jcrawf02 (8/12/2009)
...I think I kind of see his point that being part of a bundle would allow a fledgling channel to develop interesting programming without having to get it from the start.However, if it's only in existence because it's leeching from channels that people actually watch, and nobody is watching the little guy, then why should it still be on the air? It's easier on the cable company program director because he gets some cushion, but not the end user.
I'd say that's exactly the problem though. It's this idea that somehow, something that can't get it together at the start will be able to get it together later "if only we just give it a little more money". Pain (or the avoidance thereof) being the primary motivator of human beings dictates that if we know we can create something that is crap, and just leech off of something else that is successful creates zero motivation to improve it and make it marketable. Cutting off its funding now, versus later, only insists that the product (whatever it may be) be able to stand on its own to start with. This, of course, does not necessarily count towards initial development costs, in which some one or some thing must put up the initial capital to create the product. However, once the product is created, it either can be a success or it can not.
The market dictates that there is either demand for something at a certain pricepoint, or there isn't. Trying to muck with the pricepoint by throwing unearned money at something, say, by taking that money from another successful product or entity, isn't the way to "create choice" or "make the leeching product better", it simply is a way to pay off someone or ensure that the rewards of success are taken from those who earn them and given to those that do not.