Originally Posted by btinindy
Sadly, I am skeptical that the big corporations would ever want to see this market evolution, though if modeled correctly they could actually make more money than they do now.
The problem is, there's little motivation to change things.
The content creaters have found they can make far more money collecting pennies from everyone instead of dollars from the few.
Collecting a small amount from every subscriber on the tier is how AMC, USA and other cable networks are able to afford the recent influx of original programming. It wouldn't exist in an ala carte world where only the 3-5 million actual viewers pay for it.
HBO can afford to go this route because they can collect HBO money to pay for it. If you suddenly had to pay $10 a month to AMC, would you do it? Even at half that amount, they'd likely lose half the viewers they currently have when people decide those shows aren't worth the price, no matter how good they are. Then they'd likely go away since they couldn't produce a show on DVD and Netflix rental money. Netflix can afford a show or two because they can use far more of those subscriber fees toward them (and likely see that content as a lose leader to attract more subs). The rest of the content is getting litle bits of the rest of the pie, which is nowhere near as much.
You can say all you want about not wanting to support Pawn Stars and Honey Boo Boo, but those viewers are helping to pay for shows you like to watch.
When you visit the zoo, you pay for all the animals, even the ones that are napping, hidng or fling feces at you.
It would be great if the ratings system had an option to tell them shows you absolutely won't watch instead of just telling them what you do (and allowed everyone to always have a vote if they wanted to). Perhaps if the networks concentrated less on the viewers they have an more on the ones they turn away, they might develope better shows.