Originally Posted by DD24
I haven't been arguing that there aren't differences in demographics between the OTA audience and everyone else, but you have been trying to make the extreme argument that it's "most likely less" than 1% of the whole population who are OTA and who can afford a DVR. To me, an extreme argument like that requires more proof than just a guess, or even an "educated guess".
Maybe I should have said, "are going to spend money on a DVR." Can they afford it? Maybe. But they have bigger priorities. I kid you not, the number of consumers who would gladly dole out what such a box would cost is m i n i s c u l e. Here are the reasons I can think of for going strictly OTA (in no particular order)
1. Can't afford cable = no money
2. Don't have time to watch much television = not interested in a television recording device
3. Get my television from the internet = not interested/no need for a DVR
4. Better ways to spend money; i.e college for the kids, remodeling the house, etc = no money
5. No access to cable, southern sky blocked, dialup internet. Now THIS might be a market, but it's less than one percent of the 10% of OTA viewing.
Which one of those scenarios TO A MARKET RESEARCH FIRM says "fertile market for an expensive device to record over-the-air television?"
A television general manager once said to me that he wished he didn't have to run a transmitter at all. He already fibered his signal to Dish, DirecTV and every cable company that was in his metro area. He said, "The only people still using an antenna don't have the money to spend with my advertisers, so it costs me more to run the transmitter than I make from it. It's an unnecessary expense." I asked him about people who simply lived beyond the reach of cable and he said, "That's so far out, the odds of them driving in for a one-day sale at (local) furniture store are nil. They live out there to save money, not spend it. They're of no use to me."
When you talk about all of the associated manufacturing costs of a DVR (e.g. research, development, etc.) and why that prevents sales of DVRs in the US, you are ignoring the fact that most of the big name electronics manufacturers already produce DVRs in the UK and other countries which would only require minor design changes to their hardware and very few changes to their software for them to work in the US. Not only has most of the research and development been done already but they have the advantage of having had their products in the field for years so errors can be corrected and improvements made. All of these companies also have existing marketing and product support organizations in the US. So this part of you argument really doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does. Changing the design might seem easy to you, but that involves retooling the manufacturing chain or starting a new one. It'll add to the cost of the box. How much peer box depends on over how many boxes they can sell. And, since there are already companies doing that, they know it's not gonna be a lot of boxes.
But forget that for a second. And pardon me for restating my point... any additional companies getting into the US OTA DVR market are going to be chasing a fraction of the existing ***potential*** market. It's not that they CAN'T, my friend, it's that it isn't worth it. They simply will not sell enough to make it worth the time and effort.
It does not matter if you and I see it as profitable or not. The people running the market research departments are looking at it just the way I laid out... one fifth of 7% divided by five ...isn't a lot.