I've never found value in TV (cable or otherwise) because it seems to be mostly ads these days, but I do a very similar thing in the car. I subscribe to SiriusXM radio (because most channels are commercial-free while FM radio around me is loaded with more ads than music). I have a music streaming service and music on my phone I can pick from, but more often than not I don't want to pick my music. Especially while I'm driving. So I turn on a station I like and can listen ad-free. And if I flip to another station, it's highly likely I'm flipping to another song being played, not to another ad being played like FM radio or TV.
If cable TV could be commercial-free like satellite radio, I might be a subscriber. It's the same reason I cancelled my NYT.com subscription: I don't like paying for the privilege of watching advertisements. If I'm paying you money, I'd better get an ad-free experience. If my monthly fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing ads, then you're not charging me enough.
Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.
>Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.
Someone brought this up a few weeks ago but it's not really a good fit with Netflix' cost model. They really don't want to be paying content providers for an always on background stream when no one may even be watching. Of course, Spotify does but I suspect the numbers are a lot different. Perhaps there's enough really cheap content they could do this with.
Netflix doesn't pay per stream. They pay a one time cost to stream content. Spotify does pay per stream, but they don't pay more in aggregate based on how much people stream - at least from subscriptions. If 10 users pay $10 a month, there is a pool of around 70% - $70 that is split between all of the music that those 10 people listen to.
That's a good point, but if it was limited to just Netflix's own content (depending on how they own/license their own content), it shouldn't be too much additional cost, right? Basically the cost of the bandwidth, but maybe lower the stream quality on their channel.
Yeah, if they had royalty free content. Though most of what's in their catalog doesn't really qualify as "play in the background" sort of stuff which was what was being discussed upthread.
The general concept would probably be interesting for a lot of people if the numbers worked.
If cable TV could be commercial-free like satellite radio, I might be a subscriber. It's the same reason I cancelled my NYT.com subscription: I don't like paying for the privilege of watching advertisements. If I'm paying you money, I'd better get an ad-free experience. If my monthly fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing ads, then you're not charging me enough.
Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.