Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12
What am I lying about. I rephrase what I was trying to communicate to you and your sitting here picking apart present tense past tense. If you have nothing to add to my last post, then you don't have to respond at all.
There's two main reasons why people use illegal streams, convenience and the cost. If it's just as convenient as the cost is the same, it's going to come down to the quality. It's not going to be hard for NHL beat them in terms of quality.
Only reason you think it's a terrible idea is that we're both working through different assumptions. My assumption is that advertisements can bring in enough revenue to offset the cost where as you don't think it's possible. Obviously it all comes down to that. It's no doubt a bad idea I'd NHL is losing more money but its a good idea if they can increase their revenue.
|
So why the tiered offering then? Why would anyone outside of a small market segment pay to watch something that's available for free in a high quality version?
And I think your idea is terrible because your assumption is moronic. Do you have any idea what kind of ad revenue you'd need to derive to make your plan work? How many total CI/GC subscribers do you think there are now? I'd say at a minimum there are 2mil at $200 each, that's $400,000,000 in income. Add in the damage that would be done to local TV contracts and you have another income gap to cover. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the NHL can manufacture sufficient page views to pull in half a billion dollars in advertising revenue? Seriously?
And yes, please keep referencing Google, that's a totally relevant comparison. It's not like one is a niche market sport and the other is visited by literally half of the people who use the internet.
