|
|
|
|
|
|
by geminitojanus
4490 days ago
|
|
|
> Could you elaborate on the evidence for people willing to pay for good content? I also don't understand why Game of Thrones supports your argument. http://bit.ly/1mLgOc3 > I know almost no one who pays for TV a la carte through iTunes or Amazon. You now know of me. I spend around $50/month downloading content from Amazon, be it music or tv. I would buy Game of Thrones as it came out if I could, but I can't. Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. Especially if you've done no investigation. >I am skeptical they'd pay even if it was available for $4.99 an episode. $5 might be a bit steep for some, $2-3 is just about perfect. But honestly I'd still pay $5 for content created at this level, if not just to encourage the people creating this quality of content to keep doing it. Your skepticism is powered by your lack of knowledge and research. Do the work, then come back and comment. |
|
|
One thing I did try to find before asking you was data on the size of the a la carte TV/movie market. Anecdotally I know no one who buys TV shows (probably because I'm poor and tech savvy), but I thought I might be able to find comprehensive data to change my beliefs. Unfortunately my Google Fu was not good enough to find anything. I thought you might have a source you could share with me.
(To be honest, I think your response was rude and I feel a little hurt. But it's ok.)
Edit: In hindsight, some of the fault was mine. Of course there are people willing to pay at every price (that is the idea behind a demand curve). I guess what I'm really getting at is what are the best estimates of the shape of the demand curve. Would HBO make more money if they made GoT more accessible/cheaper? Is there evidence that a $2-$3 price point would be better than $5 price point? What are the price elasticities of demand? I guess I kind of wrapped up those more subtle questions into the question of people being willing to pay for content.