Sunday, June 19, 2005

Cable payment

Can I ask a stupid question? Why do we pay for cable?

I can understand paying for the subscription based channels like HBO, Starz, and Showtime. They play full length, uncut movies and completely without commercials. But why do I pay for commercialized channels?

If there are commericials on the channel, the advertisers are paying for that time. So wouldn't they want their ads to be viewed by the widest possible base? Shouldn't the advertisers take up the slack?

Wouldn't it be worth it to the advertisers, considering that my cable bill is about $70 a month, to pay a bit extra to the cable channel (who would then pay the cable provider) to cover the viewers' fees? I know that sounds like a lot of money, but that is also a lot of advertisers to divide it among. And per thirty-second commercial, what is that divided out, like two cents? (Maybe my math skills are lacking here, but I don't think so.)

I also think this every time there is a cool pay-per-view boxing match coming up. I'm not a big fan, but I like a little pugilism and would watch it more if it wasn't $49.95 to watch it (and then you can't even be sure to get enough for your money--remember when Tyson would take guys out in the first minute?). I would watch it, and then I would see the advertisements and the advertisers would be happy. If I had to pay to watch football, or the Superbowl, I probably wouldn't watch anymore. And then advertisers lose.

All I'm saying is that an advertised medium should be free. (Don't get me started on magazines either because I think those should be free as well. Come on, wouldn't you read more magazines then? And then you would see more ads...)

No comments: