Game of Thrones S2

Forums › Off topic › Game of Thrones S2

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#625522 15-May-2012 15:22

NonprayingMantis:
crackrdbycracku: Hasn't the point been made that we live in a world where you can't enforce bundles anymore?

What if both of these people ask: "Why are we paying 10 for a bundle when we only want to watch one show?"

God forbid they both ask: "Why are we paying at all when we can just torrent it?"

Bundling requires control, the internet has meant this has been lost.

Yes, we know free rider behaviour gets to the point where nobody is paying and the whole system collapses. But most individuals, 25 million of them with regard to GoT, don't think like that.

We want solutions and we will pay for them.

NetFlix made a pile of cash because they innovated, first by posting people DVDs and then by offering a streaming service. They answered the question: What would be easier than driving to the vid store?

Block Buster went out of business because they didn't change.

Apple created a digital download market on iTunes, record stores continue to close.

Bundled video content services like Sky are somehow different from this? I doubt it.

Adapt or die, don't whine.

and yet... Netflix DOESN"T sell movies or TV on a per episode basis. They sell it as a BUNDLE Pay $8 per month watch as much as you like.

they don't have special individual subscriptions for 'horror' 'tv' sci-fi' etc etc. No, they bundle it all together.

Agreed - generally the most cost effective way to get most things is via a bundle. Often it will mean that there are things in the bundle you don't want - but it is usually cheaper than just a couple of the items from the bundle.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#625552 15-May-2012 16:12

Apples Vs Oranges.

First, NetFlix is US$8 per month, so watch a movie a day and that is around 26 cents per movie. So, if you make something cheap enough then the way it is sold doesn't really matter.

At a point, and by the looks of 25 million GoT downloads, HBO is over that point then the price whether bundle or not becomes intolerable and people find other ways.

Bundles are not the most cost effective way to buy stuff unless you actually want all the stuff in the bundle.

If you only actually want a burger, that's what you buy. If you want a coke and fries too, you buy a combo. Sure, the combo price is cheaper than buying all three items individually but if you are going to throw away the drink and fries that isn't cost effective.

This analogy illustrates another point, burger joints give you the option of buying just the burger or the fries or the drink. TV subscription services don't give you the choice to buy only the services you want. You have to buy the basic package and then the stuff you want.

That isn't cost effective for the consumer. Sure, you can argue the cross-subsidy pays for the stuff you want but also pays for stuff you don't. This isn't an argument for cost effectiveness for the consumer either.

If bundling is such a good idea why does iTunes sell more singles than albums?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#625556 15-May-2012 16:21

crackrdbycracku: Apples Vs Oranges.

First, NetFlix is US$8 per month, so watch a movie a day and that is around 26 cents per movie. So, if you make something cheap enough then the way it is sold doesn't really matter.

At a point, and by the looks of 25 million GoT downloads, HBO is over that point then the price whether bundle or not becomes intolerable and people find other ways.

Bundles are not the most cost effective way to buy stuff unless you actually want all the stuff in the bundle.

If you only actually want a burger, that's what you buy. If you want a coke and fries too, you buy a combo. Sure, the combo price is cheaper than buying all three items individually but if you are going to throw away the drink and fries that isn't cost effective.

This analogy illustrates another point, burger joints give you the option of buying just the burger or the fries or the drink. TV subscription services don't give you the choice to buy only the services you want. You have to buy the basic package and then the stuff you want.

That isn't cost effective for the consumer. Sure, you can argue the cross-subsidy pays for the stuff you want but also pays for stuff you don't. This isn't an argument for cost effectiveness for the consumer either.

If bundling is such a good idea why does iTunes sell more singles than albums?

Ultimately, pretty much everything is a bundle. Does Mcdonalds let you buy JUST the patty without charging you for a whole burger? do they sell fries individually or are you forced to buy them in bundles that include several dozen or more?

Bundling works. the studios aren't totally stupid. They might be annoyed at piracy but if the alternative is to sell GoT for $1 episode at launch then they simply won't do it. they would gain a bit of extra revenue from all the additional sales, but lose a whole lot more from the people who drop off their existing subscriptions.

this is the thing that people miss when they moan saying "I want to buy GoT, why won't they let me buy it!!"
if they made GoT available at the price you are willing to pay ($1-$5 per episode) they would make a lot LESS money than they do today. even with the 25m piracy downloads. that is why they don't do it.

Maybe in the very long term piracy will get so big thatr they will be forced to do what you want. But that isn;t the case now.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#625560 15-May-2012 16:36

Ultimately, pretty much everything is a bundle. Does Mcdonalds let you buy JUST the patty without charging you for a whole burger? do they sell fries individually or are you forced to buy them in bundles that include several dozen or more?

Well until Macs start selling me just patties, I am going to keep downloading them.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#625566 15-May-2012 16:38

crackrdbycracku: Apples Vs Oranges.

If you only actually want a burger, that's what you buy. If you want a coke and fries too, you buy a combo. Sure, the combo price is cheaper than buying all three items individually but if you are going to throw away the drink and fries that isn't cost effective.

This analogy illustrates another point, burger joints give you the option of buying just the burger or the fries or the drink. TV subscription services don't give you the choice to buy only the services you want. You have to buy the basic package and then the stuff you want.

But... If you wanted the burger and the fries then it is often as cheap as, or cheaper than to by the combo rather than just the 2 items.

Yes, in an ideal world you could choose to buy everything individually, or just a few items, or a bundle/combo; and yes the studios, etc live by antiquated models. But, can you imagine all the extra overhead (admittedly a lot of it would be a one time cost) for Sky to offer their bundles, OR pick and choose on a channel-by-channel basis, OR on a program-by-program basis. What a nightmare.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#625567 15-May-2012 16:39

keewee01:
crackrdbycracku: Apples Vs Oranges.

If you only actually want a burger, that's what you buy. If you want a coke and fries too, you buy a combo. Sure, the combo price is cheaper than buying all three items individually but if you are going to throw away the drink and fries that isn't cost effective.

This analogy illustrates another point, burger joints give you the option of buying just the burger or the fries or the drink. TV subscription services don't give you the choice to buy only the services you want. You have to buy the basic package and then the stuff you want.

But... If you wanted the burger and the fries then it is often as cheap as, or cheaper than to by the combo rather than just the 2 items.

Yes, in an ideal world you could choose to buy everything individually, or just a few items, or a bundle/combo; and yes the studios, etc live by antiquated models. But, can you imagine all the extra overhead (admittedly a lot of it would be a one time cost) for Sky to offer their bundles, OR pick and choose on a channel-by-channel basis, OR on a program-by-program basis. What a nightmare.

Oh, and besides - the studios need to flog off their crappy programs and feel like they are getting a return on them some how!

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#625575 15-May-2012 16:57

I wish the studios were smart, I want to watch all six books of A Song of Fire and Ice made into amazing TV that we all want to watch.

Sadly, I remember the start of digital music. Record companies didn't innovate, they all said: "It's just a phase and then everybody will go back to buying CDs".

A consumer electronics company innovated and created iTunes. Even that came with internal contradictions, buy a device capable of holding 2000 songs for a few hundred dollars and then pay a dollar a song to fill it? Were they kidding anybody?

Look at the crap music industry we have today, I'm not talking about a style of music or that I don't like One Direction. What I mean is that we live in a time when it is difficult for new artists to get recognised and sold because of the way the industry dealt with digital music.

I really hope the same doesn't happen to TV and movies.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#625753 15-May-2012 21:16

crackrdbycracku: I wish the studios were smart, I want to watch all six books of A Song of Fire and Ice made into amazing TV that we all want to watch.

Sadly, I remember the start of digital music. Record companies didn't innovate, they all said: "It's just a phase and then everybody will go back to buying CDs".

A consumer electronics company innovated and created iTunes. Even that came with internal contradictions, buy a device capable of holding 2000 songs for a few hundred dollars and then pay a dollar a song to fill it? Were they kidding anybody?

Look at the crap music industry we have today, I'm not talking about a style of music or that I don't like One Direction. What I mean is that we live in a time when it is difficult for new artists to get recognised and sold because of the way the industry dealt with digital music.

I really hope the same doesn't happen to TV and movies.

Completely well said! Talking about the start of digital music - I see mp3.com (or its successor by the same person) has been forced into bankruptcy. They've been trying to run under a legal retail model but good old record companies [apparently] threatened any company that worked with them would loose access to their music catalog. Typical. Napster anyone?

The studios (music and movie) are just so close minded, small thinking, can't see beyond the box types!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4