• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you pay for TV per episode? How much would you pay?

G

GWestphal

Golden Member
I would prefer this method. I think it would give you an idea of what people actually watch. I probably only watch less than 10 channels of the 70+ that we get.

I would probably never be willing to pay more than $1 max for a 1 hour episode and probably closer to $0.10-0.50 for most stuff.

Discovery, History, Syfy, Food, HGTV, Cartoon Network, AMC, FX

Hopefully it would put Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras down quickly.
 
So if it's $1 per episode $4 a month for 4 shows it would be $16 add another $.50 for big bang theory . Where do I sign?
 
GWestphal said:
I would prefer this method. I think it would give you an idea of what people actually watch. I probably only watch less than 10 channels of the 70+ that we get.

I would probably never be willing to pay more than $1 max for a 1 hour episode and probably closer to $0.10-0.50 for most stuff.

Discovery, History, Syfy, Food, HGTV, Cartoon Network, AMC, FX

Hopefully it would put Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras down quickly.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. Those shows are hugely popular and would generate the most revenue.
 
no way
then i'd have to turn the three tv's in the house off when we weren't paying attention
no thanks
 
Would be cool if you could subscribe to individual channels. Instead of paying like 60 bucks a month, you could just pick a few channels and pay like 10 bucks a month. Say, 1$ per channel or something like that.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Would be cool if you could subscribe to individual channels. Instead of paying like 60 bucks a month, you could just pick a few channels and pay like 10 bucks a month. Say, 1$ per channel or something like that.
Click to expand...

Paying per Channel makes the most sense.
 
I'd probably pay $2 for a big sporting event like Day 4 of The Masters or the Daytona 500.

I'd probably pay a buck for new episodes of Chopped or Mythbusters, and 25 cents for reruns of Married With Children.
 
you give up a lot if you went to such a system, i'm sure many smaller shows just wouldn't survive. so tv would become like main stream box office movies, lowest common denominator.
 
0roo0roo said:
you give up a lot if you went to such a system, i'm sure many smaller shows just wouldn't survive. so tv would become like main stream box office movies, lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

That's a great point. Newer shows often have to ride on the success of the other shows on the network. They'll put the big new show on right after the most popular one so people actually give it a chance. A pure a la carte model means it would be incredibly difficult for new, high budget shows to make any money because people would rather spend their dollar on something they know they'd like.

I'd like pay per channel though. I don't have cable/satellite and I never will, but there are still a few shows I'd like to be able to see. I guess there are too many people out there forking over $150/mo for TV for them to care about my business.
 
pontifex said:
😵

If all channels were priced the same and at a reasonable amount it would work fine i would think.
Click to expand...

ESPN alone costs around $5 per subscriber and every single customer is paying that. If they switched to a pay per channel system, $40 wouldn't be unrealistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top