Welcome to Thunderdome

Does Plex have Teen Mom? My wife really wants that show back in her lineup.

Leisher wrote: Does Plex have Teen Mom? My wife really wants that show back in her lineup.

Hmmm. Apparently Plex has standards, instead.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Does Plex have Teen Mom? My wife really wants that show back in her lineup.

Hmmm. Apparently Plex has standards, instead.

I respect Plex more now.

1. The price just went from $35 to $40. I heard about it the day after it happened.

2. Because they are adding new channels, including Major League Baseball.

So again, I'm going to have the cost of sports channels THAT I DO NOT FUCKING WANT added to the cost of TV.

Going to look at Google TV and shit before I pull the trigger.

GORDON wrote: The price just went from $35 to $40. I heard about it the day after it happened.

I did not hear about that at all. Booo

Although it appears I'm grand-fathered in, I was thinking of canceling in the summer. Probably still worth it

GORDON wrote: So again, I'm going to have the cost of sports channels THAT I DO NOT FUCKING WANT added to the cost of TV.

I was just at the local cable office turning in my DVRs and there was an Asian woman SCREAMING about not wanting to pay for any sports channels.

I think it'd be really hard for any of these companies to get away from that. End of the day, that's where all the ratings and viewers are, and thus, what really makes these things work for both vendor and customer.

TV isn't alone in such a business model.

-Your insurance prices aren't based on what you consume, but rather what the average person consumes.
-You might only shop at one store at the mall, but the price you're paying is marked up because of mall rent, which is higher because of all the other stores there and the cost to maintain them all.
-Education costs more because of kids that aren't yours and additional programs you might not use. (Central Catholic high school in this area has been increasing their rates as they're private. Attendance has not dropped because of it. Why? Glad you asked. It's because they are simply increasing the number of kids the government pays to attend. Yep, the government pays private school tuition for kids on welfare. Why? Equality. Meanwhile, parents who pay private school fees to pull their kids away from public schools so they get a better education AND avoid the shit that goes on in public schools now pay a higher price AND their kids are no longer sheltered. It's a mess.) I pay $2300 or so for each college course, yet I've never set foot inside a classroom on campus or directed interacted with a teacher or classmate. You really think my whole $2300 is their cost of educating me? Of course not. And most online classes have 40-90 students each semester. Point being, we're paying for buildings, sports, etc.

And keep in mind it works both ways. Sports makes network a huge profit so they can spend additional money making other shows like Family Guy, House, Scrubs, Seinfeld, etc. Or Community, which helped make Dan Harmon a known commodity, which led directly to Rick and Morty...

Stop trying to convince me to be happy to pay for sports.

Leisher needs you to subsidize the broadcasting of sports or else he'll have to pay more for them.

I wonder if Gordon ever scrolls all the way down on this site.

Cakedaddy wrote: Leisher needs you to subsidize the broadcasting of sports or else he'll have to pay more for them.

I think sports fans are subsidizing non-sports fans.

Leisher wrote:

Cakedaddy wrote: Leisher needs you to subsidize the broadcasting of sports or else he'll have to pay more for them.

I think sports fans are subsidizing non-sports fans.

I doubt it. I bet there are more general TV watchers than sports watchers. If I could, I'd make a graph to prove it. That's why the "NFL Ticket" or whatever sports package they want you to buy costs so much. Sports are expensive, unless you make a bunch of people that don't want them pay for them.

Cakedaddy wrote:

Leisher wrote:

Cakedaddy wrote: Leisher needs you to subsidize the broadcasting of sports or else he'll have to pay more for them.

I think sports fans are subsidizing non-sports fans.

I doubt it. I bet there are more general TV watchers than sports watchers. If I could, I'd make a graph to prove it. That's why the "NFL Ticket" or whatever sports package they want you to buy costs so much. Sports are expensive, unless you make a bunch of people that don't want them pay for them.

Well, you can doubt it, but you'd be wrong. Yes, I say that knowing it as fact.

The highest rated shows in history are all sporting events, except the final episode of MASH, which is an anomaly. Bidding wars don't break out between networks when the rights to Gray's Anatomy are available.

There's a reason sports are expensive. People are watching. More importantly, people are watching LIVE. That is the biggest factor.

Look at this image from the WSJ about the decline in the number of TV viewers.



Notice how FOX and NBC only show an increase in viewers when sports are factored in?

Advertisers know you people are recording your shows and watching them later. Worse, you're binge watching them. Watching a show a week or more after it airs means your viewing doesn't count as a rating.

So when it comes to LIVE TV, you are most definitely wrong. If you want to factor in Netflix, Hulu, TiVo, etc. you could possibly be right, but those viewers don't matter.

The industry needs to figure out the new viewing habits, and until they do it'll be hard for them to monetize viewers. Point being, until that takes place, sports rule pricing.

If the networks weren't paying so much for sports, they wouldn't be passing that cost on to me, the non-sports watcher.

GORDON wrote: If the networks weren't paying so much for sports, they wouldn't be passing that cost on to me, the non-sports watcher.

If people weren't watching sports, all the shows you watch would be gone because networks wouldn't have any money.

TV is not free.

Well that's one speculation. Seems like TV existed before sports networks, though.

There's no way they are paying a billion dollars for *sport* and I'm not paying for it.

GORDON wrote: Well that's one speculation.

See, you say "speculation", but it's fact. I've proven it.

You guys are the ones speculating. I'm out here posting links and shit from the WSJ.

GORDON wrote: Seems like TV existed before sports networks, though.

It did. Then someone realized you could put sports on TV, and the tides changed. Ratings history proves me right.

GORDON wrote: There's no way they are paying a billion dollars for *sport* and I'm not paying for it.

Of course you're paying for it. Who said you're not? What you guys (you and Cake) seem to be debating is that sports drive TV costs unjustly.

I'm arguing they indeed do, but it's completely just since that's where the networks make their money.

Leisher wrote: Of course you're paying for it. Who said you're not? What you guys (you and Cake) seem to be debating is that sports drive TV costs unjustly.

You said it. You said sports subsidizes non-sports TV, which suggests TV would cost more without sports. Then you posted a graph and said it proves your pure speculation that "If people weren't watching sports, all the shows you watch would be gone because networks wouldn't have any money."

I disagree. TV would be cheaper without the sports content, because there's no way they aren't passing the billions they pay for broadcast rights on to the consumer.

I want a TV delivery system where I'm not paying for sports channels, full stop.

GORDON wrote: You said it.

Actually, Cake made the argument you're trying to link me to...

Cakedaddy wrote: I doubt it. I bet there are more general TV watchers than sports watchers. If I could, I'd make a graph to prove it. That's why the "NFL Ticket" or whatever sports package they want you to buy costs so much. Sports are expensive, unless you make a bunch of people that don't want them pay for them.

What I'm saying is that you're trying to unfuck a woman who had your kid 50 years ago.

Also, you need to clarify your position. Are you talking about networks, cable, satelitte, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc? Because it all breaks down differently. Hint: I'm talking networks because that's what I've been posting about.

GORDON wrote: I disagree. TV would be cheaper without the sports content, because there's no way they aren't passing the billions they pay for broadcast rights on to the consumer.

Hmmm...

Leisher wrote: Of course you're paying for it.

Answer the question, then I'll point out where you're right, and where you're very wrong.

Nah I've kind of lost interest, and I'm genuinely confused. You win. Sports subsidized TV.

I wasn't trying to start a thing, but you get to make mocking comments and threads in the sports forum, why can't I defend them here?

But if you are honestly confused, it's because you guys are talking about subscribers to cable services. I'm talking about network revenue.