[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:24:26 -0700
I'm sorry, with the recovery of my main hard drive, I missed the "issues of
social importance."
Just how is cable tv rates or package alignment of "social importance."
Shall I sing a few bars of "Sing Me A Song of Social Significance?"
It's a commercial arrangement, not a social service. The only thing that
relates to social importance is how it might affect free over the air tv,
since there is no direct cost for that.
John Willkie
_____
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:40 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
Like I said...if my opinion really matters.
I've always admitted I was a bit of an odd ball when it comes to media
consumption. And I agree that a la carte might very well be a limited group
of consumers...and it might not. Do you know of any research where a la
carte and bundled packages went up against each other to determine how the
pricing and consumption would land? (That isn't rhetorical, I'm curious)
I don't understand the logic that because I don't subscribe to a MVPD that I
can't understand or have any stake in distribution products or platforms.
My arguments are for ethical, moral, philosophical and capital reasons. I
would subscribe if I could purchase the media I want, so long as the media I
receive and the money I pay is perceived as equitable. I am a potential
customer so I would certainly think a business would want to hear what I
would like.
But I am also a citizen and think I have the right, no, the obligation, to
participate when issues are of social importance. I'm not sure if you are
saying it is only a business decision and not a social one. I would oppose
that argument.
Dan
John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/09/2008 10:08 AM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
Not unlike the market research for the Edsel. It tested well in focus
groups, etc. The only problem is they didn't narrow the groups down to
likely car buyers. It didn't fare well, as you may recall. Perhaps 50,000
were made, and Ford almost went out of business.
John and Craig are cable customers. They have valid, experienced, and
contrasting points of view.
"Pushbutton automatic transmission in the steering wheel! Horse-collar
grillework! Look at all that chrome!"
Would you buy one?
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Jul 9, 2008 8:43 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
I'm strongly with Craig on this issue, if my opinion really matters. And,
as I have stated before, I have additional reasons for a la carte. John
Shutt's points are well and valid, but it doesn't negate the other very
useful reasons. And it doesn't negate the option of a bundled package.
I wouldn't call it whining, but I wish more people cared about what media
they are purchasing and what their family members were watching.
Dan
"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/09/2008 08:21 AM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> If you add in the rest of the cost of extended basic cable U.S.
> consumers are paying nearly $5 billion per month to watch TV
> channels crammed full of ads.
Quit whining about this, Craig.
John Shutt gave you a perfectly valid explanation as top why things
would not go as you think with a la carte. I know it will fall on deaf
ears, because it has done so countless times in the past.
So here's the real point. The vast majority of US households is
perfectly willing to pay what they are paying. The obvious explanation
being, they are not being charged enough.
You know, like the price of gasoline until, PERHAPS, very recently. It
was not high enough, if so many people were so overtly wasteful with it.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSC RIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- You
can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE
command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a
message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the
subject line.
Other related posts:
