You wouldn't want ads for something that you are paying for right? Then why do we accept ads for cable TV?

[JEDI]

People have $30+/month for regular cable TV. and there are ads. WTF?

ok, i understand abc/cbs/nbc showing ads, because we're getting the shows for free.

But we pay for cable TV.

Why hasnt anyone come up with a model that gives cable TV for free, and charge the advertisers. and/or charge the shows that want to be broadcast by their equipment?

 

[MustISO]

They like to double dip. Same reason Tivo is getting paid by advertisers.

 

[Sphexi]

K, doesn't quite work that way.


Cable TV companies are paying the networks to carry their channels. On average they pay about $1.50-$3 per month per subscriber, based on popularity of that channel. Obviously they get lower rates on some channels and not others, so for a 50 channel package they do pay around $30 or so, most likely. They have to charge you at least that much just to break even, which is why basic cable tends to run from $35-$50 depending on which company you have. Most of them are making their money off of broadband and digital services now, not basic cable.

The networks are the ones showing the ads, because they have to pay for show production. They don't tend to make much charging the cable companies, their owners do, companies like Clear Channel make buttloads off of that stuff.

 

[Ketteringo]

There are ads so that we can get quality programming and don't have to pay $500 per month to supplement the production and delivery costs?

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
K, doesn't quite work that way.


Cable TV companies are paying the networks to carry their channels. On average they pay about $1.50-$3 per month per subscriber, based on popularity of that channel. Obviously they get lower rates on some channels and not others, so for a 50 channel package they do pay around $30 or so, most likely. They have to charge you at least that much just to break even, which is why basic cable tends to run from $35-$50 depending on which company you have. Most of them are making their money off of broadband and digital services now, not basic cable.

The networks are the ones showing the ads, because they have to pay for show production. They don't tend to make much charging the cable companies, their owners do, companies like Clear Channel make buttloads off of that stuff.

I sure hope the cable companies aren't paying for MTV.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: MustISO
They like to double dip. Same reason Tivo is getting paid by advertisers.

huh? why would advertisers pay tivo?!

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Ketteringo
There are ads so that we can get quality programming and don't have to pay $500 per month to supplement the production and delivery costs?

Exactly. HBO costs you $5-10 month without ads while Sci Fi channel is costing you maybe 50 cents with ads.

Given a choice there are some channels I'd pay $5 for, but there are a lot more that I'll put up with ads in them to get them for 50 cents.

Besides, Enyzte Bob and Russian "wirus" hunting babes are more entertaining than Attack of the Show these days anyway.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Sphexi
K, doesn't quite work that way.


Cable TV companies are paying the networks to carry their channels. On average they pay about $1.50-$3 per month per subscriber, based on popularity of that channel. Obviously they get lower rates on some channels and not others, so for a 50 channel package they do pay around $30 or so, most likely. They have to charge you at least that much just to break even, which is why basic cable tends to run from $35-$50 depending on which company you have. Most of them are making their money off of broadband and digital services now, not basic cable.

The networks are the ones showing the ads, because they have to pay for show production. They don't tend to make much charging the cable companies, their owners do, companies like Clear Channel make buttloads off of that stuff.

I sure hope the cable companies aren't paying for MTV.

they do but it's minimal. wouldnt be worth the money to drop it since mtv is a low cost network. all it's content is mainly sponsered by companies(TRL/M$ xbox event, free(music videos sent in by artists hoping for some publicity[though some artists probabyl pay MTV to play their videos), or very low cost(how much does a dating show take to produce?)

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: Ketteringo
There are ads so that we can get quality programming and don't have to pay $500 per month to supplement the production and delivery costs?

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Sphexi
K, doesn't quite work that way.


Cable TV companies are paying the networks to carry their channels. On average they pay about $1.50-$3 per month per subscriber, based on popularity of that channel. Obviously they get lower rates on some channels and not others, so for a 50 channel package they do pay around $30 or so, most likely. They have to charge you at least that much just to break even, which is why basic cable tends to run from $35-$50 depending on which company you have. Most of them are making their money off of broadband and digital services now, not basic cable.

The networks are the ones showing the ads, because they have to pay for show production. They don't tend to make much charging the cable companies, their owners do, companies like Clear Channel make buttloads off of that stuff.

I sure hope the cable companies aren't paying for MTV.

they do but it's minimal. wouldnt be worth the money to drop it since mtv is a low cost network. all it's content is mainly sponsered by companies(TRL/M$ xbox event, free(music videos sent in by artists hoping for some publicity[though some artists probabyl pay MTV to play their videos), or very low cost(how much does a dating show take to produce?)

They don't have a choice, really. That was a problem Dish Network had last year, Clear Channel wanted them to carry a few new channels that they didn't want, and they have limited space on their satellite system, and so Clear Channel threatened to simply yank all their channels if their pricing demands weren't met. They comprimised by Dish carrying a few new channels and not paying an increase of like 75% per channel that CC wanted, but that's what happens a lot.

Whoever owns MTV probably requires it to be shown in the basic package, that way advertisers get the most bang for their buck. That's why packages tend to be in order of popularity or viewing ratings, the most viewed channels show up in the basic packages, the least viewed ones show up in the "specialty" packages, which cost more per channel than the basic ones usually do.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Sphexi
K, doesn't quite work that way.


Cable TV companies are paying the networks to carry their channels. On average they pay about $1.50-$3 per month per subscriber, based on popularity of that channel. Obviously they get lower rates on some channels and not others, so for a 50 channel package they do pay around $30 or so, most likely. They have to charge you at least that much just to break even, which is why basic cable tends to run from $35-$50 depending on which company you have. Most of them are making their money off of broadband and digital services now, not basic cable.

The networks are the ones showing the ads, because they have to pay for show production. They don't tend to make much charging the cable companies, their owners do, companies like Clear Channel make buttloads off of that stuff.

I sure hope the cable companies aren't paying for MTV.

they do but it's minimal. wouldnt be worth the money to drop it since mtv is a low cost network. all it's content is mainly sponsered by companies(TRL/M$ xbox event, free(music videos sent in by artists hoping for some publicity[though some artists probabyl pay MTV to play their videos), or very low cost(how much does a dating show take to produce?)

They don't have a choice, really. That was a problem Dish Network had last year, Clear Channel wanted them to carry a few new channels that they didn't want, and they have limited space on their satellite system, and so Clear Channel threatened to simply yank all their channels if their pricing demands weren't met. They comprimised by Dish carrying a few new channels and not paying an increase of like 75% per channel that CC wanted, but that's what happens a lot.

Whoever owns MTV probably requires it to be shown in the basic package, that way advertisers get the most bang for their buck. That's why packages tend to be in order of popularity or viewing ratings, the most viewed channels show up in the basic packages, the least viewed ones show up in the "specialty" packages, which cost more per channel than the basic ones usually do.

i remember that. it really sucked since so many channels were gone from my 50 channel package(though fuse was nice). now i use cable.