letting you pay a flat rate for shows you can download. This probably makes more sense than any kind of per-episode, per-show plan, though I still think a service like CinemaNow or Movielink could make a killing by offering popular TV shows for a couple bucks per ep.
At January 11, 2005 10:34 AM,
Dave said…
I'm paying close attention, trust me. I'm paying attention well enough to see that reality bounces off you like water off a bear's back. The networks are free to establish any pricing plan they like, but no one is ever going to make a killing by offering episodes for a few bucks each. You have a very rigid idea of how people will use this TV show download service, but I absolutely guarantee you that you are missing the vast majority of customers. You can *claim* that the money is to be made in catching people that miss a single episode a season and want to catch up by downlaoding it, but the problem is that most people will never do that; TV networks have this thing called "repeats" that people can see for free. And downloading a TV show (and watching it where? On their computer screen?) seems like a needlessly complicated solution to a simple problem of "I missed last night's American Idol." The people that will buy into downloads are people that want to watch a significant portion of their TV that way. People that go to the trouble of owning a Media Center PC or who connect a TV to their computer. And those people are not going to pay $3 for each and every episode of the shows they watch.
At January 11, 2005 12:33 PM,
Rick Broida said…
Let me use smaller words and speak...more...slowly...so you can understand my point. Movie-download services like CinemaNow and Movielink have become very popular, especially among notebook-carrying travelers. All I'm saying is the TV networks are missing an opportunity to make easy money by offering TV shows via such services.
As always, you seem to think that what's right for you is what's right for everyone. I guarantee you there are plenty of people out there who would pay a couple bucks for, say, an episode of Law & Order or a couple classic Seinfelds--especially in lieu of movie garbage like "Dodgeball" and "White Chicks."
What about this upsets you so? It's okay to charge 4-5 bucks for a movie but not for a TV show? Is it because the shows are shorter, or because TV is "free"?
At January 14, 2005 10:49 AM,
Dave said…
Yes! Yes! Yes! You're finally ctaching on! Is it because movies are longer than TV shows and that TV is "free"? Well, duh, Mister Ed... you finally get it. Of *course* that's the reason TV shows should cost less than movies. That's more or less what I've been saying since the very first response. Congrats for finally reading my responses.
I think making TV shows available for low-cost download is great. I welcome the day when people don't have to skulk around torrent sites to get their next episode of Battlestar Galactica in high def. All I've been saying is that your suggested pricing plan is outrageously expensive and it's engineered to fail at that price. At three dollars an episode, the ONLY people the networks will hook are folks that missed an episode and need to catch up (assuming there's no repeat airing soon). By lowering the price they'll dramatically increase their potenial audience. Lower prices == higher revenue, dude. It's something you learn in micro economics 101.
Post a Comment
<< Home