I can't tell if you're arguing for or against bundling, but bundling is what can allow some channels to be given a chance. If I remember correctly Disney/ABC, Viacom, Time Warner, etc use bundles as a way to introduce new channels. They negotiate a price down on a popular channel, say ESPN, provided the service carries a newer station like Comedy Central or Viceland.

Disney could just subsidize 'the puppy channel' or whatever with their own money and have a free 3 month trial to get people hooked.

Really, it's just a question of what they get from all their channels (X + Y + ...). If Y = 0billion and X = 10billion that's the same as Y=1billion and X = 9billion.

PS: Ok, their might be some accounting magic so it's useful for channel Y not to be profitable.

Huh? If you don't like reality TV then you aren't syfy's core demographic (or just about any channel's, really). Basically every channel has moved in that direction because people keep proving they will watch it.

Reality TV is cheap. In a highly fragmented and bundled market it can work. Yet, HBO and other premium services avoid it presumably because willing to watch is different from willing to pay for.

PS: Cheap TV can be compelling. Personally I really liked the primitive technology youtube channel which has 788,764 subscribers and is really cheap to produce 1 guy without any spoken lines. Twitch can also be extremely compelling. However, that's not paying subscribers.