If everyone actually paid to watch the show....

[erotavlas]

networks don't care if people are watching the show, or if they enjoy it or not, they only care if they are watching the advertisements so that they can keep the advertisers happy. Even if 10 million people watched SGU but watched it on DVR or obtained it via somewhere like iTunes it would still get canned because most people would skip over the ads. This to me is very sad and makes me wonder why I pay my cable bill each month. So would if be possible in an ideal world to ditch the advertisers?

If the show was funded by the viewers directly rather than the advertisers would there be enough funds to pay for everything (salaries, special effects, props... etc)? Say a show like this sustained 1 million viewers, what would each viewer need to pay per episode to fund the show?

[Ian-S]

Isn't that what HBO/Showtime do? charge an extra premium for the channel then use that for programming? I very much doubt if SyFy charged $10 a month they'd get many people subscribing.

Your thought is what cable tv was originally supposed to be, but sadly the lure of advertising $$$ income on top of subscriptions was too much to resist for the channels, couple that in with the greed of the cable distributor, and you've got a no win situation.

We have the same problem here (UK), Sky originally setup on Satellite, it was free to get everybody hooked on TNG etc. then it went subscription only without adverts, now it's full of adverts and can cost in the region of $100 a month for all channels. The only truely advert free channels are from the BBC, but then you have a load of idiots in charge of that too, everybody in the country must pay the TV license, and they are supposed to cater to minority tastes, but they cancelled Outcasts on a cliffhanger because it only got 2 million viewers...

To answer your question, assuming every episode costs $2.5Mil, then if you had a million subscribers then it would be $2.50 an episode, $50 per series - but that is just ONE show on a channel that runs presumable 24/7 with for example 5 hours a day of original programming, now add that all up (because if you wanted to bankroll one show, you'd have to bankroll all of them), $2.50 x 5(hours) x 7(days a week) x 52(weeks) = $4550 a year (total cost to you to finance the original programming of 5 hours a day 7 days a week). Those are just figures picked out my head based on a little info I know, but if you want to privately bankroll the channel, then the cost is going to be high going by the viewer figures published.

[erotavlas]

but that is just ONE show on a channel that runs presumable 24/7 with for example 5 hours a day of original programming, now add that all up (because if you wanted to bankroll one show, you'd have to bankroll all of them), $2.50 x 5(hours) x 7(days a week) x 52(weeks) = $4550 a year (total cost to you to finance the original programming of 5 hours a day 7 days a week).

I don't get this part. What do the other shows have to do with anything. (i.e. the other 5 hours) I most likely would not pay for all of them since I don't sit for 5 hours every day in front of a TV to watch every show. Wouldn't the other shows be financed by whoever else watches those particular shows at the time they are on?

[garhkal]

Those figures only go for a million subscribers though. IIRC they rate wrestling (smackdown) at pulling in 9 mil a week. So that alone lessens the cost for all others subscribing to the network.

[Ian-S]

I don't get this part. What do the other shows have to do with anything. (i.e. the other 5 hours) I most likely would not pay for all of them since I don't sit for 5 hours every day in front of a TV to watch every show. Wouldn't the other shows be financed by whoever else watches those particular shows at the time they are on?

In an ideal world yes, but then you're going down the road of pay per view per show, they are just not gonna go for that.

That's how subscription tv works, you pay say $25 to your provider, they pay $0.25 to the channel, they get in an amount from advertisers and it's all pooled together to make the shows you watch.

Anyway it's just an extreme example, the way subscription tv works means what you want to do can't be done for something like this.

[Pharaoh Atem]

i would buy eps off itunes if the quailty was the same as season 1 & 2

[Ian-S]

Yeah I would too. I guess the TV Execs don't want to take the risk, it didn't really work that great with Sanctuary. I suppose if they were brave enough they could try a pre-pay deal, for example open up a system where we all paid $50 in, and if enough people did it they'd have the money up front, could produce the 20 episodes and release direct to dvd posted to the customer/another electronic delivery method, but tbh, Studio's are so narrow minded they'd never look at this as a form of funding/distribution.

Does make you wonder if this is in some part the alternative method TPTB wanted to do with Season 3, but MGM put the blocks on it, either they didn't want to fund it themselves in the vain hope they'd sell enough to make a profit, or they couldn't get the funding in the first place.

[g.o.d]

I wonder how long US televisions will ignore non-american viewers. Itunes, hulu and others are great way how to deliver to non-american viewers their favourite shows in time without several years of waiting for oficial dvds, of course many of them(including me) use other means

[jelgate]

I wonder how long US televisions will ignore non-american viewers. Itunes, hulu and others are great way how to deliver to non-american viewers their favourite shows in time without several years of waiting for oficial dvds, of course many of them(including me) use other means

For probably the same amount to time time Candian Tv ignore non-canadians, British tv ignores non-british, and so on. Its the whole system between countries that limits you

[myhelix]

I would pay for it, that´s how much I love it.

[magictrick]

Isn't that what HBO/Showtime do? charge an extra premium for the channel then use that for programming? I very much doubt if SyFy charged $10 a month they'd get many people subscribing.

That's exactly what they do. For example, HBO just renewed Treme for a 3rd season even though it barely averaged 1 million viewers. This is well below SGU's numbers yet HBO still went for it. The key for premium cable channels is quality first. So a show that is loved by critics and brings in the bare minimum in viewership (for HBO/SHO its probably ~ 900k - 1 million) it will get renewed. This is pretty much the complete opposite of regular cable where its ratings, ratings, ratings and nothing else.

Of course, we can't compare apples to oranges and thus SyFy to HBO.

[garhkal]

For probably the same amount to time time Candian Tv ignore non-canadians, British tv ignores non-british, and so on. Its the whole system between countries that limits you

Precicely. They market to their main viewership first.. then sell the rights to it elsewhere.

[Shadow_7]

Never mind that most of us already PAY for SGU. Since Syfy is a subscription service. i.e. Cable / Satelite / internet. Cable originally started as a pay service, because it was COMMERCIAL FREE, and less regulated so you could show adult content common to most unedited for content movies.

[jelgate]

That's exactly what they do. For example, HBO just renewed Treme for a 3rd season even though it barely averaged 1 million viewers. This is well below SGU's numbers yet HBO still went for it. The key for premium cable channels is quality first. So a show that is loved by critics and brings in the bare minimum in viewership (for HBO/SHO its probably ~ 900k - 1 million) it will get renewed. This is pretty much the complete opposite of regular cable where its ratings, ratings, ratings and nothing else.

Of course, we can't compare apples to oranges and thus SyFy to HBO.

Quality is unmeasurable. Quality is subjective to a person's personal taste. The main reason preminium channels can go with shows with far less ratings is how they get money. SyFy's profit comes from the advertisers which is depends on ratings. In comparassion preminium have very little commercials making ratings very insignificant. Subscription payments that are not seen in basic cable is where the prenimium channels make money

[morrismike]

I wonder how long US televisions will ignore non-american viewers. Itunes, hulu and others are great way how to deliver to non-american viewers their favourite shows in time without several years of waiting for oficial dvds, of course many of them(including me) use other means

MGM should have given all first showing rights to syfy. syfy could have distributed worldwide.

[magictrick]

Quality is unmeasurable. Quality is subjective to a person's personal taste. The main reason preminium channels can go with shows with far less ratings is how they get money. SyFy's profit comes from the advertisers which is depends on ratings. In comparassion preminium have very little commercials making ratings very insignificant. Subscription payments that are not seen in basic cable is where the prenimium channels make money

It is measurable based on how many people watch the show, what experienced people in the industry think about the show, what ratings it receives and the amount of support a show receives from networks.

[Gatefan1976]

It is measurable based on how many people watch the show, what experienced people in the industry think about the show, what ratings it receives and the amount of support a show receives from networks.

So DWTS and AI are quality programs?
Lots of people may watch them sure, but that is in no way indicative of quality.
Ratings as well are not indicative of quality or even popularity, they are used to detemine the value of ad time on X channel at Y time. I don't know why people insist on thinking otherwise.