[colmvp]

You pretty much wrote what I was going to say.

AMC hit it's Golden Age of TV programming with that trio, but clearly have shown that they have issues with the handling of heavy creative talent, what with the issues that Weiner and Gilligan have publicly had, and the volatility of the showrunner position on the Walking Dead. (which subsequently also resulted in one of the actors leaving the show). On top of that, they expanded the number of episodes of S4 while reducing the budget per episode. And of course, milked the coverage of these shows with vacuous Talking Bad/Talking Dead.

I wouldn't be surprised if talented writers avoided that network like the plague.

[jcampbell1]

AMC is also in a tough spot. They don't have the revenue to support the creative folks properly. The long lag between great content and an increase in the affiliate fee, makes the financials tricky. The death of DVD sales is not helping much either, as there is less to promise on the backend.

I think AMC gets $.35 per subscriber compared to ~$5 for ESPN. It is going take decades of hit shows before AMC is paid the $1-2 they actually deserve.

[latj]

Hopefully eventually its a la carte. I'd pay $2/mo for AMC. I dont need the ESPN. The problem though is there sister channels. IFC is good but I could leave the rest.

[s_q_b]

My bet is that TV-over-IP eats the market before de-bundling occurs. In terms of cost, distribution, quality, and ease-of-use, digital downloads beat cable every time. The only piece of the puzzle networks still own is content production. With House Of Cards and Arrested Development, Netflix made a strong entry into the TV-making club, and struck the first blow against that monopoly.

In my view, we're two innovations away from internet tv for the masses: independent content production that can rival the networks for quality, and an easy-to-use streaming box to supply it. The latter is easily possible with technology on the market right now (Roku, Apple TV, etc.), and the former seems all but inevitable.

[mason55]

The tough part about that for the networks is building out the infrastructure and giving up all the free advertising that the cable companies give them.

By packaging their content as a standalone service, a la HBO Go, they've now given up being bundled in tiers with other networks. And they've got to build out their own delivery networks & apps. Or... they can join up with groups of other networks, create a service that advertises and bundles networks together and takes care of all the infrastructure.

Shit.

We just built cable again.

[SomeCallMeTim]

HBO Go is NOT effectively a standalone service. You have to subscribe to HBO before you can get HBO Go. It's just streaming of things you already paid for on cable.

Which sucks. I would pay for HBO Go if I could get it at a decent rate. But like hell I'm going to pay for cable and the crazy upcharge for HBO just to use HBO Go. As a result, Netflix and Amazon Prime get all my money, and HBO gets nothing.

[mason55]

Yeah, sorry, I meant similar to HBO Go in terms of standalone app + network built distribution. And the reason you can't buy HBO Go without cable are exactly what I outlined above.

[s_q_b]

Or a series of third parties can compete to offer the infrastructure, which is just a CDN tied to a small computer with an HDMI out, and the former networks and new production houses can offer their programming on one, some, or all of them.

[mason55]

BTW this is one reason net neutrality is so important. If we're going to start rebuilding existing services over dumb lines (IP) then it's imperative that we maintain competition. The big problem with cable right now is that it's an oligopoly (monopoly in many places). By separating the infrastructure from the content delivery we can hopefully avoid many of the issues people currently have with cable. If we allow Verizon to charge an extra $50 to carry any non-Verizon-based "TV show bundle" then we really will be right back in the cable boat.

It's pretty amazing though that Moto wants $800 for a cable box and Western Digital can sell the same thing for $150. Shows what competition gets you.

[twoodfin]

But the problem for the next AMC is whether anyone would have been paying $0.25/month for them before they had "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men". A la carte where everyone picks the 10-20 channels they currently watch at $1-$20/each instead of 100-200 channels at $0.25-$5/each means there really can't be another fledgling AMC who exploits their existing (cheap) position on the "dial" to build an audience with quality content and then demands more money.

Of course it seems a bit silly to be talking about channels these days. This problem will sort itself out somehow because I can't believe anyone who wants a "channel" to every device with a screen in the country won't be able to acquire one in a few years' time.

[MikeCapone]

That is what John Malone thinks will happen (de-bundling).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637283

[voltagex_]

I'm in Australia. I'd pay $2/month+ for AMC, too.

[forrestthewoods]

A whole $2 a month! You're a god damned saint with such selfless generosity.

[forrestthewoods]

AMC makes 30 million a month off subscribers. At $2 a month they'd need 15 million monthly subscribers to equal what they currently earn. Historically speaking Breaking Bad has averaged 2 to 3 million viewers. After five and a half seasons its highly anticipated premiere had almost 6 million viewers.

So yes, go ahead, keep thinking that two dollars a month is a reasonable price.

[mjolk]

>which subsequently also resulted in one of the actors leaving the show

Which actor is this?

[insteadof]

Jon Bernthal. Whose character was already outliving what the creators were planning.