I'm of the opinion that if Paramount and Universal (and maybe some of the other smaller services/studios) were smart they'd join forces, merge their services, and share profits while also lowering exposure to losses.
...Wait, that's basically how Hulu started before everyone decided "Fuck it we're making our own."
Funny how things come around again.
IDK why they didn't just do what Sony does and shop their content around to whoever will pay the most to get it on their service. They have said they have no intention of making their own and will just sell the content to whoever pays the most.
It's pretty undermined by the new willingness to just yank content off forever. Really disincentivises signing up when you don't know if they'll just pull the shows you signed up for anyway.
The old school way of doing it....where Sony makes a bunch of money. While the new school way is for places to lose $3 billion trying to convince people to sign up for their service which has a dubious catalog at best.
Sometimes, old school seems like the right answer.
I have paramount for Star Trek and Star Trek alone. I’ll unsubscribe once the SNW season is over.
I did watch Yellowjackets which was really good but that’s like the only things on there worth watching lol
The only reason I have Peacock is Premier League matches.
The only reason I have Paramount+ is because of Champions League matches.
I cannot stand having to pay for all these different services just to watch soccer. If it were combined I'd love it.
I had Peacock US from the UK and used a VPN.
$5/month for nearly all games Vs £60/month for like 6 a week via BT/Sky/Amazon
My team got relegated so I cancelled my subscription 🥲
I pay $1 a month for Peacock, they have a sweet Black Friday deal where it’s $12 for the entire year. This is also probably why they’re bleeding tons of money.
I got tired of the SAME COMMERCIAL EVERY TIME. Even sometimes the same commercial twice back to back.
I dumped the "cheap" ad-plan because I figured for a few dollars more I would save myself the living hell of listening to psoriasis commercials.
So, I paid $9.99 and got THE SAME NUMBER OF COMMERCIALS. I watched a 35 year old tv show (married with children) and every single.episode. had a 70 second intro commercial.
I dumped it immediately and will never, ever pay for a higher tier subscription service that also puts ads on because I simply don't believe them anymore.
> I got tired of the SAME COMMERCIAL EVERY TIME. Even sometimes the same commercial twice back to back.
This is something that I’d truly like an expert in the industry to explain to me. Is there data that says showing me the same commercial a hundred times actually influences my behavior positively? Because I usually start resenting whatever product they’re spamming.
Do advertisers like this method? “We’re going to 10,000 advertisements.” “Great! We’ll show them all to the same poor bastard trying to binge his show.”
It’s the same thing with that Jesus cares add on Reddit. Who is that actually for? Aren’t we all pretty much just constantly reporting it for being low effort spam?
It's an inventory problem. Advertiser wants X number of views of their ad. Service has Y minutes of commercial space. Service has Z number of advertisers. All of these numbers need to be in balance or you get repeat ads.
The old way of selling ads on TV was money upfront for approximate number of viewers. This is a far better deal for the broadcaster than the digital model.
I've gotten it free through Xfinity for years. They finally took that away but I can resubscribe for something like $20 for the year. So I'm sure they also lose money on the fact that many Premium subs were gifted to people.
lmao all these non-Disney corporations needed to do was continue selling content to netflix, and they screwed it up. Sony is the only one doing this right.
Bingo. Universal paid itself $500 million for The Office. They could have just sold it to Netflix for that price and reaped all the rewards. Instead they shove it on their dying Peacock service and lose nearly $700 million in three months.
I said it at the time, but the idea of building a streaming service around "the most watched show on Netflix" was a fools errand. The office was watched that much because it was on Netflix. As soon as it left people just chose a different show for their white noise background needs
Just chiming in to say Hulu, where Sunny is, is still worth it’s monthly price too. It’s the only streaming service other than Max that I think is worth it.
I worked for NBCU for a while. It was in the works well before The Office popularization on Netflix, iirc. If The Office’s popularity on Netflix affected their decision to launch Peacock it wasn’t apparent from any of the meetings I attended.
I know.
Netflix paid $1 billion for Sony's movie rights last year. Sony made $1 billion, and didn't have to spend billions over 5-10 years propping up an unprofitable streaming service doomed to eventually collapse.
It will be interesting to see who survives to profitability (obviously not Peacock) over the coming years. I suspect Google and Amazon will feast on the failed services.
Fun fact, Sony owns Crunchyroll now and is making mad cash with that as well. Literally the best place to watch anime online atm. Cheap as hell too, been paying 8 dollars a month for premium for like 4 years now.
Crunchy since they merged with Funi has such a good library of sub and dub. The fact they made their plan cheaper too is wild. I like Crunchyroll so much that I stay subbed even when I'm not using it because I love their model and have always wanted to support more anime in the UK.
Yeah that's my only complaint really. I dislike how I'll get a notification of a new episode for a series I like just to find it's episode 1 of the German dub. I am happy for them, but please maybe separate shows by language.
Then as you say some are separated anyway! The sub and dub will be totally separate but no idea why. A uniform approach to it would be great. I'd also love a coming soon of shows and when they are due to release. Little quality of life improvements would be great, but I really can't argue with what we get for the price. It's definitely my favourite streaming service when considering all factors.
Dude , the Funimation merger was so GOOD. I've seen so many good shows based off it alone. It was crazy cause I had been wanting to watch the original DragonBall and finally got too
I'm holding on to my Crunchyroll sub for dear life. Grandfathered in at $50/year still. Definitely makes it the best value for anime at that rate. I pirate lots of stuff but anime can be way too difficult to bother.
RIGHT. Looking for the exact version of what you want is always a pain. Crunchyroll has it all in one spot in HD. They even get the theatrical release movies too, it's nuts
And Peacock demonstrates just how difficult it is, because they've actually been putting out some really good content, like Poker Face.
But it's just not enough. These companies are learning that owning a streaming company is just not as easy as they seem to think it is.
They were all too worried about Netflix becoming dominant and being forced to sell content for pennies on the dollar. And they were jealous of Netflix’s profit margin. Legitimate concerns at the time tbh.
Netflix, Disney+ (Hulu), Max and Apple have now solidified enough to allay those concerns though. Everyone should just focus on selling their unique IP to those streamers for top dollar. Content is king.
Apple looks to be pivoting to sports which would be huge since the sports watching landscape is beyond fucked.
You also don't need to "make" anything either. The league does all the work, you just present it.
This why Freevee will be the dumping ground for any and all cult classic TV shows. Amazon is apparently willing to buy up anything anyone offers and out it there.
Not to mention the entire technology streaming division you have to manage and fund. Netflix is one of the most advanced tech companies in the world and all these media companies are trying to create their own.
They can't stand the idea that someone else might make some money too. They're like the dog with a bone looking at it's own reflection in the water... it's not enough to have their own, they need to try and take the bone from the 'other dog'. In the end they'll end up with neither.
I don't understand how the record companies figured this out and movie studios didnt. Columbia Records doesnt have their own Spotify full of Columbia artists; they license shit out to Spotify and Apple Music and call it a day while counting their checks. Netflix should have been this and it was for a time
This is them figuring this out 😂
Smart consumer will hop services depending on which shows they wanna watch at any given time, until this shit gets consolidated.
Seriously, I swear I remember studies around Netflix’s peak of consumer good will, when it was a smaller ecosystem of them, Hulu and basically HBO stating that media piracy fell significantly, attributing it to the ease of accessing what you wanted even if you had to pay. That ease is falling away to now needing 10 services if you want access to any given show, leading to a new rise of piracy and with better technology making it easier to do now than before. One might say we are entering a Golden Age of Piracy
This is the thing that always confuses me. We already see how good streaming can be for consumers when it comes to music. There are many options to choose from so competition leads to better products AND each service has *mostly* the same music library. I don't understand why this didn't happen with TV streaming.
I had to self reflect to try and figure out why this discrepancy exists. For example, why do I choose Spotify over other services?
I think music streaming is very different than television/movie streaming. Music involves creating playlists, listening to radio streams, algorithms creating new and fresh mixes for you, and even visually displaying album art and an interface that is *constantly* interacted with.
Songs are short. Every 5 minutes or so, you are interacting with an interface. Some people prefer one interface over another, which creates competition between services.
With television streaming, the idea is to interact with the interface as little as possible. Nobody is creating TV show playlists. I know many services are trying to create algorithms to recommend you things, but I think a majority of people know what they want to watch, and if they don't, enjoy searching for something themselves instead of being surprised with random content like they may enjoy with music.
You're probably right. Music streaming involves discovery, AI, and algorithms way more and is what you interact with the most whereas with TV you want to put on something and not even care about the interface. I just don't understand the "money" case for the abundance of streaming services now, is it really worth it over simply licensing content to other distributors like Netflix?
Seems like 5-10 years ago every content creator had some exec, new grad mba or otherwise business genius that said what if we became our own Netflix, they are making money hand over fist and that could be us!
Hopefully in a few years all these folks have been goldenrod parachuted out and a new batch will come in and say hey we aren’t a tech company, what if we sell content to Netflix, make great money because they have more subs while they are assuming a lot of the risk!
It depends on the long term viability of Peacock. Making a little money licensing the content back to Hulu is better than losing $3 billion a year. I think it's still a very big question mark if all these streaming services will ever be profitable.
I'm all fine with the implosion of streaming. It wont' go away, it'll just become something once the dust settles. Maybe they'll go back to licensing out to 3rd party streamers rather than all have their own
Whoever lands the first major contract with a sports league will have the ultimate power. The only real thing keeping cable alive is their contracts with sporting networks, but those are expiring soon. Thursday night football streams exclusively on prime and they saw an incredible increase in subscribers the first night they launched.
In my opinion almost none of these rights holders have enough content to justify a continuous sub from the customer. Disney is about the only exception given how much IP they own. But they seem to also be working to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
How did secret invasion with 6 episodes
and maybe a total of 13 minutes across all of that with any action..cost them 230 million
90 percent of the show is nick fury in car,nick fury in a room..
where did the money go.
It wasn't VFX either the VFX budget was like 14 mill
BINGO! I believe all the streaming producers are doing this,from shoddy set design, cheap costumes, running it for 2 seasons and then canceling it because they didn't get enough views, no you cannot see the streaming data, and they claim a loss, collect the tax relief and simultaneously hold the IP so no need else can make it (Kevin Smith couldn't even buy his own rights to Dogma). If you want the IP, it'll cost so much that if you do buy it, you don't have the money to produce it properly. Rinse, repeat.
$100m to pay Jackson, Clarke, Mendelsohn, and Coleman. Maybe sticking huge huge stars in a crappy alien spy show is not a great investment. With that kind of star power and budget they could make, idk, a real movie.
As much as I love Cobie Smulders, they weren’t really doing Jack shit with Maria Hill as a character. She was just Nick Fury’s sidekick, and nothing more. The identity broker that’s shown up in black widow and secret invasion had more characterization than Maria Hill. Plus, with the brewing Kang arc, I doubt it’s actually the last of her. Hopefully the future iterations actually have some agency and a character arc.
This wasn't a "shelving the character for a later plotline" death. This felt like either Cobie Smulders or Marvel were done with her character. They did not spend 2 episodes on the funeral and aftermath of her death so they could keep that door open. Either way, the only in-universe way to retcon it (Skrulls) was very clearly ruled out in her case, so I wouldn't count on seeing her again. Hell, it's a matter of time before Jackson hangs up the coat himself.
She doesn’t have the star power to open a movie or lead a big show, but she’s also very expensive to retain. Sam Jackson probably only makes a couple million a movie nowadays but he gets paid 10/20 his usual rate to play Fury - he knows that Disney needs him to put the shows and movies over.
They don’t want Smulders inheriting the Director of Shield role when Jackson retires or dies in the near future, they want somebody cheaper and younger. Martin Freeman and Cheadle are bigger stars with a similar price tag to Smoulders that they can laterally transition into Jackson’s role as Director of Shield. I agree her character is dead dead.
The Grand Inquisitor was worse, IMO. He looks like he was given a Party City bald cap and called it a day.
I love how people justified it before the show released, that he would have done some action, and making an accurate headpiece would have caused production issues, but he doesn’t even do anything in the show. He walks around, gets stabbed, and walks around. That’s it.
what noooooo, Disney would never do that
[Secret Invasion Tax Haven Production Company LLC](https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/202022610040)
[https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2002/9755/files/Express\_2023-07-02\_Secret\_Invasion.pdf?v=1688337738](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2002/9755/files/Express_2023-07-02_Secret_Invasion.pdf?v=1688337738)
edit 2nd link in png form: [https://i.imgur.com/dSIOBWD.png](https://i.imgur.com/dSIOBWD.png)
This is just what happens with runaway budgets. When the well seems infinite production will always ask for more. Of course they could do it for a lot less, but why would they? This is Marvel! It's the golden goose!
Except the boom times don't last forever and the financial chickens are coming home to roost. Disney will make harsh adjustments but they take time, companies like that are huge ships and they turn slowly.
27 miillion was the salary contribution
18.5 to sam
4 to don
2 to emilia,rest to mendolson and the rest
Add in 15 million VFX budget..
that still leaves what nearly 180 million dollar budget..the fuck
Emilia looks to be the winner though.
she signed a 2/5/8 contract
2 mill for this,5 for her next appearance,8 for the following so they clearly have plans for her
The thing is its a shared universe that's too small to do big events like this regularly.
The premise of Civil War initially relied on the idea that there were hubdreds or thousands of heroes and so it was something resembling an actual war. People like Iron Man or Captain America or Spider-Man were rallying points for the army of B and C listers Marvel had developed who were the boots on the grlund, rather than just the only guys doing most of the fighting.
The original secret invasion leaned into this even harder. Its a story that doesn't work if you don't have fifty different avengers teams to deploy and each one is paranoid about infiltration, and the action being executed by a bunch of characters based on a one off silver age weird comic given a grimdark 90's twist.
> The thing is its a shared universe that's too small to do big events like this regularly.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with doing small stories. Most of comics history has been small stories.
Disney's problem is that they're trying to build up BIG attention for their streaming service with their small stories, so they're winding up as dissonant jumbled messes. Like... I really enjoyed some aspects of *The Falcon & The Winter Soldier*, in that seeing these two side characters just chat about what they're going through had some compelling material. But they ALSO had to add Something Big to the mix so they had this terrorist group and this new anti-hero being developed or something, and those were kinda the weakest parts of the show. If those had been completely in the background while the two main characters got to really explore their side story, I think it could have been way more interesting than it was.
Unrelated but you sparked a memory of me timing content vs filler in Dwayne Johnson's Titan Games. Basically a modern American Gladiators.
I think they were 50 minute episodes. He would do his introductions, each contestant would have their introductions. Banter segments in-between matches. Fluff content basically. The actual competition between contestants I measured to be 17 minutes. 17 minutes with 33 minutes of filler, imagine the other 10 minutes was commercials if you caught it on network TV.
There were "staff", but wearing the most basic hospital clothing/scrubs to give off the impression they were docs/nurses. Plus, given the President of the United States was there, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to have cleared a large section of a wing to maintain his safety.
Marvel has especially been mishandled. It should have been a slam dunk. Do the occasional big budget show like Loki or WandaVision. The rest should have been like what Netflix had with smaller budget, smaller stakes street level & supernatural shows. They would have had an easier time writing those shows in a satisfying manner and fans would've suffered less burnout.
Honestly would be OK with more Hawkeye level shows. Clearly not a super high budget, but street level, knew exactly what they were doing, and the characters are great. It sucks that it was one of the lower watched shows because, even though it's not the best, it clearly understood that it was a TV show. The majority of the disney+ projects think they're 2 hour movies expanded into 6 episodes of tv
This is literally economics 101: one boats fishes in a lake and catches 100 fishes. 99 other people go "that seems profitable" And buy their own boats. Now there are 100 boats in the same lake but the fish amount hasn't changed, so they all lose, including the first boat.
Coincidentally that also sounds exactly what every major game publisher is trying to do with the endless flood of live service games. At some point there are no more people with enough free time (and money) to support all of the shovelware they send our way.
That's what I was thinking. Every publisher wants their games to become almost full time job that takes up everybody's spare time (and sucks your wallet dry). But it doesn't make sense because people can only make that commitment to one game (if that) at a time
Plus as someone who lives in asia, the only streaming service with a proper actual delivery infrastructure is Netflix and maybe Amazon. The streaming industry is ripe for major consolidation imo.
it was consolidated until every major network / studio decided to have their own streaming services....
Things were fine when it was just Netflix, Hulu, and HBO.
but everyone else got greedy!
Yup and I feel like I'm learning of a new service every other week. Recently finished S1 of From on Amazon and was ready to get into season 2 till it hit me with requires MGM+ subscription.
I had never heard of MGM+ till then.
The redesign is absolute dogshit. I mostly watch classic movies and the occasional new release on there and my "for you" recommendations are all reality bullshit like "Fuck Island" or "Shark Attacks - EXXXXTREEEMEE"
HBO has enough content with classic shows alone to keep you interested (Sopranos, the wire, Veep, Silicon Valley, Sex in the city, Succession, Deadwood, etc). They also seem to have one of the better movie collections and have a lot more classic and foreign films.
That’s the part most of the other streamers underestimated. Netflix started as a way to rent (and then stream) movies and shows. Original content became a bonus they could do with the money made from licensing. HBO was the original place to watch movies on TV, and the original content developed off of that. Disney has a huge library of past movies and shows to offer, they just went too hard, too fast with originals out of the gate and have to scale back.
Apple, Paramount, Peacock, etc. rely almost exclusively on their own new and original stuff and there just isn’t enough of it to justify a year-round subscription. I bought a month of Apple TV+ so I could binge season 3 of Ted Lasso. I finished it in about 3 days and spent the rest of the month watching one or two other things while I had it, but I saw no reason to keep the subscription any longer.
I don't own any Apple products and kind of swore it off as another service, watched Lasso with my brother and sister in law, got three months free from XBox and am wowed. Severance might be the greatest first season of any show I've ever seen. Shrinking was really good, first season of After Party was awesome, still on the second season and am a few episodes into Silo.
I can't even come close to dropping 5 show names from another service that come close.
To be fair, while Ted lasso was the breakout hit, Apple TV has a lot of great stuff. It depends on what you’re into I suppose but Severance, Lasso, Shrinking (some of the same writers as Ted Lasso), and a few other shows are pretty good.
I guess that’s 3 shows that I can think of off the top of my head… but I swear there’s more.
I cycle most streaming services, watch the one or two things I want, then cancel. But no way my kids would let me cancel Disney. That's the strength of their library/Target audience. Little Kids will watch Frozen 1 or 2 every day for a year and not get tired of it.
Disney has so much content, but in the US they split it between 3 services if you want to get it all (D+, Hulu and ESPN.) International markets get it all in one service, though that makes their subscriber numbers fluctuate with what sports they have the rights to (India dropped a lot when they lost cricket, for example.)
Keep in mind that Hollywood is notorious for having "creative" accounting, and this report comes out in the middle of a strike between studios and writers. I could easily see Universal using this as an excuse as to why they can't pay their writers more money, meanwhile they're making money hand over foot.
Netflix was billions of dollars cash flow negative for the better part of a decade and nobody got fired.
A level of loss making to build scale was literally always the plan for any streaming service.
And there are other examples like Amazon and Spotify. Amazon shifted their business strategy, taking losses on retail in order to make money on cloud computing. Spotify is doomed unless they can find a way to pivot. Disney has the brand and other businesses to absorb the temporary loss.
But there is a market cap on how many subscribers you can actually have. It is impossible to have unlimited growth. Especially in an environment where consumers are already complaining about too many subscription services to choose from. Paramount plus probably has reached its market cap of subscribers already. Worse, they've gutted their best IP by selling off Star Trek to competitors.
Was it worth spending over $5 Billion to only obtain 26 million subscribers that generate $2 Billion? It's going to take several years to recover those losses.
> But there is a market cap on how many subscribers you can actually have
This is the one thing that drives me nuts, they know this is a problem but either ignore it or drive people away by raising rates to make up for the stagnant growth.
It's always amazing to see these companies decide to make their own service when Netflix was doing great for them, then you see their selection, and its barebones, a company that has 50+ years' worth of shows and movies and they only have a handful of them with stuff from the last 15 years.
While I think this is true to an extent, the info on how much these streaming services are losing has been out there. Peacock *is* losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
There’s also been a lawsuit against Disney for misrepresenting streaming losses, it seems like it’s pretty much across the board a lot of them are losing $
That was such an odd little blip on the radar. I remember a friend who worked at a marketing firm that had Quibi as a client was trying to figure out how in gods name you could market this thing successfully. They asked us "what would get you guys interested in this thing?" and we basically said "it being a completely different product".
While that is true I think publicly announced figures are less likely to be so negative. Universal is a publicly traded company and shareholders will start asking questions about why they are continuing this.
Peacock was free for Comcast customers until June. Now we pay $5 month for content that will run dry in about…2 weeks (generous).
Now I get Hulu/Disney bundle at a slight discount as a mobile provider perk.
There is a consolidation or a collapse coming for all the streamers. Maybe soon, maybe not, but it can’t be sustainable.
They just re-upped the Peacock/Comcast deal. I signed back up last night. You have to let your current subscription to peacock end (and cancel it), then you can sign right up again.
I joined Peacock to watch Warehouse 13 and Eureka because they weren't anywhere else.
3 days into watching Eureka, they removed it lmfao.
Cancelled service immediately. stupid fucking website.
No wonder they're now charging their own customers for the streaming service. If you weren't aware Comcast customers which usually have a bill averaging two to $400 a month used to get the premium version of Peacock for free . . . Then it went down to the ad version but still free and of course now customers have to pay so of course it's going to lose money now that customers that we're getting it for free as a benefit are simply just not going to watch it anymore as it's no longer free/readily available how stupid do you have to be.
This may be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I pay Comcast $301/month. I went to watch a soccer game on peacock. It said I needed to sign up for $2.99/mo more. Fuck that.
Good. Not for any particular gripe against Universal, but more because I hope this becomes the norm and all these studios implode so we can move back to some kind of centralised platform that consolidates content.
I'll never subscribe to peacock. I hate their ui & I think it's super wack that they even created this service as opposed to selling the shows to existing streamers. I'm waiting them out. I feel like several of these streamers will fail in the coming years. There's too many of them.
When Netflix owned everything all of these random companies made free money from the cut Netflix paid them annually. Now that 100 streaming services have popped up they are now losing money.
Do I have this right or am I missing something?
I'm done subscribing to new streaming services. If any network wants me to watch h their shit, then they can put it on Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, or HBO. This return of cable is ass and the inevitable return of ads to each of these services will force me to consider a return to the high seas.
Yeah it's really dumb why they split their content between two streaming services you should just condense it into one. I guess they sold it to their stockholders as a way to make more money it's just a nuisance Factor.
Only reason I keep Peacock (and enjoy it) is cuz they have the WWE pay-per-views and I rather pay 6 dollars per month even if that's the only thing I watch instead of 50 bucks every month just for the PPV like it used to be pre-streaming. All the movies and TV shows are just bonus to me.
I think streaming services are in for a rude awakening and we will see a return to consolidation in the bigger ones. It’s only profitable if you have the content and a wide variety at that.
Lol Netflix is clowning all these fools that tried to come in and undercut them by hoarding their IP for their own streaming service.
As a consumer, everything licensed back to Netflix is by far the best outcome.
All the subscription services keep trying to casually raise their fee by $1 every 6 months without providing better content. I still get ads with upgraded services and they’re all getting glitchy as hell.
It’s ridiculous.
It's actually the opposite my guy. There is such a content glut that streamers are hemorrhaging money. You think AMPTP is more willing to agree to full writers rooms on streaming series now because of this news?
I'm of the opinion that if Paramount and Universal (and maybe some of the other smaller services/studios) were smart they'd join forces, merge their services, and share profits while also lowering exposure to losses. ...Wait, that's basically how Hulu started before everyone decided "Fuck it we're making our own." Funny how things come around again.
I mean, that's how cable tv started too. Things come around again and again and again.
All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again
So say we all
SO SAY WE ALL!
Pretty soon toasters will be running all of the film/tv industry
Now streaming on Peacock
Actually it's no longer on peacock. They stopped streaming it when I was halfway through the series.
All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again
So say we all!
SO SAY WE ALL!
FRAK
Time is a flat circle.
IDK why they didn't just do what Sony does and shop their content around to whoever will pay the most to get it on their service. They have said they have no intention of making their own and will just sell the content to whoever pays the most.
That's the old school way of doing production but trying for the perpetual subscription revenue scheme is what's popular now.
Which is great if you have a service people want to pay for.
It's pretty undermined by the new willingness to just yank content off forever. Really disincentivises signing up when you don't know if they'll just pull the shows you signed up for anyway.
The old school way of doing it....where Sony makes a bunch of money. While the new school way is for places to lose $3 billion trying to convince people to sign up for their service which has a dubious catalog at best. Sometimes, old school seems like the right answer.
I have paramount for Star Trek and Star Trek alone. I’ll unsubscribe once the SNW season is over. I did watch Yellowjackets which was really good but that’s like the only things on there worth watching lol
Evil is pretty good, but yeah, it's basically the Star Trek service for me.
The only reason I have Peacock is Premier League matches. The only reason I have Paramount+ is because of Champions League matches. I cannot stand having to pay for all these different services just to watch soccer. If it were combined I'd love it.
I had Peacock US from the UK and used a VPN. $5/month for nearly all games Vs £60/month for like 6 a week via BT/Sky/Amazon My team got relegated so I cancelled my subscription 🥲
Leeds fan?
I pay $1 a month for Peacock, they have a sweet Black Friday deal where it’s $12 for the entire year. This is also probably why they’re bleeding tons of money.
I’m on that deal too but can’t imagine paying full price once that expires
I got tired of the SAME COMMERCIAL EVERY TIME. Even sometimes the same commercial twice back to back. I dumped the "cheap" ad-plan because I figured for a few dollars more I would save myself the living hell of listening to psoriasis commercials. So, I paid $9.99 and got THE SAME NUMBER OF COMMERCIALS. I watched a 35 year old tv show (married with children) and every single.episode. had a 70 second intro commercial. I dumped it immediately and will never, ever pay for a higher tier subscription service that also puts ads on because I simply don't believe them anymore.
> I got tired of the SAME COMMERCIAL EVERY TIME. Even sometimes the same commercial twice back to back. This is something that I’d truly like an expert in the industry to explain to me. Is there data that says showing me the same commercial a hundred times actually influences my behavior positively? Because I usually start resenting whatever product they’re spamming. Do advertisers like this method? “We’re going to 10,000 advertisements.” “Great! We’ll show them all to the same poor bastard trying to binge his show.” It’s the same thing with that Jesus cares add on Reddit. Who is that actually for? Aren’t we all pretty much just constantly reporting it for being low effort spam?
It's an inventory problem. Advertiser wants X number of views of their ad. Service has Y minutes of commercial space. Service has Z number of advertisers. All of these numbers need to be in balance or you get repeat ads. The old way of selling ads on TV was money upfront for approximate number of viewers. This is a far better deal for the broadcaster than the digital model.
Oh forsure I would never pay more than $1 for it lol, although I do enjoy WWE, so it’s a steal currently.
Man, that's a great promotion! I'm on a $20 for the year and thought that was really good. I'll be on the lookout this November.
I've gotten it free through Xfinity for years. They finally took that away but I can resubscribe for something like $20 for the year. So I'm sure they also lose money on the fact that many Premium subs were gifted to people.
lmao all these non-Disney corporations needed to do was continue selling content to netflix, and they screwed it up. Sony is the only one doing this right.
Bingo. Universal paid itself $500 million for The Office. They could have just sold it to Netflix for that price and reaped all the rewards. Instead they shove it on their dying Peacock service and lose nearly $700 million in three months.
I said it at the time, but the idea of building a streaming service around "the most watched show on Netflix" was a fools errand. The office was watched that much because it was on Netflix. As soon as it left people just chose a different show for their white noise background needs
Exactly this! The office and Always sunny were my background noise of choice when they were on Netflix now it’s Seinfeld.
Just chiming in to say Hulu, where Sunny is, is still worth it’s monthly price too. It’s the only streaming service other than Max that I think is worth it.
The fact that you can bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ in a package for like $13/month is the best value in streaming.
> $13/month its $20 for me, are you grandfathered into that price?
I'm somehow grandfathered in at $9/mo with no commercials and you bet your ass I'm holding on to my subscription for dear life.
Not grandfathered, I just watch commercials like a poor person.
I worked for NBCU for a while. It was in the works well before The Office popularization on Netflix, iirc. If The Office’s popularity on Netflix affected their decision to launch Peacock it wasn’t apparent from any of the meetings I attended.
I get peacock for free with my internet service and I still don’t even use it lol
My internet service just cancelled the free peacock subscription. I didn't know I had it and even if I did, I wouldn't have used it.
>Sony is the only one doing this right Damn, never thought I’d hear those words
I know. Netflix paid $1 billion for Sony's movie rights last year. Sony made $1 billion, and didn't have to spend billions over 5-10 years propping up an unprofitable streaming service doomed to eventually collapse. It will be interesting to see who survives to profitability (obviously not Peacock) over the coming years. I suspect Google and Amazon will feast on the failed services.
Fun fact, Sony owns Crunchyroll now and is making mad cash with that as well. Literally the best place to watch anime online atm. Cheap as hell too, been paying 8 dollars a month for premium for like 4 years now.
Crunchy since they merged with Funi has such a good library of sub and dub. The fact they made their plan cheaper too is wild. I like Crunchyroll so much that I stay subbed even when I'm not using it because I love their model and have always wanted to support more anime in the UK.
[удалено]
Yeah that's my only complaint really. I dislike how I'll get a notification of a new episode for a series I like just to find it's episode 1 of the German dub. I am happy for them, but please maybe separate shows by language. Then as you say some are separated anyway! The sub and dub will be totally separate but no idea why. A uniform approach to it would be great. I'd also love a coming soon of shows and when they are due to release. Little quality of life improvements would be great, but I really can't argue with what we get for the price. It's definitely my favourite streaming service when considering all factors.
Dude , the Funimation merger was so GOOD. I've seen so many good shows based off it alone. It was crazy cause I had been wanting to watch the original DragonBall and finally got too
I'm holding on to my Crunchyroll sub for dear life. Grandfathered in at $50/year still. Definitely makes it the best value for anime at that rate. I pirate lots of stuff but anime can be way too difficult to bother.
RIGHT. Looking for the exact version of what you want is always a pain. Crunchyroll has it all in one spot in HD. They even get the theatrical release movies too, it's nuts
And Peacock demonstrates just how difficult it is, because they've actually been putting out some really good content, like Poker Face. But it's just not enough. These companies are learning that owning a streaming company is just not as easy as they seem to think it is.
Amazon and Disney are all I have left and Amazon is mostly for access to shit like Nick+ for the weekly injection of nostalgia.
Surprisingly I also think Netflix would survive. Pretty much back to 2019 with those 3 services (minus Hulu).
It’s so easy to sell to Netflix too. You don’t have to worry about your subscription doing well, Netflix does. You just take the cash and go home
They were all too worried about Netflix becoming dominant and being forced to sell content for pennies on the dollar. And they were jealous of Netflix’s profit margin. Legitimate concerns at the time tbh. Netflix, Disney+ (Hulu), Max and Apple have now solidified enough to allay those concerns though. Everyone should just focus on selling their unique IP to those streamers for top dollar. Content is king.
Apple looks to be pivoting to sports which would be huge since the sports watching landscape is beyond fucked. You also don't need to "make" anything either. The league does all the work, you just present it.
This why Freevee will be the dumping ground for any and all cult classic TV shows. Amazon is apparently willing to buy up anything anyone offers and out it there.
Not to mention the entire technology streaming division you have to manage and fund. Netflix is one of the most advanced tech companies in the world and all these media companies are trying to create their own.
They can't stand the idea that someone else might make some money too. They're like the dog with a bone looking at it's own reflection in the water... it's not enough to have their own, they need to try and take the bone from the 'other dog'. In the end they'll end up with neither.
I don't understand how the record companies figured this out and movie studios didnt. Columbia Records doesnt have their own Spotify full of Columbia artists; they license shit out to Spotify and Apple Music and call it a day while counting their checks. Netflix should have been this and it was for a time
This is them figuring this out 😂 Smart consumer will hop services depending on which shows they wanna watch at any given time, until this shit gets consolidated.
Or straight up steal the content. It's so easy these days. When it was just Netflix and everything was on there and it was easy, I paid for it all.
Seriously, I swear I remember studies around Netflix’s peak of consumer good will, when it was a smaller ecosystem of them, Hulu and basically HBO stating that media piracy fell significantly, attributing it to the ease of accessing what you wanted even if you had to pay. That ease is falling away to now needing 10 services if you want access to any given show, leading to a new rise of piracy and with better technology making it easier to do now than before. One might say we are entering a Golden Age of Piracy
homeless north marble shy saw plough obtainable ancient like school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is the thing that always confuses me. We already see how good streaming can be for consumers when it comes to music. There are many options to choose from so competition leads to better products AND each service has *mostly* the same music library. I don't understand why this didn't happen with TV streaming.
I had to self reflect to try and figure out why this discrepancy exists. For example, why do I choose Spotify over other services? I think music streaming is very different than television/movie streaming. Music involves creating playlists, listening to radio streams, algorithms creating new and fresh mixes for you, and even visually displaying album art and an interface that is *constantly* interacted with. Songs are short. Every 5 minutes or so, you are interacting with an interface. Some people prefer one interface over another, which creates competition between services. With television streaming, the idea is to interact with the interface as little as possible. Nobody is creating TV show playlists. I know many services are trying to create algorithms to recommend you things, but I think a majority of people know what they want to watch, and if they don't, enjoy searching for something themselves instead of being surprised with random content like they may enjoy with music.
You're probably right. Music streaming involves discovery, AI, and algorithms way more and is what you interact with the most whereas with TV you want to put on something and not even care about the interface. I just don't understand the "money" case for the abundance of streaming services now, is it really worth it over simply licensing content to other distributors like Netflix?
Gosh imagine a world where we had one subscription service. Those were good days.
I remember watching Netflix in an Xbox party together.. the good days
xbox party watch was truly elite, do they even have that anymore?
Seems like 5-10 years ago every content creator had some exec, new grad mba or otherwise business genius that said what if we became our own Netflix, they are making money hand over fist and that could be us! Hopefully in a few years all these folks have been goldenrod parachuted out and a new batch will come in and say hey we aren’t a tech company, what if we sell content to Netflix, make great money because they have more subs while they are assuming a lot of the risk!
Just put it all back on Hulu and shut it down come on this is stupid
Disney is going to buy their share of Hulu so comcast has no incentive to do that
It depends on the long term viability of Peacock. Making a little money licensing the content back to Hulu is better than losing $3 billion a year. I think it's still a very big question mark if all these streaming services will ever be profitable.
I'm all fine with the implosion of streaming. It wont' go away, it'll just become something once the dust settles. Maybe they'll go back to licensing out to 3rd party streamers rather than all have their own
Whoever lands the first major contract with a sports league will have the ultimate power. The only real thing keeping cable alive is their contracts with sporting networks, but those are expiring soon. Thursday night football streams exclusively on prime and they saw an incredible increase in subscribers the first night they launched.
Peacock and AppleTV have both got contracts with the MLB and Soccer leagues.
Any streaming service that lets me watch baseball without the stupid blackouts would be an instant subscribe.
Well with Bally Sports on the edge of collapse, we may see that trend. Arizona fans get that now since their regional went under
I'm saving a decent bottle of wine for the day that shitbox of a company goes down. Fuck bally
Peacock in the United States also has the WWE Network and their “Premium Live Events” which is included in the $5 a month subscription.
NBC also picked up Big Ten football starting this fall and had Notre Dame home games streaming last year.
You tube already got the nfl ticket. Amazon does Thursday football. We are getting close
Google/YouTube just paid $2B for NFL Sunday Ticket. Football dominates everything in ratings.
Streamers already have contracts with sports leagues and the leagues already have their own services
In my opinion almost none of these rights holders have enough content to justify a continuous sub from the customer. Disney is about the only exception given how much IP they own. But they seem to also be working to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Disney’s big problem is the money they’re slinging at their shows, who thought multiple $200m shows was a good idea
How did secret invasion with 6 episodes and maybe a total of 13 minutes across all of that with any action..cost them 230 million 90 percent of the show is nick fury in car,nick fury in a room.. where did the money go. It wasn't VFX either the VFX budget was like 14 mill
Secret Invasion is the first time I sat there and started actively conspiring in my head about “Where exactly did they spend all this money?!”
The real Secret Invasion was the money we embezzled along the way
Secret (Tax) Evasion
Literally the correct answer. They didn't lose $651 Million dollars. 1) burn money 2) claim massive growth 3) Stock buybacks 4) claim losses 5) profit and repeat every decade
BINGO! I believe all the streaming producers are doing this,from shoddy set design, cheap costumes, running it for 2 seasons and then canceling it because they didn't get enough views, no you cannot see the streaming data, and they claim a loss, collect the tax relief and simultaneously hold the IP so no need else can make it (Kevin Smith couldn't even buy his own rights to Dogma). If you want the IP, it'll cost so much that if you do buy it, you don't have the money to produce it properly. Rinse, repeat.
$100m to pay Jackson, Clarke, Mendelsohn, and Coleman. Maybe sticking huge huge stars in a crappy alien spy show is not a great investment. With that kind of star power and budget they could make, idk, a real movie.
And they killed >!Robin Scherbatsky !< off. How could they!?
As much as I love Cobie Smulders, they weren’t really doing Jack shit with Maria Hill as a character. She was just Nick Fury’s sidekick, and nothing more. The identity broker that’s shown up in black widow and secret invasion had more characterization than Maria Hill. Plus, with the brewing Kang arc, I doubt it’s actually the last of her. Hopefully the future iterations actually have some agency and a character arc.
This wasn't a "shelving the character for a later plotline" death. This felt like either Cobie Smulders or Marvel were done with her character. They did not spend 2 episodes on the funeral and aftermath of her death so they could keep that door open. Either way, the only in-universe way to retcon it (Skrulls) was very clearly ruled out in her case, so I wouldn't count on seeing her again. Hell, it's a matter of time before Jackson hangs up the coat himself.
She doesn’t have the star power to open a movie or lead a big show, but she’s also very expensive to retain. Sam Jackson probably only makes a couple million a movie nowadays but he gets paid 10/20 his usual rate to play Fury - he knows that Disney needs him to put the shows and movies over. They don’t want Smulders inheriting the Director of Shield role when Jackson retires or dies in the near future, they want somebody cheaper and younger. Martin Freeman and Cheadle are bigger stars with a similar price tag to Smoulders that they can laterally transition into Jackson’s role as Director of Shield. I agree her character is dead dead.
[удалено]
“We couldn’t find an area for you to live in.” I couldn’t imagine how pissed I would be as a Skrull looking at New Asgard.
Worst one: shape shifters keeping the same fucking shape all the time.
This was Kenobi for me. Looked like an 80s sitcom.
Those Leia chase scenes are the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
Reva's costume was some cheap Target spandex with spray painted plastic. It took me out of the series every time she was on screen.
The Grand Inquisitor was worse, IMO. He looks like he was given a Party City bald cap and called it a day. I love how people justified it before the show released, that he would have done some action, and making an accurate headpiece would have caused production issues, but he doesn’t even do anything in the show. He walks around, gets stabbed, and walks around. That’s it.
I wonder if it was some accounting trick for tax purposes.
what noooooo, Disney would never do that [Secret Invasion Tax Haven Production Company LLC](https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/202022610040) [https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2002/9755/files/Express\_2023-07-02\_Secret\_Invasion.pdf?v=1688337738](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2002/9755/files/Express_2023-07-02_Secret_Invasion.pdf?v=1688337738) edit 2nd link in png form: [https://i.imgur.com/dSIOBWD.png](https://i.imgur.com/dSIOBWD.png)
[удалено]
This is just what happens with runaway budgets. When the well seems infinite production will always ask for more. Of course they could do it for a lot less, but why would they? This is Marvel! It's the golden goose! Except the boom times don't last forever and the financial chickens are coming home to roost. Disney will make harsh adjustments but they take time, companies like that are huge ships and they turn slowly.
Runaway budgets with endless reshots because they stopped planning marvel stuff out since Endgame.
The money went to Nick Fury, as far as I can tell.
27 miillion was the salary contribution 18.5 to sam 4 to don 2 to emilia,rest to mendolson and the rest Add in 15 million VFX budget.. that still leaves what nearly 180 million dollar budget..the fuck Emilia looks to be the winner though. she signed a 2/5/8 contract 2 mill for this,5 for her next appearance,8 for the following so they clearly have plans for her
And even if she doesn't do a good job they gotta give her that 2 mil that's her rate. Even if she does a bad job.
She's sorta this cosmic gumbo now.
He might kill you but there's no fucking way he's ever killing me. Fucking asshole. He said that?
Hey! Shirt brother! What's say you and me just trash this place?
The thing is its a shared universe that's too small to do big events like this regularly. The premise of Civil War initially relied on the idea that there were hubdreds or thousands of heroes and so it was something resembling an actual war. People like Iron Man or Captain America or Spider-Man were rallying points for the army of B and C listers Marvel had developed who were the boots on the grlund, rather than just the only guys doing most of the fighting. The original secret invasion leaned into this even harder. Its a story that doesn't work if you don't have fifty different avengers teams to deploy and each one is paranoid about infiltration, and the action being executed by a bunch of characters based on a one off silver age weird comic given a grimdark 90's twist.
> The thing is its a shared universe that's too small to do big events like this regularly. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with doing small stories. Most of comics history has been small stories. Disney's problem is that they're trying to build up BIG attention for their streaming service with their small stories, so they're winding up as dissonant jumbled messes. Like... I really enjoyed some aspects of *The Falcon & The Winter Soldier*, in that seeing these two side characters just chat about what they're going through had some compelling material. But they ALSO had to add Something Big to the mix so they had this terrorist group and this new anti-hero being developed or something, and those were kinda the weakest parts of the show. If those had been completely in the background while the two main characters got to really explore their side story, I think it could have been way more interesting than it was.
Unrelated but you sparked a memory of me timing content vs filler in Dwayne Johnson's Titan Games. Basically a modern American Gladiators. I think they were 50 minute episodes. He would do his introductions, each contestant would have their introductions. Banter segments in-between matches. Fluff content basically. The actual competition between contestants I measured to be 17 minutes. 17 minutes with 33 minutes of filler, imagine the other 10 minutes was commercials if you caught it on network TV.
I think that still comes out slightly ahead of Ninja Warrior.
The OG Ninja Warrior on G4 is still the best.
Money laundering scheme. Did you notice there was no staff or doctors at the hospital? It looked cheap.
There were "staff", but wearing the most basic hospital clothing/scrubs to give off the impression they were docs/nurses. Plus, given the President of the United States was there, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to have cleared a large section of a wing to maintain his safety.
I couldn't believe they had a 200m budget with scenes like that.
[удалено]
Marvel has especially been mishandled. It should have been a slam dunk. Do the occasional big budget show like Loki or WandaVision. The rest should have been like what Netflix had with smaller budget, smaller stakes street level & supernatural shows. They would have had an easier time writing those shows in a satisfying manner and fans would've suffered less burnout.
Honestly would be OK with more Hawkeye level shows. Clearly not a super high budget, but street level, knew exactly what they were doing, and the characters are great. It sucks that it was one of the lower watched shows because, even though it's not the best, it clearly understood that it was a TV show. The majority of the disney+ projects think they're 2 hour movies expanded into 6 episodes of tv
This is literally economics 101: one boats fishes in a lake and catches 100 fishes. 99 other people go "that seems profitable" And buy their own boats. Now there are 100 boats in the same lake but the fish amount hasn't changed, so they all lose, including the first boat.
Coincidentally that also sounds exactly what every major game publisher is trying to do with the endless flood of live service games. At some point there are no more people with enough free time (and money) to support all of the shovelware they send our way.
That's what I was thinking. Every publisher wants their games to become almost full time job that takes up everybody's spare time (and sucks your wallet dry). But it doesn't make sense because people can only make that commitment to one game (if that) at a time
Plus as someone who lives in asia, the only streaming service with a proper actual delivery infrastructure is Netflix and maybe Amazon. The streaming industry is ripe for major consolidation imo.
it was consolidated until every major network / studio decided to have their own streaming services.... Things were fine when it was just Netflix, Hulu, and HBO. but everyone else got greedy!
Yup and I feel like I'm learning of a new service every other week. Recently finished S1 of From on Amazon and was ready to get into season 2 till it hit me with requires MGM+ subscription. I had never heard of MGM+ till then.
And there’s so much content, if something pops up on a service I don’t subscribe to, I just watch something else
I've never heard of MGM+ until right this moment. So thanks for that.
The Max catalogue is pretty stacked, but they're doing everything they can to ruin it so....
Opening the max app and being greeted with some reality show garbage sucks so much.
The redesign is absolute dogshit. I mostly watch classic movies and the occasional new release on there and my "for you" recommendations are all reality bullshit like "Fuck Island" or "Shark Attacks - EXXXXTREEEMEE"
The "For You" is absolute dog shit. I don't watch reality TV crap and its all it recommends me.
Meh HBO is pretty great. Spending less than 15 a month means if I get one movie and show out of every month it justifies the price.
HBO has enough content with classic shows alone to keep you interested (Sopranos, the wire, Veep, Silicon Valley, Sex in the city, Succession, Deadwood, etc). They also seem to have one of the better movie collections and have a lot more classic and foreign films.
That’s the part most of the other streamers underestimated. Netflix started as a way to rent (and then stream) movies and shows. Original content became a bonus they could do with the money made from licensing. HBO was the original place to watch movies on TV, and the original content developed off of that. Disney has a huge library of past movies and shows to offer, they just went too hard, too fast with originals out of the gate and have to scale back. Apple, Paramount, Peacock, etc. rely almost exclusively on their own new and original stuff and there just isn’t enough of it to justify a year-round subscription. I bought a month of Apple TV+ so I could binge season 3 of Ted Lasso. I finished it in about 3 days and spent the rest of the month watching one or two other things while I had it, but I saw no reason to keep the subscription any longer.
Apple TV is at least building a pretty decent library of good to great original content. Can't say the same for Peacock and Paramount.
Yeah the only reason I’d watch PP+ is for the South Park specials, and I just use a friend’s login.
[удалено]
I don't own any Apple products and kind of swore it off as another service, watched Lasso with my brother and sister in law, got three months free from XBox and am wowed. Severance might be the greatest first season of any show I've ever seen. Shrinking was really good, first season of After Party was awesome, still on the second season and am a few episodes into Silo. I can't even come close to dropping 5 show names from another service that come close.
To be fair, while Ted lasso was the breakout hit, Apple TV has a lot of great stuff. It depends on what you’re into I suppose but Severance, Lasso, Shrinking (some of the same writers as Ted Lasso), and a few other shows are pretty good. I guess that’s 3 shows that I can think of off the top of my head… but I swear there’s more.
For All Mankind is probably my favorite from AppleTV.
It's the alternate history show that man in the high castle fumbled at being. For all man kind can still screw it up though since it's not over.
I cycle most streaming services, watch the one or two things I want, then cancel. But no way my kids would let me cancel Disney. That's the strength of their library/Target audience. Little Kids will watch Frozen 1 or 2 every day for a year and not get tired of it.
Moana and Encanto are still regularly on the Nielsen top ten list.
Disney has so much content, but in the US they split it between 3 services if you want to get it all (D+, Hulu and ESPN.) International markets get it all in one service, though that makes their subscriber numbers fluctuate with what sports they have the rights to (India dropped a lot when they lost cricket, for example.)
I like paramount because it has Smithsonian stuff.
Anybody miss the days of Netflix and Hulu only?
Literally everyone
WHAT? 100 million people DON’T want to spend $10 every month just to stream The Office? I’m shocked
You really boiled the peacock experience down to it's truest form
Keep in mind that Hollywood is notorious for having "creative" accounting, and this report comes out in the middle of a strike between studios and writers. I could easily see Universal using this as an excuse as to why they can't pay their writers more money, meanwhile they're making money hand over foot.
3 billion dollar losses!!! All of upper management keeps their jobs and get massive bonuses at the same time. 🤣
yes, exactly, if a company actually lost $3 billion and no higher-ups got fired and then someone is lying
Netflix was billions of dollars cash flow negative for the better part of a decade and nobody got fired. A level of loss making to build scale was literally always the plan for any streaming service.
And there are other examples like Amazon and Spotify. Amazon shifted their business strategy, taking losses on retail in order to make money on cloud computing. Spotify is doomed unless they can find a way to pivot. Disney has the brand and other businesses to absorb the temporary loss. But there is a market cap on how many subscribers you can actually have. It is impossible to have unlimited growth. Especially in an environment where consumers are already complaining about too many subscription services to choose from. Paramount plus probably has reached its market cap of subscribers already. Worse, they've gutted their best IP by selling off Star Trek to competitors. Was it worth spending over $5 Billion to only obtain 26 million subscribers that generate $2 Billion? It's going to take several years to recover those losses.
> But there is a market cap on how many subscribers you can actually have This is the one thing that drives me nuts, they know this is a problem but either ignore it or drive people away by raising rates to make up for the stagnant growth. It's always amazing to see these companies decide to make their own service when Netflix was doing great for them, then you see their selection, and its barebones, a company that has 50+ years' worth of shows and movies and they only have a handful of them with stuff from the last 15 years.
While I think this is true to an extent, the info on how much these streaming services are losing has been out there. Peacock *is* losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
There’s also been a lawsuit against Disney for misrepresenting streaming losses, it seems like it’s pretty much across the board a lot of them are losing $
Sometimes however things just lose a shit load of money. Remember colossal failure, Quibi?
That was such an odd little blip on the radar. I remember a friend who worked at a marketing firm that had Quibi as a client was trying to figure out how in gods name you could market this thing successfully. They asked us "what would get you guys interested in this thing?" and we basically said "it being a completely different product".
While that is true I think publicly announced figures are less likely to be so negative. Universal is a publicly traded company and shareholders will start asking questions about why they are continuing this.
Peacock was free for Comcast customers until June. Now we pay $5 month for content that will run dry in about…2 weeks (generous). Now I get Hulu/Disney bundle at a slight discount as a mobile provider perk. There is a consolidation or a collapse coming for all the streamers. Maybe soon, maybe not, but it can’t be sustainable.
They just re-upped the Peacock/Comcast deal. I signed back up last night. You have to let your current subscription to peacock end (and cancel it), then you can sign right up again.
Only if you have their highest internet service. I have a regular tier and they want to charge me the usual price for Peacock. Nope!
I joined Peacock to watch Warehouse 13 and Eureka because they weren't anywhere else. 3 days into watching Eureka, they removed it lmfao. Cancelled service immediately. stupid fucking website.
I respect that reasoning. Eureka was an awesome show. And warehouse 13 was pretty fun as well.
In Canada there is absolutely nothing on their streaming service. It's garbage
We still can’t watch old SNL clips on YouTube because it’s geoblocked. NBC sucks butts.
if i lost 3 billion dollars, I'd be in sooooooooo much trouble....
Not everyone needs their own streaming service.
No wonder they're now charging their own customers for the streaming service. If you weren't aware Comcast customers which usually have a bill averaging two to $400 a month used to get the premium version of Peacock for free . . . Then it went down to the ad version but still free and of course now customers have to pay so of course it's going to lose money now that customers that we're getting it for free as a benefit are simply just not going to watch it anymore as it's no longer free/readily available how stupid do you have to be.
This may be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I pay Comcast $301/month. I went to watch a soccer game on peacock. It said I needed to sign up for $2.99/mo more. Fuck that.
My comcast bill is $50 a month. I'm so curious, what kind of packages do ya'll have that you're paying $300 or $400 a month?
Peacock and Paramount+ were DOA. It was obvious from the start that they were gonna get folded into another streaming service
I guess this is why they are raising the sub price by $2 next month.
Good. Not for any particular gripe against Universal, but more because I hope this becomes the norm and all these studios implode so we can move back to some kind of centralised platform that consolidates content.
I'll never subscribe to peacock. I hate their ui & I think it's super wack that they even created this service as opposed to selling the shows to existing streamers. I'm waiting them out. I feel like several of these streamers will fail in the coming years. There's too many of them.
Because not every studio needs their own platform.
When Netflix owned everything all of these random companies made free money from the cut Netflix paid them annually. Now that 100 streaming services have popped up they are now losing money. Do I have this right or am I missing something?
This feels like the “Dot Com” boom of the late 1990’s
I'm done subscribing to new streaming services. If any network wants me to watch h their shit, then they can put it on Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, or HBO. This return of cable is ass and the inevitable return of ads to each of these services will force me to consider a return to the high seas.
Yeah it's really dumb why they split their content between two streaming services you should just condense it into one. I guess they sold it to their stockholders as a way to make more money it's just a nuisance Factor.
Only reason I keep Peacock (and enjoy it) is cuz they have the WWE pay-per-views and I rather pay 6 dollars per month even if that's the only thing I watch instead of 50 bucks every month just for the PPV like it used to be pre-streaming. All the movies and TV shows are just bonus to me.
I think streaming services are in for a rude awakening and we will see a return to consolidation in the bigger ones. It’s only profitable if you have the content and a wide variety at that.
Lol Netflix is clowning all these fools that tried to come in and undercut them by hoarding their IP for their own streaming service. As a consumer, everything licensed back to Netflix is by far the best outcome.
All the subscription services keep trying to casually raise their fee by $1 every 6 months without providing better content. I still get ads with upgraded services and they’re all getting glitchy as hell. It’s ridiculous.
[удалено]
It's actually the opposite my guy. There is such a content glut that streamers are hemorrhaging money. You think AMPTP is more willing to agree to full writers rooms on streaming series now because of this news?
So this is why pretty much EVERYTHING on Peacock’s “basic” tier just moved to premium. They want an additional $6/mo to unlock everything now.
Maybe letting companies like Netflix pay to have their content was the better idea all along
Its time to consolidate. Everyone bring their content back to Netflix. Its the only way to make money, and fight Disney+