[opendtv] Re: a la carte, Who Wants It?
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:46:34 -0700
The only media in a DVD is the actual physical dvd. They're called "blank
recording media" when I buy blank ones. When you import movies, etc into
the U.S., provided the appropriate exemption form is filed (and the
conditions are met), you pay a duty only on the cost of the raw recording
media. I was truly surprised about that, but there are no duties on
content, only physical media.
I would highly recommend that you take out a dictionary and look up the
words "media" (plural) and "medium" (singular). Ever hear of a book by an
obscure Canadian professor, something like "The Medium is the Message."?
Content is what you buy; it's what has value. Media is how the content is
delivered to you. "Content is king" and media is something else.
Another way to examining this is to contemplate what happens to the actual
market value of a television station when they loose a network affiliation
and "go independent." The loss of NBC affiliation to KRON has just about
put Young Broadcasting into bankruptcy; while KNTV, with NBC content, is
doing much better than before. Both stations are media; content makes the
difference.
John Willkie
_____
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:32 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: a la carte, Who Wants It?
I can use the word "content" if you wish. I thought that when I buy or rent
a DVD, I am paying for media (or a medium, if you will). When I pay for
cable, I am paying for media. But ultimately, I am expecting content. I
didn't realize they needed to be differentiated for this discussion.
Also, I don't teach. I am administrative faculty with the responsibility
for keeping up our TV production equipment. Since I am not in the lectures,
I could not accurately convey what is taught.
But yes, it seems to me that media is a product you can buy with the
expectation that the content is perceivable. But I don't have any problems
with using the word "content" instead.
Dan
"John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 10:38 AM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[opendtv] Re: a la carte, Who Wants It?
So, media is a product that you can buy? I certainly hope that isn't the
way it's taught at UNLV, since it's clearly one or more services, some which
are free and others that are available for a price.
Have you ever read the dictionary definition of media? I think you are
confusing content (available in various forms, including via media) with
media.
There are even forms of media that are true media - they impose no changes
on content that pass through them.
John Willkie
_____
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] a la carte, Who Wants It?
I disagree that I am wanting a la carte on behalf of others. I am saying I
want a la carte and am willing to buy certain programming. Just not all of
it. In fact, I buy lots of media, just not the way MVPDs sell it. None of
us really know how many want the full bundle and how many want just certain
parts. I don't see any harm in finding out.
Dan
"John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 09:08 AM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
Salman Rushdie has coined the term "behalfism." Think of it as "It's not
what I want, it's what I think someone else wants."
It's almost a worthless point of view. It's not unlike the Edsel
market-research. Non-drivers thought the Edsel was just what others wanted.
"If they did " something "I'd buy it for sure" is of value.
Thinking that if they do something, somebody else would buy it (when you
have no desire or interest) isn't 'second-guessing" it's "third-guessing."
I get my Internet (and previously my telephone) from Cablemas, the local
cable company at my apartment. I've previously tried their cable service,
but I get quite a few channels DTV over the air.
Now, if only we'd get on with the transition, I'd be able to get CBS at my
apartment over the air. KFMB-DT vacated 55 to make way for MediaFlo and
moved to channel 7. Unfortunately, that's co-channel with KABC-TV in Los
Angeles, which, from my apartment is right behind KFMB-DT. So, I lost that
signal for the duration due to NTSC-into-DTV interference. The alternative
is to watch KCBS-DT in Los Angeles, but that's seasonably variable (a
situation that I hope will improve when their DTV goes to channel 2. In the
meantime, another displacement channel has temporarily used their DTV
channel for something else closer to me.
This happened about two months ago. I'm not whining here, but this phase of
the DTV transition has caused me to lose CBS. I don't want to subscribe to
DirecTV for one network .
Telling cable companies what they have to do to appeal to other prospects is
behalfism. Looking for research to support that viewpoint is another thing
indeed .
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:
