WSJ: TV Porn Doesn't Sell Like It Used To

[stationless listener]

So basically the satellite and cable companies are suffering because all those maniacs who are searching for whatever that is they want to search for online are causing the revenues for their PPV offerings to drop. Well, there is still that female-friendly porn called the shopping, reality and celebrity channels.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903885604576488540447354036.html

 

[MarcB]

I'm not interested in porn, but when the stuff costs $14.99 for a 6 hour block of programming it's a little bit on the expensive side. Recently I saw a copy of The Hartford Advocate an alternative newspaper put out by CT1 Media (Tribune) and in the back there was an ad for an Adult Video Store that was offering 3 Adult DVDs for $10 or 5 DVDs for $12. I think I'd take the DVD specials if I was into that sort of thing.

 

[whit979]

Why don't they just drop those channels? Sounds to me like just another excuse to raise prices for everyone.

 

[Markxxx]

The amount of free porn is ridiculous. And I'm not talking torrents or P2P applications either. There's too much of it. As Archie Bunker says, "The hookers being put out of business by the girls giving it away for free."

 

[mnradiofan]

Why don't they just drop those channels? Sounds to me like just another excuse to raise prices for everyone.

Yeah, except your logic falls apart because these are PPV channels which only make money when you order them.

 

[whit979]

Why don't they just drop those channels? Sounds to me like just another excuse to raise prices for everyone.

Yeah, except your logic falls apart because these are PPV channels which only make money when you order them.

You're right, I don't know much about how pay-per-view channels work. But a cable provider has to carry those channels on their cable system in order for them to offer programming that someone could potentially pay for. Wouldn't that mean the provider would incur some cost just to put it out there as an option?

 

[mnradiofan]

Why don't they just drop those channels? Sounds to me like just another excuse to raise prices for everyone.

Yeah, except your logic falls apart because these are PPV channels which only make money when you order them.

You're right, I don't know much about how pay-per-view channels work. But a cable provider has to carry those channels on their cable system in order for them to offer programming that someone could potentially pay for. Wouldn't that mean the provider would incur some cost just to put it out there as an option?

Well, I'm sure there is SOME cost, but that cost wouldn't be passed on to subs, it would be passed on to the PPV subs only. These days, most of the costs for infrastructure are paid by advertising inserted into the feeds of the channels we watch. What we pay for as subscribers are the fees that are charged by the networks, and the personnel costs for things such as customer service, network technicians, etc. That's not to say we don't pay for some infrastructure too, but last I looked, most of your cable dollar went to pay for programming.

 

[Robnoxious]

It wasn't too long ago when running across free smut was when you found porn in the woods.

I don't know who put it out there or why but it was always an odd phenomena to be hiking about in a grove of trees and stumble upon a stash of tattered Playboys and Penthouses. Every damn time!

 

[quadraphonic]

I always wondered that too when I found a stash in the woods Robnoxious.
At least I never happened upon the stashers when they were in action though, just the aftermath.

 

[visaman]

To tell you the truth, there isn't as much new smut produced online these days, as there was 12 years ago. The porn industry is more regulated these days, than The USA banking industry. :