Comment Dead channels (Score 3, Interesting) 702
Why does Viacom bundle channels? What is really in it for them?
Surely they would be better served by killing the underperformers, thus reducing their TCO for the "corporation" as a whole and making more profit on the channels that they did send...
Seems to me that they should concentrate on making their offerings have more appeal if they want them to be generally available through cable and satellite. If the channels do not appeal to a large segment of the public then make them subscription channels, separate in their own right, and give the cable or satellite operator a share of the proceeds. That's a win-win-win. Consumers don't have to have the "martha stewart" channel, the cable/satellite co does not have to pay for it, and the provider gets pay per view dollars.
Oh, but what if those dollars are not forthcoming? Well then, provider, you have learned that your offering is not wanted. Shut it down immediately. First law of the free market.
Surely they would be better served by killing the underperformers, thus reducing their TCO for the "corporation" as a whole and making more profit on the channels that they did send...
Seems to me that they should concentrate on making their offerings have more appeal if they want them to be generally available through cable and satellite. If the channels do not appeal to a large segment of the public then make them subscription channels, separate in their own right, and give the cable or satellite operator a share of the proceeds. That's a win-win-win. Consumers don't have to have the "martha stewart" channel, the cable/satellite co does not have to pay for it, and the provider gets pay per view dollars.
Oh, but what if those dollars are not forthcoming? Well then, provider, you have learned that your offering is not wanted. Shut it down immediately. First law of the free market.
