TV, TV, TV....

[seasleepy]

Poor Joss.

Here's what I want: pay-per-season. Shows that otherwise wouldn't be able to be made, you could subscribe to for the season. More expensive shows like Firefly or <insert expensive ensemble cast or show with exotic locations> would cost more, while less expensive shows like sitcoms or <insert reality show> would cost less. What would happen is you'd subscribe to the season, and after a certain time on a certain day each week, you could "order" and watch that week's episode. Additionally, you could order episodes by themselves (maybe just the first episode?) for a couple of dollars if you'd like to try a show out.

There. No commercials, no network shenanigans to deal with (oooh...for sweeps, bring on a very special guest from a new movie! never mind if they're trapped in an avalanche!), no preempting the show for sports or BLAH's event of the week, a very special showing of "Xanadu," featuring a brand new musical number by Elton John and Tim Rice. ;)
On the chance that everyone wanted a bye a certain week, the show could have a "The Making Of" or interviews with the directors and cast members, whatever.

The thing is, why haven't we seen this? The framework's in place. Digital cable and satellite both are set up to work this (all-season sports passes things?). The cable companies I can understand about being too tied up with the whole network landscape to do it, but satellite doesn't seem to be.

I can't wait for just one show to get out there and try it, because even if it doesn't do well (although it'll probably do well at least initially because of the novelty factor), I know a ton will follow.

Comments

[ladydilee.livejournal.com]

I think the reason this won't really work well is that people like the convenience of the shows always being there. The fact that people would have to put effort and extra money into seeing the show would probly cut the profits. I mean, cable is fairly cheap. Most people are not so put off by commercials that they are willing to pay per show. In addition, the amount of money garnered from commercials far outweighs the money that might be garnered from orders. Your plan of charging more for high budget shows and less for low budget shows like reality shows cuts the profits that the parent companies are looking for. If the high budget show sucks, or no one knows about it and so no one orders it, it won't make the money to cover the cost of the show, let alone make profits for the company, no matter how much you charge for it. Then, the reality shows which get a high viewership wouldn't be making the money that they do now through commercial sponsorship. Also, unless they find some way of keeping the shows offline, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people downloading the show instead of ordering it, especially with sci-fi shows such as Firefly which don't inspire the kind of immediate widespread discussion as many of the other shows, which in turn compels people to watch it as soon as possible.

The reason it works so well for sports is because the people who order a specific sport know for a fact that they want to watch what is going on, when it happens, and not hear about it later or watch it when it isn't live. This means that they will order in bulk. I have yet to hear about anyone who recorded the Super Bowl to watch it later. Also, sponsorship is built in through bil-boards on the sides of the rink, on the players, the cars, and any other surface you can find, along with the specific name of the event or venue (Minute Maid Park comes to mind).

So, in conclusion, the reason we haven't seen this with actual tv shows is profit. It isn't profitable to do it that way.

[harbinjer.livejournal.com]

Poor Joss, indeed.

As for your pay-per-season idea... I think it could have some potential, particularly with shows that are in syndication rather than on a nationwide network, thereby making them available in all areas.
Same with Pay Cable shows, like The Sopranos or Sex and the City, if there are people that don't want HBO or whatever, but would like the chance to see what everyone else is talking about... but that means that a season of Sopranos has to cost less than having HBO for 8 or 10 months.
A third group you could also market it to are people that would just rather pay than watch commercials.


I don't think the base problem is profitibility, but risk. Maybe a show is profitable, maybe its not.... and the unprofitable shows don't last, but under the current system that risk is held by the network that is buying the show, and they have an established handle on what people will watch and what they won't (which is why we get so much LCD), plus they have the ability to manipulate schedules and promote shows in a variety of ways built-in to the system.
Under the Seas Model all the risk is at the Producers level... producers who may have the capital to make a few fabulous shows, but no way to promote their product to the consumer and no way to make the money back if they can't get lots of people to watch right from the start.