August 12, 2009 at 10:16 am
I don't know that Steve is saying wanting to spend your money how you want is wrong, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
August 12, 2009 at 11:15 am
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.
August 12, 2009 at 11:21 am
Steve, wonder if you noticed the connection between the networking blog item (which is right above) the slicing and dicing editorial in the email. I think both are speaking to similar needs though one's more personal than the other. Just as we as individuals have to expand and connect and build these links, companies must also do the same both internally and externally. But for the music industry, it's at a critical stage, where companies would be forced to change whereas other industries may have already gone over that phase and may not feel the same pressure.
August 12, 2009 at 11:24 am
Personally, I would prefer to pay only for the channels I watch. I see no reason why they can't allow us to pay just for our preferred entertainment.
August 12, 2009 at 11:47 am
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
It IT, how many companies might forgo a backup system if they had to pay piece by piece for services? Who wants to fund the tape guy? No one does, and as many companies have done, they'll gamble on not having issues. However that cost needs to be sunk and absorbed.Security? To a large extent if departments or groups could pick and choose, they'd ignore this, expecting someone else to handle it, or, just stick more servers under desks and not spend the funding. I've seen it time and time again.
Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.
August 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I can see the benefits of music downloading services. I can even see the reason for iTunes including album art with their album downloads. That content can be nice to have. I don't use music downloading services very often anymore though. The quality, even the high-quality downloads, is fairly low. I still buy CDs on occasion, but even that is waning. My music medium of choice is vinyl now. I was born in 1984, so I didn't really have much exposure to vinyl and feel kind of cheated for it now. My personal opinion is that vinyl sounds much better. The only problem with vinyl is that the band/artist has to be able to put together a full album. Check out Jack White's (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, The Dead Weather) Third Man Records. They're pushing vinyl harder than anybody else right now. I'm hoping more musicians decide to revert to vinyl as well. Plus, wandering around a cool record shop beats browsing iTunes any day.
The medium quality isn't a problem for television (theoretically). A la carte channel selection would be nice for cable/satellite. I can see some downsides to it though. Some good shows may get canceled because they are on strange or marginal channels. Is it good for television overall if groundbreaking shows never make it because a la carte programming makes the networks that they are on disappear? I don't know. I know that I have stumbled across really good television shows on channels that I never thought I would want. A great example of this is "Rescue Me." I don't particularly like FX. Before I started watching "Rescue Me," I would never have picked FX if a la carte service were available. I watched an episode of "Rescue Me" about a year ago and got hooked though. Now I own the first four seasons on DVD and have watched every episode this season. It's a solid example of cable bundling working in my benefit. Anyway, just my thoughts.
- Gavin Johnson
August 12, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I agree that the music industry’s “problem” is mostly of their own making. Having to get an entire album just for one good song might be profit for the industry, but sucks for the end-user and ultimately is horrible for the artist. I can understand (but not support) someone resorting to piracy to get the one good song on a $15 to $25 album.
Recently I had to re-build my Windows machine (video card blew up and the OS got corrupted slightly). After installing a new video card and reinstalling the OS, I went about installing other downloaded programs (Adobe Reader, etc.) and most of them wanted to install the Google Search bar as well.
Not wanting Google Search, I unchecked the option. After the third or fourth time of having to uncheck this, I was getting rather miffed about the bundling. But the option was there not accept the bundle (though I was pleasantly surprised to find one program where the option to install Google Search wasn’t checked by default).
Having the choice to download one song, two songs or the entire album for a discounted price is an improvement on the original model. The music company still gets paid for the expense of recording the artist, the artist gets paid for what’s valuable, the user is happier and the artist gets pushed for more quality work which in turn makes the user happier and therefore more cash from more sales and less piracy to get the one good song from a lousy album.
I can see where the cable TV industry might do well to adopt a similar model. Offer the option of getting the channels separately, but also offer a bundle of X number of channels that is cheaper than getting Y number separately (with Y being less than X).
Bundling, if done well, with various options, can be a value-added thing to a product. Which brings us to the problem, what’s being bundled needs to have some value.
-- Kit
August 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I think the bundling problem is forced bundling, at least you can uncheck the option for a Google toolbar. But when the provider says ok you want ESPN, well it WILL BE on your basic package or you can't have it, and no you can't treat it like a pay station, instead of you pay us $X per subscriber and you decide where to put it in your lineup. I keep beating up on ESPN because they are such an easy target, your cable rates keep going up because of channels costing more, but that cable company is ALWAYS the bad guy, it doesn't matter to John and Jane Doe that the providers forced the cable company to add those 10 channels that you have never watched (and probably never will), and now you get to pay more for the priviledge.. Because the cable companies aren't going to eat those costs at least not for long.. I don't have a problem with the cable companies bundling, but when they are forced to is where it becomes a problem.
CEWII
August 12, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Ronald Bruintjes (8/12/2009)
Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.
I don't think so. A department or person will be scapegoated, yelled at, something. They might buy a system, but this is a lesson that will have to be learned over and over and over.
It's easy to say that the company suffers, but often they don't. Individuals suffer, often those not with power.
August 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm
In media, there is a fine line with bundling. Sometimes it does get silly, like the music people wanting to maintain margins and not realizing the world is changing. Or television being held hostage by ESPN and forced to raise rates. Actually they aren't forced. ESPN wants to increase revenue, so they raise rates. Companies decide how much to lower their margins, and how much to hit the consumer.
It's easy to say that I should only pay for what I want. And in some cases I agree, some I don't. News/media, etc. are one of those places where a variety enriches us. Television is such a luxury, that it's a bad example, but think education.
Should you just get a degree in computers and ignore English, math, etc. if that's what you want? I'd argue that a well rounded education, high school and college, makes the world a better place. If we allowed the un-bundling of many requirements from degrees, I think we'd be worse off overall for it. And maybe worse off individually.
It's also data that I see out there. Often it's not that hard to capture a little more data on things, or keep items like weblogs, which can be used latter. But if we allowed everyone to just slice out what they wanted, we might never have those things.
As with most things, the decision to bundle, "depends". It's a circumstances and judgment call as to when to do it. And like most things, I'm not sure I, or anyone, gets it right most of the time.
August 12, 2009 at 3:16 pm
the whole single song .vs. album is interesting. What would happen to albums like "the wall"? would 90% of the world download "comfortably numb" and ignore the rest missing out in the story the album tells? I've bought albums where I've been burned and only got on decent track that I liked. I've also bought albums for one song and loved every single song. depends on the artist, depends on the album. I've never ran across an artist where I've like every single song they've put out. if you want bundling check out this Haydn box set
On the TV front, the cost .vs. what I get for that cost weighs to heavily on the "I'm not paying for that crap" side of the equation. Hence, we use rabbit ears and i watch almost zero broadcast TV. I watch some sat morning cartoons with my kids but that's it.
August 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
Ronald Bruintjes (8/12/2009)
Will that not take care of itself? The first time a company like that has a disk crash, and there are no backups, that will be the last time that happens: they'll learn and make sure there are adequate backups, or they're out of business.I don't think so. A department or person will be scapegoated, yelled at, something. They might buy a system, but this is a lesson that will have to be learned over and over and over.
It's easy to say that the company suffers, but often they don't. Individuals suffer, often those not with power.
That's why I always felt more comfortable working in orgs with a previous disaster experience behind them. Yes, it's not pretty being there when it happens for the first time.
August 12, 2009 at 4:36 pm
stevejunk (8/12/2009)
the whole single song .vs. album is interesting. What would happen to albums like "the wall"? would 90% of the world download "comfortably numb" and ignore the rest missing out in the story the album tells? I've bought albums where I've been burned and only got on decent track that I liked. I've also bought albums for one song and loved every single song. depends on the artist, depends on the album. I've never ran across an artist where I've like every single song they've put out. if you want bundling check out this Haydn box setOn the TV front, the cost .vs. what I get for that cost weighs to heavily on the "I'm not paying for that crap" side of the equation. Hence, we use rabbit ears and i watch almost zero broadcast TV. I watch some sat morning cartoons with my kids but that's it.
The album format itself is an outgrowth of marketing those older formats. There's no reason why albums can't be longer or shorter or even a single song. In fact, we can make the case that the album format has affected creativity, packaging, number of songs the artists produce, etc. It certainly affected the economics of that "business model". But with iTunes, all these are open to exploration and maybe we might see a new model that can serve both the economic and the artistic aspects.
August 12, 2009 at 4:51 pm
While the album size can change (and has, gotten longer with CDs), it also has the economies from getting the band into the studio and working through a series of songs. That takes some time to get going, and it's not easy to start and stop the process.
But I agree with you in principle, the old format should be re-examined and built in a better way moving forward. Not just trying to cling to the idea that we have 12 songs on a CD.
August 13, 2009 at 1:25 am
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
Should you just get a degree in computers and ignore English, math, etc. if that's what you want? I'd argue that a well rounded education, high school and college, makes the world a better place. If we allowed the un-bundling of many requirements from degrees, I think we'd be worse off overall for it. And maybe worse off individually.
I think it's a bad example. As you say, it's a well rounded bundle, where each part completes the other. There is no such completion between the food channel and the golf channel or between different songs in most albums. If the IT guys are playing solitaire all day long and just pressing a few keys now and then to create backups, then we really don't need them.
There is nothing wrong with bundeling, as long it is in the best interest of the end user (or the consumer), even if he doesn't really wants it at first. I see no such thing with the bundeling of different nische channels (or IT departments). If the golf channel can't stand on its own, than it shouldn't exists, and all the people who used to watch it will continue their lives just as they did before the channel was on the air. Same rule applies on IT departments. The difference is not in the question "Can the IT department stands on it's own", because you don't measure it that way. The question is "What is the loss to the organization if there is no in-house IT department".
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply