(06-08-2014 22:17 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2014 22:13 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]You're confusing profit with revenue
Where's the confusion then?
Storm don't get enough calls from the webstream to make it worth having, so they don't bother with it. I don't see any confusion.
richpk never claimed they were making profit from the webstream, he said they were getting revenue from it.
Profit and revenue are two different things, he wasn't contradicting himself.
(06-08-2014 22:31 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ]It's not as simple as counting calls to webstream numbers versus tv numbers.
How do they know that people watching the webstream aren't using the number advertised on the television show. People aren't stupid, if there's money to be saved.
Now that's bang on the nail!!!
I've said that before on the Bs thread, and done it regularly myself, but they still don't give a shit about the quality of the stream.
(06-08-2014 22:38 )Davy Crockett Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2014 22:31 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ]How do they know that people watching the webstream aren't using the number advertised on the television show.
If such a thing was happening then the people responsible have destroyed the webstream by making it seem unprofitable.
There is no reason the webstream prices should be more than the TV prices. If they sorted the pricing out, it wouldn't happen.
(06-08-2014 22:42 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]richpk never claimed they were making profit from the webstream, he said they were getting revenue from it.
Profit and revenue are two different things, he wasn't contradicting himself.
But they don't get enough revenue to make it worth bothering with. Unless there is enough revenue to make a profit the service isn't likely to continue. Surely that much is obvious.
Storm didn't ever deny receiving revenue. They denied receiving ENOUGH revenue to make the service viable.
(06-08-2014 22:46 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]There is no reason the webstream prices should be more than the TV prices. If they sorted the pricing out, it wouldn't happen.
I've no idea what pricing Storm generally used on their website or whether it was different to the TV price. If the pricing on the website was higher perhaps they felt it was necessary to try and make the webstream profitable?
If the stream vanishes for good, then surely the cost of running it is greater than profits lost since it's closure.
If profits are down, the stream will surely return.
An overall measure, not focusing on any particular number since that doesn't really tell the story as to how the show is being viewed.
(06-08-2014 23:12 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]If the stream vanishes for good, then surely the cost of running it is greater than profits lost since it's closure.
You are almost right. You just need to substitute revenues for profits, i.e. the cost of running it is greater than revenues lost since it's closure.
(06-08-2014 23:43 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]You are almost right. You just need to substitute revenues for profits, i.e. the cost of running it is greater than revenues lost since it's closure.
Thinking about it you are right, we can't simply assume any of it is profit.
Especially since little/lack of profit is most likely the reason for the stream closure anyway.
Great show from Dionne and Kimberly