Quote:
Originally Posted by cDnStealth
From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you want to provide an option for people like this to obtain your media in a legitimate way?
|
From a business standpoint, the intent of any company is to make as big a profit as possible, plain and simple. If it means bundling packages together, so be it. If it means selling products individually, so be it. The fact that they are bundled means that, like every other cable package, they're trying to sell some garbage along with what most people actually want.
The question then lies in what provides a bigger profit: These bundles, which scare some people off, or single series subscriptions. And I think they see Game of Thrones as a major cash cow, so they can stuff a lot of crap with it.
At least, that's the thinking behind it. It's certainly somewhat antiquated as people really do want only what they want. The consumer has a stronger hold these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cDnStealth
Do you honestly think that HBO is going to lose out by offering a digital online subscription to their channel? This isn't entitlement. It's an untapped and ignored market. Provide alternatives not roadblocks.
|
The problem I have with piracy is that, as a protest form, it creates a feeling of artificial supply. Companies see a large number of people pirating and think "Wow. Look at these people getting away with free! Let's crack down on pirates and force them to pay with OUR methods, which still look profitable". I've always proposed if people are looking to seek a change in industry, to not purchase inhibition tech that they dislike (in this case, antiquated cable), and to purchase products with the style that they like. Companies aren't in the industry of pissing people off...again, they're in the industry of making money. If there's a constant pattern that the companies using [streaming/selling individual shows/etc] are constantly pumping money out and they're constantly losing money, then they'll adapt to the more profitable system. In the simple economic sense, decrease supply of an old good, and increase supply of the good you want to exist.
Of course, this is all theoretical. I don't run, nor do I know anyone high up in, these companies. As per why companies aren't actively scouting out these opportunities, I suspect a sense of satisfaction and laziness with their current results.
The concern is that it requires great discipline and requires sacrifice of shows from companies. In this case, it may mean killing off Game of Thrones (and in the field I generally discuss this in, I bring up the thought of it being the end of Blizzard). This sort of shift has helped out the gaming industry a lot. If you compare the style of sales between now and a few years ago, there's been major shift because of the existence of Steam, a shift much stronger than the piracy beforehand made (though you could argue at the time, that the piracy was for different reasons)
I struggle with people who have no intent to purchase, so pirate instead. Yes, this select group isn't costing people, but I wonder how many people stay honest with themselves when they make such statements. How many people jump from "Hm...I'm right on the fence...I know I'm getting ripped off, but here's my money" to "Screw that. I'm pirating it"? Consumers aren't exactly the best when it comes to dealing with 0 cost (well, minimal money cost) goods.