• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      If it matches the old cable model, its not Freeform that’s expensive. Its ESPN. When cable channels costs were exposed back in about 2008, a basic cable subscription cost about $60. Of that basic cable $23 was just ESPN. Freeform didn’t exist back then as a name, but ABC Family channel did which shares some of the same DNA. ABC family was just 65 cents of the $60 of basic cable. AMC was something like $1.27

      Further, ESPN used their bully position to force ESPN to be carried in the basic cable bundle. They knew the awful truth that most people didn’t watch it (or watch it enough to care if it left). Non-ESPN watchers were subsidizing ESPN at that time. It was estimated that if ESPN subscription costs were allowed to be born only by those that wanted the content the cost of the challenged would be about $56 per subscriber, which would be more than more than most ESPN watchers would be willing to pay.

      I’m guessing that Youtube is now faced with this same thing.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          with normal cable providers to force Freeform on a market that doesn’t want it,

          My guess is Freeform is a tiny tiny bit of money, likely a rounding error’s amount. I doubt that this is a war between Disney and Youtube to carry Freeform or not.