802fb7b3
XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel
From: jimgysin@geemail.com
Your Name sent the following on 11/14/2010 6:14 PM:
> In article, Jim Gysin
> wrote:
>
>> cloud dreamer sent the following on 11/14/2010 11:17 AM:
>>> On 14/11/2010 1:24 PM, Artisan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "cloud dreamer" wrote in message
>>>> news:LJqdnW5l5vKJjn3RnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On 14/11/2010 1:12 PM, Artisan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dano" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ibp2vb$t5t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Coca Cola Kid" wrote in message
>>>>>>>
> news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7-a27b-71141b7c3598@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 3:41 pm, Rob Jensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
>>>>>>>>>> be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
>>>>>>>>>> the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
>>>>>>>>>> series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Head honcho @ SyFy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bonnie Hammer is the jackass who thinks that "World Wide Rassling" and
>>>>>> "Paranormal Reality TV" have more of a place on the station than all the
>>>>>> good shows she cancels.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone else needs to start up a Sci-fi channel.
>>>>
>>>> I just hope something like that wouldn't further fragment the SF
>>>> audience, which would only draw down the ratings for programming on both
>>>> stations by splitting them in half.
>>>
>>> More than enough sci-fi out there to justify another channel.
>>
>> And competition is good. Having two channels fighting each other to
>> offer quality SF to us viewers can only be a Good Thing for us viewers.
>
> That's a marketing fallacy.
It's not marketing; it's economics, and basic economics, at that.
> It doesn't work in selling products since bothe "competitiors" eventually
> agree on a minimum price they're willing to sell at.
And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will
*never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any
kind.
> Yes, that may be less
> than the public are paying with only one seller, but is still higher than
> true competition would allow.
Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true
competition." This is macro 101 stuff.
> It doesn't work with TV networks either because the idiots simply put the
> good shows on at exactly the same time, and even with recording equipment
> of some sort there is still only a limited amount of time someone can or
> wants to watch TV.
>
> Here in New Zealand "competition" is highly inaccurate. There are half a
> dozen "different" supermarket brands, but in reality they're owned by only
> two parent companies.
Which is still better than one.
> The same happens with book / stationery stores,
> electronic stores, etc. The public get an even worse illusion of
> "competition" that does really exist. :-(
*Some* competition is better than *no* competition.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
