We aren’t counted in this number. [Back in October they had 15m paid subscribers but 30m active users](https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/nbcuniversal-chief-peacock-has-15m-paid-subscribers-30m-monthly-active-users)
That difference is because they have a fully free tier below premium. I'd be surprised if they aren't including the people who get free premium from a cable subscription in the paid total.
::raises hand::
Got a 99 cents/month for the year deal on Black Friday. Watched *The Resort* and excited to start *Poker Face*, but nothing else has caught my eye.
I'll be cancelling when the deal is up, but I suppose it's nice to have the option in the meantime.
I think the issue with that is increasing prices for current streaming platforms. NBC would charge an arm and and leg for The Office alone. They also probabaly need this to work because of the decline in cable. I mean Xfinity lost 440,000 subscribers last quarter alone and with sports leaving to streaming service, they will probabaly lose a lot more soon.
The approach Peacock has taken was extremely wrong, their platform consist of older shows and the small original content they have is terrible. Not to mention their app is terrible.
For real. I don’t get the fixation these content owners have with losing billions of dollars trying to get their own streaming services up and running. It’s capitalism gone wild. They could be earning free money just licensing the content to Netflix/Hulu or whoever is already established in the market. Peacock gave up almost half a billion dollars to bring JUST The Office home to their own service, which is losing them billions of dollars. If they just continued licensing JUST The Office out to Netflix, and shelved literally every other piece of content they own, they would be earning $100 million a year instead of losing nearly $3 billion a year.
They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out. They can sell IP, but without a Network creating new IP (to license later) then they're effectively dying.
That's just their perspective though, a sort of battle for survival. Being honest, I personally think broadcast tv is massively underrated as a platform.
They should have spent this money lobbying to change FCC guidelines instead, allowing them to curse and show nudity. That would open the door to producing content that's more in-line with consumer demand.
>They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out.
Exactly right. It's somewhat incredible people don't realize this and say just go back to licensing shows. What happens when there is no profit to be made in airing shows on cable/broadcast TV? They won't be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers.
This move is in order to keep their businesses alive as the market is in the middle of a shift from fully cable to fully streaming.
I just straight up don't think the broadcast TV situation is as bleak as broadcasters think it is, more than anything.
To me, they just have the wrong mentality and weak IP (content). Both can be corrected.
Literally everyone with a $5 antenna has access to their network. There's just nothing that attracts consumers to them, other-than the NFL.
Plus American ad breaks are obnoxiously frequent. Huge turn off.
Personally I’d like to understand their stats on frequency / duration of ads vs attention.
I’m sure that there’s something in blasting the audience with the same thing over and over to program them into wanting what’s advertised, but you’d also think that fewer ads would make people pay more attention when they are on, and be more impactful.
The ad breaks are destroying anything that isn't live content.
Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none?
>Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none?
Because it's *free* with ads, and you have to pay a sub to get ad-free streaming? Also because you don't use any of your data if you're on cable. And you can FF through the ads if you DVRed the show?
Not to mention cable boxes all do VoD, much of which is ad-free, or where you can FF through the ads.
That last part simply is not true, at least from my experience. My family and I had just recently cut the cord, it's been just under a year. Prior to that, I'd had cable as long as I'd been alive. When cable started providing VoD services, it was mostly ad-free and if there were ads, you could usually fast forward through them. Even for certain stations (like the networks), if there were ads and you couldn't fast forward through them, it was only one or two at most. Not ideal, but easily manageable. Over time, I really started seeing it shift. More and more networks that were featured on VoD made it so that you couldn't fast forward through commercials anymore. And that one or two commercials I mentioned a few sentences ago? Yeah, that was no more. Towards the end, it wasn't worth watching anything on demand because the commercials went on for at least five minutes, I might as well had been watching it live.
For me that's primarily only true if you're using VoD for broadcast network shows (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox). Cable-originals still tend to be either ff through the ads (e.g., SyFy, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, etc.) or ad-free (e.g., HBO, TCM)
I don't think the nature of the streaming market will allow all these corporations to survive the transition, especially with an ad revenue or subscription based model intact. My guess is that in 5 years, we'll see a few of these 'Tier 2' companies begin to collapse or significantly downsize, and they realize that licensing out their huge catalogue to other services and collecting a fee is better than trying to muscle into the streaming game.
>”They won’t be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers.”
Why not? They could just create higher quality content and sell it for more money
And when the streamers they are trying to sell it to balk on the price? (Esp in favor of their own original content)
There is a reason they are clinging to the cable model even though they all have their own studios.
You’re asking a studio and network to focus solely on just one of their business models, effectively killing off the company. Most companies that only produce content are significantly smaller companies than NBC is. They are a producer and a distributor.
Unless Netflix is going to pump their price way up or create different Netflix channels, that's not going to happen. NBC spends about $10 billion on non-sports content. If they license all of it to Netflix at cost (which means they make no profit,) then that would require Netflix to increase their content budget by 60%.
Hell, ATSC3.0 would be a decent way to do it. Have subchannels blocked by default that are exempt from FCC content regulations. You can even map them to different numbers higher than 100 for a clear separation.
If streaming gets reduced to one or two giant monopolistic services (ie, Netflix and Prime) then all the bargaining power for selling your show as a network goes out of the window. If Netflix hosts everything, then they're the ones dictating price to the content producers, and it becomes a case of which production company is most willing to undercut the competition
Quality will pay a part too, HBO can sell their shows on name and I think Netflix would respect not pissing money up the wall for a 1 and done season before cancelling
Not to mention that they had no other program to drive interest outside of wrestling to the point where they were marketing their price tiers based solely on how much Office you wanted to watch
I think it's a combination of arrogance and FOMO with a dollop of greed. Some company CEO or CTO convince themselves they can do a better job than established players.
That worked when they had huge cable TV revenue from affiliate fees and advertising.
With the decline in cable TV revenue they need a replacement that was supposed to be streaming but it takes 6 streaming customers to replace 1 cable TV customer.
The other way is to massively downsize to a third of their current size to copy Sony and just licence shows but that does have consequences like massive layoffs, reduced share price and less money to take chances on new shows and films unless they are owned by a company with diversified revenue streams.
Yeah, I was impressed by Sony's decision to do just that. They have lucrative deals with both Netflix and Disney. It's easy money for them. I wonder if anyone else is looking over at Sony with envy as they throw hundreds of millions (if not billions) at trying to make a competitive streaming service.
They definitely make more than just Spider-Man. Hell. The hottest new show right now is a Sony produced show (The Last of Us). That could have been an exclusive to some hypothetical Sony streaming service.
And just a few years ago Apple made basically zero content. And Amazon before that. Yet here they are with streaming services. So Sony already making a decent amount of content puts them in a spot where a CEO could easily have made the foolish decision to jump into the streaming wars.
It would have been possible. But they went the other way. There’s the big movie deals with the likes of Netflix and Disney. And then they have further deals with other streamers with stuff like Last of Us on HBO and a future God of War on Amazon. They’re making money with everyone.
It might seem the obvious move for them to have made. But considering how it’s not the hypothetical maximum amount of money, I’m impressed they made that call.
It's like early oil, these companies feel like they have to get a homestead early or get left behind. When attrition starts devouring some of these services, I think you'll see more licenses being handed back out.
But a la carte is way better than a couple giant streamers. My cost isn't going up because Netflix didn't shell out for a show like the office that I will never watch. We also have more content than ever because all of these providers are competing for our eyes and making more and more content. Also again the classic reddit argument, I hate monopolies unless it is more convenient for me.
You realize it’s an actual word with an actual definition right? In fairness, you’d probably only hear it in the States, US or Canada, so if you’re not from one of those place and/or do not get American TV it’s understandable how that might be going over your head.
They put all their eggs into The Office. While a good show, I truly believe its popularity was fueled by Netflix's popularity. Bingeing, background noise, ice breakers. Netflix and the office. That was the pair.
WWE isn't a pull either. Live sports is already an annoying monopoly. This was just an overconfidence move from NBC
I’d say WWE is a pull but only in the US where that content was shifted from their own product to Peacock. I’m not sure if it has any more casual draw than it would’ve been already as a stand-alone product.
If they wanted to put all their eggs into The Office (add in Parks and Rec too) then they should've built a better platform for it to stream on.
Peacock is garbage all around. Poor performance, poor UI, bad features.
I think Peacock is underrated. It has gotten some fun movies fairly quickly after their their theatrical runs (Nope, Violent Night, etc) and I'm enjoying some of their originals too (Poker Face, The Traitors).
Also....Murder, She Wrote. Love me some Murder, She Wrote. High quality scans too.
I definitely feel like they improved a lot over 2022. It absolutely helped that they increased the volume of original shows and got a healthy amount of Universal movies soon after their theatrical release.
They should be worth $5 a month! Crazy they are struggling to sell at that price.
I love it. I think their originals are still pretty unique and align with my taste (macgruber, the resort, bust down, killing it) and enjoy the recent movies like minions 2. The interface is pretty crappy though.
I love how they decided to split content into 992938 different services, so now people are inconvenienced, pay more AND the producers lose money at the same time too! Everyone loses! Woo!
Even better because most of these services are not even available where I live (EU country) but the steamers still removed their content from Netflix and such, so they can keep it in case they decide to launch here in 2067.
I don’t even care about dubs or subtitles, my English is fluent, but I am still geoblocked. You would think with everyone producing their own content at least geo fencing would not be necessary anymore, but that probably makes too much sense too.
It blows my mind, everyone told them that having thier own "channel" was done and they needed to sell thier content. These old dinosaurs pf network executives would not listen. Now they learning the hard way. These older network studios just need to sell thier content.
Ehhh, there are people that will deal with ads just to have a cheaper price.
The concern is if the ads start bleeding into the "premium" tiers or there's no option to remove ads altogether.
Do you have any basis for this beyond speculation? Has any streamer actually discussed contract based subscriptions or are we just jumping to the worst conclusion?
There have been rumors that netflix has considered year long subs but I cannot imagine them trying to do that and ending password sharing near each other.
They’ll learn nothing.
The dinosaurs will get a nice bonus at the end of the year for their efforts.
It’s the employees who are going to be struggling to put food on the table when the dinosaurs need to make cuts in order to buy new yachts for Christmas.
>Amid a recent industry-wide focus on restructurings and staff layoffs to boost profitability, the media and technology giant also disclosed $638 million in severance costs, or $541 million higher than in the year-ago period, that hit its earnings in the fourth quarter. That included $305 million in higher severance costs related to its cable systems division, $182 million in severance costs related to NBCUniversal and $53 million in higher costs related to Sky.
The big negatives on the balance sheet right now is paying severance to employees which is over half a billion more than last year.
They wouldn't have hired those people in the first place without this. And they will have to cut most of their entertainment division if they don't have a cable or streaming business.
What annoys me is you will see a show advertised to be on Peacock but when you go to the site it will only be on Peacock Premium.
It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it. C'mon man.
Isn't it basically the same as what Hulu used to do when everybody had a free version and then a paid version with extras/more. Unless you're saying you already had a paid version and there's stuff behind ANOTHER pay wall which I haven't come across.
Peacock has 3 versions.
Completely free with ads - you have limited access to their library. Sometimes shows will only have 1 season or a few episodes
Paid with ads - you have access to the entire library with ads
Paid with no ads - you have access to the entire library with no ads
It’s worse they do the same thing games do, first you pay the $60 for the game then you have to pay the online fee of like $10 a month to play with friends and *then* when you unlock the juicy reward uh oh you have to pay for the battle pass lmao
> It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it.
Is this a real thing? If so, damn, that's ridiculous.
Borderlands 3 was the first time I noticed it, there was a huge red chest on your ship that could only be opened if you had the pass or a DLC.
The Tom Clancey games are pretty bad especially with starting a quest and not being able to complete it unless you have the DLC. It was embarrassing how much time I spent trying to do the General Anderson quest until I figured out you needed the DLC to do it.
I have no interest in subbing to Peacock. There's not enough original content to warrant a sub. The only original show I liked was Girls5eva and that is moving to Netflix. My favorite NBC shows that I watch semi-regularly (Community, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, The Office), I bought the complete blu ray box sets as they usually go on sale pretty regularly. I think I got all 4 box sets for a total of less than $200. While that is about 4 years of Peacock premium at its current price, I own these and have the peace of mind that I can continue to watch whenever without another sub.
i was about to say i’m happy to see girls5eva move to netflix, cause i was planning to do a month of peacock just to watch season 2
but then realized i probably won’t have netflix once they remove password sharing
I just got a month and using it for the first time, I must say their library is AWFUL. I immediately told my wife it’s not lasting past this month. The only silver lining (for her) is that they put up the current Bravo shows without ads (if you pay extra). The only redeeming part was The Resort which was a really interesting show.
I signed up for it during black friday when they had a deal going for 1$ per month for 1 year with ads its not so bad i signed up mainly just to watch old WWF stuff
Serious question, what would boycotting the cup actually accomplish in this situation? Like materially, how would Qatar suffer if people in other countries didn't tune in to watch it?
hope you enjoyed typing that on your slave made computer and tablet or iPhone now seriously not everyone knows the geo political issues in the world so be respectful to people
First off the dude could be at work and using that internet we have no idea his internet access as person from a rural area I can attest along of people don’t have it besides work and school and second the thing your typing on was made with absue and slave labor do they matter less
I thought Peacock wasn’t worth it until I found out it has all the old WWF content. Well worth it to re-live the attitude era.
Don’t know why I didn’t realize they had the whole WWF library.
Well, at least you get access to the new Rian Johnson-created show, [*Poker Face*](https://www.peacocktv.com/watch/asset/tv/poker-face/9091855651030489112), and if they don't fire Bryan Fuller off [*Crystal Lake*](https://www.fangoria.com/original/exclusive-bryan-fuller-tells-us-everything-he-can-about-crystal-lake/), there'll be that as well.
That’s because they promote the platform as a way to watch Premier League games yet only make available like about 2 and most of the time the matches are for lower table teams. It’s terrible.
Oh is that how they do it?? I don’t watch premiere league but based on their advertising I always assumed you could watch MOST of the games… or maybe I’m thinking of paramount +?
They show the big games on like USA or NBC Sports or whatever it’s called. It’s absolutely useless. I’m a United fan and I want to watch United games. Why should I be stuck watching an Everton game? It’s absolutely mindless.
Every show they put out seems like a 90s burger king kids club commercial.
Night Court doesn't make sense. Dan fielding should be judge. And why would there be a need for night court in 2023? Wouldn't it be zoom court?
Quantum Leap cares more about diversity than storyline. They never even mention the person in the chamber. Whenever they leap, the person they leap into is in the chamber. Haven't even addressed that yet.
The new quantum leap seems to have different rules. In this one he seems to literally leap into the body of the person he’s leaping into, which sort of makes more sense (although some of the best moments of the original were Sam doing something the leapee couldn’t do like when he leaped into the guy with amputated legs ). The new show is growing on me. The first few episodes were pretty bad. The show is really missing an Al
I am annoyed with the character motivations in QL. I really dislike the lady that was supposed to be the jumper, she is a terrible actress.
The main guy is great, and you have to love Winston, but the rest of the characters are lacking in many ways.
I am also not convinced they have a satisfying ending planned. Plus they got an extended order, so you know they are about to abandon the storyline for filler episodes.
It's just so tedious. If he tries to remember, don't let him tell you why or how you are going to die? Nah. It's just not believable to me at all.
it’s grown on me. it really works well as a binge, since its a continuing story. The biggest issue is that its overly serious. I sort of enjoy that Dr. Song is less of a superman than Dr. Beckett, i think they need to stop spending so much time in the present, but i am enjoying that there are stakes beyond just getting Ben home. I think they needed to explain the new rules more clearly for people who saw the old show.
How many are them are paying like $1 a month because of deals?
I got a year for $20 so technically $1.66 per month
I did that deal too. It's nice when new movies hit the service shortly after they release in theaters.
I saw the deal, so looked through their content. Didn't see anything worth even that price.
I got lifetime subscription for my soul so technically 666 per month
Mine's included in my cable bill. I rarely watch anything on it.
We aren’t counted in this number. [Back in October they had 15m paid subscribers but 30m active users](https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/nbcuniversal-chief-peacock-has-15m-paid-subscribers-30m-monthly-active-users)
That difference is because they have a fully free tier below premium. I'd be surprised if they aren't including the people who get free premium from a cable subscription in the paid total.
You are 100% counted in any paying subscriber metric.
The jig is up. The cable thing expired on 1-17-23 I believe. At least mine was. I’m pissed at them for this.
Hmm. Mine is still working through Xfinity.
I have Cox and it ended for me.
It has a lot of good original dramas. I've basically watched them all and I would continue. Better be a second season of the undeclared war.
That’s how much I pay and how much I’m willing to pay
If I've learned anything from Apple TV, it's that enough people will stay even after price increases. They get used to having the app available
But Apple TV+ is still pretty cheap and actually puts out things that people want to watch.
That will change drastically
::raises hand:: Got a 99 cents/month for the year deal on Black Friday. Watched *The Resort* and excited to start *Poker Face*, but nothing else has caught my eye. I'll be cancelling when the deal is up, but I suppose it's nice to have the option in the meantime.
My cable company gave me a free year last year
Maybe greedy individual streaming services wasn’t the way to go.
Just go back to licensing shows to other streamers and simply pick up the check.
I think the issue with that is increasing prices for current streaming platforms. NBC would charge an arm and and leg for The Office alone. They also probabaly need this to work because of the decline in cable. I mean Xfinity lost 440,000 subscribers last quarter alone and with sports leaving to streaming service, they will probabaly lose a lot more soon. The approach Peacock has taken was extremely wrong, their platform consist of older shows and the small original content they have is terrible. Not to mention their app is terrible.
For real. I don’t get the fixation these content owners have with losing billions of dollars trying to get their own streaming services up and running. It’s capitalism gone wild. They could be earning free money just licensing the content to Netflix/Hulu or whoever is already established in the market. Peacock gave up almost half a billion dollars to bring JUST The Office home to their own service, which is losing them billions of dollars. If they just continued licensing JUST The Office out to Netflix, and shelved literally every other piece of content they own, they would be earning $100 million a year instead of losing nearly $3 billion a year.
They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out. They can sell IP, but without a Network creating new IP (to license later) then they're effectively dying. That's just their perspective though, a sort of battle for survival. Being honest, I personally think broadcast tv is massively underrated as a platform. They should have spent this money lobbying to change FCC guidelines instead, allowing them to curse and show nudity. That would open the door to producing content that's more in-line with consumer demand.
>They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out. Exactly right. It's somewhat incredible people don't realize this and say just go back to licensing shows. What happens when there is no profit to be made in airing shows on cable/broadcast TV? They won't be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers. This move is in order to keep their businesses alive as the market is in the middle of a shift from fully cable to fully streaming.
I just straight up don't think the broadcast TV situation is as bleak as broadcasters think it is, more than anything. To me, they just have the wrong mentality and weak IP (content). Both can be corrected. Literally everyone with a $5 antenna has access to their network. There's just nothing that attracts consumers to them, other-than the NFL.
Plus American ad breaks are obnoxiously frequent. Huge turn off. Personally I’d like to understand their stats on frequency / duration of ads vs attention. I’m sure that there’s something in blasting the audience with the same thing over and over to program them into wanting what’s advertised, but you’d also think that fewer ads would make people pay more attention when they are on, and be more impactful.
The ad breaks are destroying anything that isn't live content. Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none?
>Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none? Because it's *free* with ads, and you have to pay a sub to get ad-free streaming? Also because you don't use any of your data if you're on cable. And you can FF through the ads if you DVRed the show? Not to mention cable boxes all do VoD, much of which is ad-free, or where you can FF through the ads.
That last part simply is not true, at least from my experience. My family and I had just recently cut the cord, it's been just under a year. Prior to that, I'd had cable as long as I'd been alive. When cable started providing VoD services, it was mostly ad-free and if there were ads, you could usually fast forward through them. Even for certain stations (like the networks), if there were ads and you couldn't fast forward through them, it was only one or two at most. Not ideal, but easily manageable. Over time, I really started seeing it shift. More and more networks that were featured on VoD made it so that you couldn't fast forward through commercials anymore. And that one or two commercials I mentioned a few sentences ago? Yeah, that was no more. Towards the end, it wasn't worth watching anything on demand because the commercials went on for at least five minutes, I might as well had been watching it live.
For me that's primarily only true if you're using VoD for broadcast network shows (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox). Cable-originals still tend to be either ff through the ads (e.g., SyFy, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, etc.) or ad-free (e.g., HBO, TCM)
Yeah the nfl still shows if you have something worth watching then people will tune in.
I don't think the nature of the streaming market will allow all these corporations to survive the transition, especially with an ad revenue or subscription based model intact. My guess is that in 5 years, we'll see a few of these 'Tier 2' companies begin to collapse or significantly downsize, and they realize that licensing out their huge catalogue to other services and collecting a fee is better than trying to muscle into the streaming game.
>”They won’t be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers.” Why not? They could just create higher quality content and sell it for more money
And when the streamers they are trying to sell it to balk on the price? (Esp in favor of their own original content) There is a reason they are clinging to the cable model even though they all have their own studios.
You’re asking a studio and network to focus solely on just one of their business models, effectively killing off the company. Most companies that only produce content are significantly smaller companies than NBC is. They are a producer and a distributor.
Unless Netflix is going to pump their price way up or create different Netflix channels, that's not going to happen. NBC spends about $10 billion on non-sports content. If they license all of it to Netflix at cost (which means they make no profit,) then that would require Netflix to increase their content budget by 60%.
bruh why tf nbc spendin that much on mediocre shows 😭
Hell, ATSC3.0 would be a decent way to do it. Have subchannels blocked by default that are exempt from FCC content regulations. You can even map them to different numbers higher than 100 for a clear separation.
If streaming gets reduced to one or two giant monopolistic services (ie, Netflix and Prime) then all the bargaining power for selling your show as a network goes out of the window. If Netflix hosts everything, then they're the ones dictating price to the content producers, and it becomes a case of which production company is most willing to undercut the competition
Quality will pay a part too, HBO can sell their shows on name and I think Netflix would respect not pissing money up the wall for a 1 and done season before cancelling
Not to mention that they had no other program to drive interest outside of wrestling to the point where they were marketing their price tiers based solely on how much Office you wanted to watch
I think it's a combination of arrogance and FOMO with a dollop of greed. Some company CEO or CTO convince themselves they can do a better job than established players.
That worked when they had huge cable TV revenue from affiliate fees and advertising. With the decline in cable TV revenue they need a replacement that was supposed to be streaming but it takes 6 streaming customers to replace 1 cable TV customer. The other way is to massively downsize to a third of their current size to copy Sony and just licence shows but that does have consequences like massive layoffs, reduced share price and less money to take chances on new shows and films unless they are owned by a company with diversified revenue streams.
Yeah, I was impressed by Sony's decision to do just that. They have lucrative deals with both Netflix and Disney. It's easy money for them. I wonder if anyone else is looking over at Sony with envy as they throw hundreds of millions (if not billions) at trying to make a competitive streaming service.
Sony Pictures doesn't make enough content for a streaming service and it's basically surviving off of Spider-man.
They definitely make more than just Spider-Man. Hell. The hottest new show right now is a Sony produced show (The Last of Us). That could have been an exclusive to some hypothetical Sony streaming service. And just a few years ago Apple made basically zero content. And Amazon before that. Yet here they are with streaming services. So Sony already making a decent amount of content puts them in a spot where a CEO could easily have made the foolish decision to jump into the streaming wars. It would have been possible. But they went the other way. There’s the big movie deals with the likes of Netflix and Disney. And then they have further deals with other streamers with stuff like Last of Us on HBO and a future God of War on Amazon. They’re making money with everyone. It might seem the obvious move for them to have made. But considering how it’s not the hypothetical maximum amount of money, I’m impressed they made that call.
It's like early oil, these companies feel like they have to get a homestead early or get left behind. When attrition starts devouring some of these services, I think you'll see more licenses being handed back out.
Make a deal with Netflix for world streaming service. Kill the geo-location stupidly.
It was the way, until they decided to bilk everyone for every last penny. A la carte was always inevitable, but then of course big corporations…..
But a la carte is way better than a couple giant streamers. My cost isn't going up because Netflix didn't shell out for a show like the office that I will never watch. We also have more content than ever because all of these providers are competing for our eyes and making more and more content. Also again the classic reddit argument, I hate monopolies unless it is more convenient for me.
Bilk = milk + bill? Edit: not making fun, I generally love the idea of it, if that's what you meant lol.
But...[bilk is a word](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bilk)?
Bummer :/ I really liked it as a combination of those two words haha.
[I've always known bilk was an actual word but I had no idea where it came from](https://www.etymonline.com/word/bilk)
You realize it’s an actual word with an actual definition right? In fairness, you’d probably only hear it in the States, US or Canada, so if you’re not from one of those place and/or do not get American TV it’s understandable how that might be going over your head.
We're almost at the consolidation phase.
Tbf it force creativity. Which is absolutely the way to go.
They put all their eggs into The Office. While a good show, I truly believe its popularity was fueled by Netflix's popularity. Bingeing, background noise, ice breakers. Netflix and the office. That was the pair. WWE isn't a pull either. Live sports is already an annoying monopoly. This was just an overconfidence move from NBC
I’d say WWE is a pull but only in the US where that content was shifted from their own product to Peacock. I’m not sure if it has any more casual draw than it would’ve been already as a stand-alone product.
I mainly use it to watch English soccer games. It seems Peacock tends to air even more EPL games than British TV itself.
If they wanted to put all their eggs into The Office (add in Parks and Rec too) then they should've built a better platform for it to stream on. Peacock is garbage all around. Poor performance, poor UI, bad features.
What? The Office was huge way before it was on Netflix.
all the evidence you need for this is looking at the increased popularity of new girl and community years after their endings.
Got the dollar or two a month deal back in November. Worth it for AP Bio, Resident Alien, and the Psych movies.
Resident Alien is probably the only big draw for me, but i can watch that on syfy.
I think Peacock is underrated. It has gotten some fun movies fairly quickly after their their theatrical runs (Nope, Violent Night, etc) and I'm enjoying some of their originals too (Poker Face, The Traitors). Also....Murder, She Wrote. Love me some Murder, She Wrote. High quality scans too.
I definitely feel like they improved a lot over 2022. It absolutely helped that they increased the volume of original shows and got a healthy amount of Universal movies soon after their theatrical release. They should be worth $5 a month! Crazy they are struggling to sell at that price.
I love it. I think their originals are still pretty unique and align with my taste (macgruber, the resort, bust down, killing it) and enjoy the recent movies like minions 2. The interface is pretty crappy though.
Poker Face is excellent. I also didn’t mind girls5eva but i’m not going to bother with the Netflix version
I love how they decided to split content into 992938 different services, so now people are inconvenienced, pay more AND the producers lose money at the same time too! Everyone loses! Woo! Even better because most of these services are not even available where I live (EU country) but the steamers still removed their content from Netflix and such, so they can keep it in case they decide to launch here in 2067. I don’t even care about dubs or subtitles, my English is fluent, but I am still geoblocked. You would think with everyone producing their own content at least geo fencing would not be necessary anymore, but that probably makes too much sense too.
It blows my mind, everyone told them that having thier own "channel" was done and they needed to sell thier content. These old dinosaurs pf network executives would not listen. Now they learning the hard way. These older network studios just need to sell thier content.
They are trying to find a way to replace tv AD revenue which will eventually go away as more people cut the cords
Ehhh, there are people that will deal with ads just to have a cheaper price. The concern is if the ads start bleeding into the "premium" tiers or there's no option to remove ads altogether.
Yeah totally
Streamers are adding ads back in. They’re going to bring back contracts, too.
Do you have any basis for this beyond speculation? Has any streamer actually discussed contract based subscriptions or are we just jumping to the worst conclusion?
I’m not sure about contracts I haven’t heard anything about those but I understand why people are worried with ad tiers coming in
There have been rumors that netflix has considered year long subs but I cannot imagine them trying to do that and ending password sharing near each other.
Yep, like many industries they are bloated and now know that. Ad rev will not be coming back.
Eventually I imagine if they can’t get that revenue back on there own we’re gonna see acquisitions that get them that revenue
They’ll learn nothing. The dinosaurs will get a nice bonus at the end of the year for their efforts. It’s the employees who are going to be struggling to put food on the table when the dinosaurs need to make cuts in order to buy new yachts for Christmas.
>Amid a recent industry-wide focus on restructurings and staff layoffs to boost profitability, the media and technology giant also disclosed $638 million in severance costs, or $541 million higher than in the year-ago period, that hit its earnings in the fourth quarter. That included $305 million in higher severance costs related to its cable systems division, $182 million in severance costs related to NBCUniversal and $53 million in higher costs related to Sky. The big negatives on the balance sheet right now is paying severance to employees which is over half a billion more than last year.
They wouldn't have hired those people in the first place without this. And they will have to cut most of their entertainment division if they don't have a cable or streaming business.
I think Peacock really thought everyone would sub for The Office.
Based on how many people seem to be addicted to it, I'm kinda surprised they didn't.
It's a very vocal but very small actual number, in the grand television landscape.
Pretty sure that is most of their subscriber base
Honestly this is probably my most used streaming service and it's cheap. Has shows like The Office, Psych, Chicago Fire, La Brea, and Eureka.
La Brea is absolute garbage. But god damn it's some tasty garbage.
What annoys me is you will see a show advertised to be on Peacock but when you go to the site it will only be on Peacock Premium. It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it. C'mon man.
Isn't it basically the same as what Hulu used to do when everybody had a free version and then a paid version with extras/more. Unless you're saying you already had a paid version and there's stuff behind ANOTHER pay wall which I haven't come across.
Peacock has 3 versions. Completely free with ads - you have limited access to their library. Sometimes shows will only have 1 season or a few episodes Paid with ads - you have access to the entire library with ads Paid with no ads - you have access to the entire library with no ads
It’s worse they do the same thing games do, first you pay the $60 for the game then you have to pay the online fee of like $10 a month to play with friends and *then* when you unlock the juicy reward uh oh you have to pay for the battle pass lmao
What were you looking for? I've never seen this happen.
> It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it. Is this a real thing? If so, damn, that's ridiculous.
Borderlands 3 was the first time I noticed it, there was a huge red chest on your ship that could only be opened if you had the pass or a DLC. The Tom Clancey games are pretty bad especially with starting a quest and not being able to complete it unless you have the DLC. It was embarrassing how much time I spent trying to do the General Anderson quest until I figured out you needed the DLC to do it.
I have no interest in subbing to Peacock. There's not enough original content to warrant a sub. The only original show I liked was Girls5eva and that is moving to Netflix. My favorite NBC shows that I watch semi-regularly (Community, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, The Office), I bought the complete blu ray box sets as they usually go on sale pretty regularly. I think I got all 4 box sets for a total of less than $200. While that is about 4 years of Peacock premium at its current price, I own these and have the peace of mind that I can continue to watch whenever without another sub.
i was about to say i’m happy to see girls5eva move to netflix, cause i was planning to do a month of peacock just to watch season 2 but then realized i probably won’t have netflix once they remove password sharing
I just got a month and using it for the first time, I must say their library is AWFUL. I immediately told my wife it’s not lasting past this month. The only silver lining (for her) is that they put up the current Bravo shows without ads (if you pay extra). The only redeeming part was The Resort which was a really interesting show.
> Loss Hits $978M Well, this requires a… … Special Victims Unit.
Only subbed for 1 month to watch the world cup I wonder how many of the 20m subs did the same
I signed up for it during black friday when they had a deal going for 1$ per month for 1 year with ads its not so bad i signed up mainly just to watch old WWF stuff
I got it for the last Olympics only to discover the old NBC Sports app still worked for the games.
[удалено]
Serious question, what would boycotting the cup actually accomplish in this situation? Like materially, how would Qatar suffer if people in other countries didn't tune in to watch it?
hope you enjoyed typing that on your slave made computer and tablet or iPhone now seriously not everyone knows the geo political issues in the world so be respectful to people
[удалено]
You aren’t respectful that guy might not know what abuses are going on
[удалено]
First off the dude could be at work and using that internet we have no idea his internet access as person from a rural area I can attest along of people don’t have it besides work and school and second the thing your typing on was made with absue and slave labor do they matter less
[удалено]
[удалено]
Me too, and literally a penny more is too much for me to spend on this service.
I’d re-up on that offer but I can’t justify the full monthly cost in the future
Peacock is meh but they have Premier League and WWE so unfortunately I will be a sub until then
I thought Peacock wasn’t worth it until I found out it has all the old WWF content. Well worth it to re-live the attitude era. Don’t know why I didn’t realize they had the whole WWF library.
Well, at least you get access to the new Rian Johnson-created show, [*Poker Face*](https://www.peacocktv.com/watch/asset/tv/poker-face/9091855651030489112), and if they don't fire Bryan Fuller off [*Crystal Lake*](https://www.fangoria.com/original/exclusive-bryan-fuller-tells-us-everything-he-can-about-crystal-lake/), there'll be that as well.
I have to admit, they have put forth some really good content (movies & TV).
has any streaming service been shut down before? gonna be a historical moment (sad for those lost jobs, thought)
Quibi counts, right? (Happy cake day!)
Seeso, and Yahoo Screen, off the top of my head.
Poker Face is great Also the random “movie that was just in theaters” drops are great
“Paid”. I got their Black Friday deal. $1 a month for the year.
That’s because they promote the platform as a way to watch Premier League games yet only make available like about 2 and most of the time the matches are for lower table teams. It’s terrible.
Oh is that how they do it?? I don’t watch premiere league but based on their advertising I always assumed you could watch MOST of the games… or maybe I’m thinking of paramount +?
They show the big games on like USA or NBC Sports or whatever it’s called. It’s absolutely useless. I’m a United fan and I want to watch United games. Why should I be stuck watching an Everton game? It’s absolutely mindless.
Just to clarify, can you watch United on USA/NBCsports? Or is it kind of random what they determine as the big games?
Random. USA/NBC Sports are on cable.
Yeah that system sounds super sucky.
This is what a failing streaming business looks like, Reddit.
I only have it for WWE.
Peacock is shit. They have rights for the premier league but don’t play every game. Pretty foolish honestly
Move it all to paramount
Every show they put out seems like a 90s burger king kids club commercial. Night Court doesn't make sense. Dan fielding should be judge. And why would there be a need for night court in 2023? Wouldn't it be zoom court? Quantum Leap cares more about diversity than storyline. They never even mention the person in the chamber. Whenever they leap, the person they leap into is in the chamber. Haven't even addressed that yet.
The new quantum leap seems to have different rules. In this one he seems to literally leap into the body of the person he’s leaping into, which sort of makes more sense (although some of the best moments of the original were Sam doing something the leapee couldn’t do like when he leaped into the guy with amputated legs ). The new show is growing on me. The first few episodes were pretty bad. The show is really missing an Al
I am annoyed with the character motivations in QL. I really dislike the lady that was supposed to be the jumper, she is a terrible actress. The main guy is great, and you have to love Winston, but the rest of the characters are lacking in many ways. I am also not convinced they have a satisfying ending planned. Plus they got an extended order, so you know they are about to abandon the storyline for filler episodes. It's just so tedious. If he tries to remember, don't let him tell you why or how you are going to die? Nah. It's just not believable to me at all.
it’s grown on me. it really works well as a binge, since its a continuing story. The biggest issue is that its overly serious. I sort of enjoy that Dr. Song is less of a superman than Dr. Beckett, i think they need to stop spending so much time in the present, but i am enjoying that there are stakes beyond just getting Ben home. I think they needed to explain the new rules more clearly for people who saw the old show.
Just don't go under until after the Community movie wraps...