A 2002 quote about cable TV from David Hesmondalgh that still rings true today:
Although digital television offers an apparent abundance of choice, it seems that viewers tend not to be able to make real use of that choice. Research shows that ‘when people have forty-eight channels to choose from, they basically use eleven; with seventy-five choices, they use twelve on average; when the number jumps to two hundred channels, people still only use thirteen’ (McChesney, 1999: 148, citing research reported in Adweek, June 1998)… . Those sections of the public with relatively high levels of disposable income seem to have accepted that it is worth paying a lot more for something not that much better - if at all than what existed before. (pp. 226-228)
It’s true that cable is nice for serendipitously stumbling across a random documentary or film that I otherwise would have ignored—and it’s also true that no one should underestimate the value of that (see Cass Sunstein’s argument on this here). But honestly, for the most part I only watch seven or eight shows religiously—a few network dramas and then some news and current events programs. If I have to pay a $100 cable bill during a time when networks are canceling good shows left and right, and news budgets are declining, I’d rather pay that money directly to the makers of the programs I watch, instead of paying for a zillion channels I never use.
I often wonder if there’s a viable business model for the television industry based on this principle. Of course, the production houses and news divisions that make those programs are owned by companies that control a bunch of cable networks (Disney, Time Warner, etc). So even if there were a small profit to be made, it would probably never happen.
