> Why? Unlike a paid subscription, which brings in a fixed amount of revenue each month, there is no ceiling to advertising revenue. The number of ads displayed and the rates a streaming platform can charge marketers for the ads are constantly fluctuating, offering unlimited revenue upside.
This makes a lot of sense, considering that all companies want is sustained, increasing YoY growth. What this means I suppose is that the streaming service have managed to recreate the cable era, but in some aspects also made things worse than before.
But as the story always goes in such cases,
> Consumers have grumbled, but have so far been willing to keep paying up
the story will continue. As a population we value our passive sensory overload too much.
> What this means I suppose is that the streaming service have managed to recreate the cable era, but in some aspects also made things worse than before.
I disagree. It’s not as good as the golden era of streaming when everything was on Netflix for 1 low price, but we’re still wayyyyyy above where cable was before.
You don’t have to sign any contracts and you can go the website and make 3 clicks to cancel the service.
Also everything is available on demand, you don’t have to be watching at the exact time the show or movie airs.
>you don’t have to be watching at the exact time the show or movie airs.
With the advent of DVRs, this wasn't an issue either. Even in the 80s with VCRs and a competent user that could make the clock stop flashing 12:00, you could record a single show at a time. No where near as convenient as a DVR and still less convenient of on-demand, but let's not act like watching a delayed show wasn't possible until on-demand.
I was both a ReplayTV and TiVo owner for many years. It was better than cable but sucked compared to streaming. Yes, you could record a show, but you still had to wait for it to air. There was nothing like an entire season being dropped at once for new shows. And for syndicated shows, again, you had to wait for them. You had to setup a season pass. You had to juggle drive space. You could only watch in front of the one TV you had the TiVo/ReplayTV hooked up you (later TiVo had an overpriced option to watch over the network within the home). Plus, you had to pay for your TiVo (or buy a lifetime pass) on top of the cost of your cable or satellite subscription.
>There was nothing like an entire season being dropped at once for new shows.
Even with the streaming platforms, entire season drops is not a guarantee for new content. Lots of shows are weekly drops, and I'm guessing it will only become standard for all new content. Ensures people don't pay for a single month or use a free trial period to watch the entire season. Rent seeking is only going to creep into more and more of your life
Not only can you cancel service in just a few clicks, you can actually go find another provider. Being able to choose between different cable providers was unheard of. Now there's several cable-like providers along with dozens of different on-demand media companies.
But one can cancel their cable TV subscription and go to YouTubeTV and go to Hulu Live TV or Fubo or Direct TV Stream or Sling which are all very old school cable-like in experience but no contracts, which is what I was mostly talking about. Or as you mentioned, OTA which in many markets has had an explosion of content (over 110 channels in my area!) Or the hundreds of free internet streaming TV channels often bundled into most smart TVs these days.
I'm now to the point where I've started pausing subscriptions as I marathon content from a new provider. Why pay for Netflix, when your only watching shows from any of the other platforms? Of course, I'm just me and not having to navigate the complexities of other family members. We'll just chalk that one up in the being single pro column.
I mean, it's exactly like the cable era, except that over-the-top-distributors+studio vertical integrations are the new "channel bundles", we've cut the bundler intermediary out of the revenue stream (e.g. cable provider), and everything is also on-demand.
So it’s not exactly the same. You do not need special equipment from the monopoly cable company, you do not need to enter into a contract, you can cancel at a moment’s notice and buy a month here or there with a few clicks, all which was impossible with cable/satellite tv.
And all of those silos and studio verticals you mention are now getting retail rates per user instead of wholesale rates to a cable provider. There's no wonder why cable companies hate the cord cutters.
There’s a silver lining here. Anecdotally, my partner and I are on the verge of cancelling all these skyrocketing services that have terrible content and opting to read good books and play old video games.
I definitely recommend canceling the skyrocketing services with terrible content in favor of affordable services with not terrible content. e.g. Criterion ($99/year) is my favorite subscription. At any given time it's only a few thousand films, but films rotate from month to month, it's a nice variety of films, and they are well curated and grouped.
Comparison to the era of linear TV based on cost or ad volume glosses over the incredibly valuable change to on-demand viewing. If cable TV companies could have made a purely on-demand service in the 1990s they would have charged a king's ransom for it. Now it's table stakes.
The same is true for Music. I spend ~$120 a year on music streaming subscriptions. That's somewhere on par with 8-12 albums per year, or 100-120 individual songs. I don't think I've ever purchased that much in my life. I'm definitely spending more on music now than I ever have.
Happy to pay for music since it's all in one place usually or close to it no matter the service.
Used to be happy to pay for Netflix too but imagine paying for Music by subscribing to each major labels unique streaming service because they would gatekeep content.
That's probably why you are spending so much on music now. In the past, you get only a finite amount with that money.
Meanwhile, with my music subscription, I'm sure I listen to 120 _new_ songs per _month_! In addition to my favorites. Sure I'm paying more, but the value (if you agree listening to music has value) is much higher.
I remember back when my younger self was buying music as a DJ and spending that much a in 2 week period depending on what was released that week. To the point that we started our own record store to get wholesale prices. Kids today don't know how good they have it! </oldManRant>
Ye I have realized this to. I am spending more on Spotify in like two or three years than I would have paid for the CDs for everything I listen to. I mean, in the end I listen to the same songs anyways every day.
Should just let me subscribe to individual shows for less. Then at least you'd still have a subscriber. As it stands now I've canceled most of my streaming subscriptions as each only has one or two shows I'd like to watch, and individually each show isn't worth the full sub price to me.
The barrier to ease of consumption for a decent price is what Netflix originally solved, that's broken down now. I'm thoroughly considering going back to the high seas.
I don’t think individual show subscriptions don’t make financial sense. For Netflix the costs when everyone is subscribed to all their shows, or everyone is subscribed to one show, are basically the same.
If your double negative was intentional then ignore the below:
That's fine, I'm not asking what's best for Netflix. I'm asking what's best for me as a consumer of Netflix. They obviously don't have to meet my arbitrary requirements, but I also don't have to subscribe, and have not been subscribed for some time now.
I suspect technical people like myself will just go back to piracy while normal folks get squeezed. It's almost worse than cable at this point.
Ah I think I see what you're saying. The overall group dynamics work out such that to make the distribution economically viable I'd still wind up paying the same.
Now that I'm thinking through your lens my way might even result in preventing anything other than what is defined by the majority as mainstream programming from being released. Largely because I doubt shows have anything close to an even distribution of watchers so certain genres would naturally be oversubscribed.
I wonder if this is really pointing out to separating the business model for new content versus old content. I very rarely watch a new show, there's so much existing good media, in that case I'm not trying to pay for creation of the show, I'm just trying to pay to have the media available to me, so that's bandwidth, delivery and hosting of said content, versus the continued production of said content.
Youtube+ is some of the best value for the money I spend on streaming, and bought into the family plan that I share with my parents, which they enjoy enough to drop cable altogether (I never subscribed as an adult). My dad, however, has a separate subscription to a sports app.
Speaking of sports, I'm very curious to see what happens as the move to a la carte subscriptions continues. Cable subscribers have been effectively subsidizing the likes of ESPN for a long time via hidden charges. As this continues to unravel, I don't foresee those uninterested in sports to continue subsidizing those who are, and fans will have to pay their own way. This could have downstream effects in things like athlete pay, the popularity of certain sports, and even building new sports stadiums (Many of which are also subsidized by tax payers).
Out of curiosity, what streaming services do people have, and why? For me...
- Paramount+: Scripted + Star Trek
- Disney+: Kids
- Amazon: Prime (thinking of canceling. Patriot was the last thing I enjoyed)
- HBO/Max: Scripted
- PBS (although it's free...)
I just subscribe to YouTube now. There really isn't anything worth the subscription fee on all these other services anymore. At best I want to watch one show on each streaming service. But I'm not paying for a whole streaming service to watch one show, so I end up with not subscribing to any of them.
What do you watch on YouTube? I've recently noticed people commenting about paying a YouTube Premium subscription, but I don't quite get it yet. I just use it for quick how-to videos.
Too many things. I have about 160 subscriptions here are some of my favorite channels in no particular order. Topics range from food/cooking science, history, technology, math/science, police interview/interactions/crime, woodworking/diy stuff...
Sadly I did not time my transition to Usenet to take advantage of Black Friday sales, but I did research enough to choose a provider with maximal retention.
I have the same setup you mentioned, but instead of Paramount I use Apple TV (mostly because it’s bundled with my backup and music cost). I also still have Netflix.
Streaming is a hot mess, but if you think about how many hours the typical person watches TV for, $50-$100 for an absolutely enormous on demand library with mobile access and HD quality etc isn’t that bad.
But you are left with the issue of "curated" incomplete and edited versions.
In June 2020, when the initial run of The Boondocks was uploaded to HBO Max, the Season 3 episode "The Story of Jimmy Rebel" was intentionally excluded due to perceived racial insensitivities over the episode's portrayal of a racist country singer named Jimmy Rebel (a parody of real-life white supremacist country singer Johnny Rebel).
Sure, the episode had some seriously racist historic material reanimated in a black american cartoon series by black creators for primarily black audiences .. and committed the sin of portraying southern white supremacists exactly as they recorded themselves on film and in the studio.
I'm not a culture warrior, I'm not even from the US - I do however spend a few hours every week curating meta data and subtitles - and a great many episodes of things yo may other wise not expect have been altered between original aired versions and versions later streamed.
There's a slew of edits between Community episodes and one of the pirate packs from a major streamer and I've yet to fathom why so much material was cut for streaming, it's not like they have time constraints.
I used some streaming services a while ago and very quickly gave up. Bad video quality, momentary drops and we're all looking at a 240p resolution, started watching a series and suddenly a few days later -- "Episode 7 is not available in your country". I could go on and on but thousands of others have already described it much better than I could.
Nowadays I only pay for YouTube Premium. Not that I couldn't fight very hard with their ads through my PiHole and with Firefox + uBlock Origin buuuuuuut... (1) I am tired of it and (2) I watch videos much more on my tablet and phone than on the computer. Bonus points for (3) I don't want Google stealthily and spitefully deleting my profile, and they seem to be trigger-happy lately.
The streaming market has peaked and currently everyone is just trying to squeeze more profit, and the customer experience and pricing be damned in the process. Some of us saw the writing on the wall and disengaged.
And I'll leave you with:
Obviously all of us download and upload Linux .ISO images day and night, right?
Youtube is largely composed of amateur content and — Kurzgesagt aside — not-very-good professional content. This is a different market to high production quality TV shows and films. perhaps you went to Youtube, but I suspect most people's next port of call is just piracy
There is a ton of professionally produced content on YouTube. Mr. Beast for example spends between $1 and $1.5 million to produce each video. By comparison your average TV documentary costs only $500k for an hour of content.
NileRed, a popular chemistry focused channel, quoted one of their videos as taking 4 months of production time for their multi-person staff.
I think you might not like the artistic style of YouTube, but in terms of production value I'd wager more is being spent on YouTube than broadcast TV at this point (remember that the vast majority of channels make no money but people sink money into them anyway).
so you've cherrypicked two examples, one of which-Mr Beast-is basically just a tv variety gameshow but better presented for a younger audience. the sums of money may well be high but that doesn't change the fact that it's not pulling in viewers jumping ship from HBO/BBC/Netflix/AP dramas. NileRed and Kurzgesagt are the same in a different way
>I'd wager more is being spent on YouTube than broadcast TV at this point
Because everything is tied to the stock price now, most especially the execs’ salaries and bonuses. It’s not good enough to just make money, you have to make money at an ever-increasing rate which is impossible.
> Why? Unlike a paid subscription, which brings in a fixed amount of revenue each month, there is no ceiling to advertising revenue. The number of ads displayed and the rates a streaming platform can charge marketers for the ads are constantly fluctuating, offering unlimited revenue upside.
This makes a lot of sense, considering that all companies want is sustained, increasing YoY growth. What this means I suppose is that the streaming service have managed to recreate the cable era, but in some aspects also made things worse than before.
But as the story always goes in such cases,
> Consumers have grumbled, but have so far been willing to keep paying up
the story will continue. As a population we value our passive sensory overload too much.