While the numbers might be a bit hit and miss, the comparison with individual creators is fascinating and definitely hits upon something that keeps me from subscribing to patreons/etc.
I don't have just one creator who I would consistently want to support the most, there are probably 10-20 who I would like to support, however I'm not going to pay 10x of them $5/h for content when YouTube is 1x $0.50/h (and has their content). To me, content creation is always going to need to be bundled at some level because I want diversity that no one creator is ever going to provide, and when bundling the price typically reduces because the bundling correctly recognises that consumption does not scale up.
You can support one for a few months, switch to another, etc.. Or just roll a dice and pick one of your favorites to support and leave it to others to support the others you like. Something is better than nothing if you want to keep independent creators around.
Yeah all of this is just a lot of work and decisions, and rolling a dice just feels weird and unfair. I do pay for YT premium which distributes money across my views which is therefore somewhat fair, and I'm considering a Nebula subscription (if Curiosity Stream's sign up flow doesn't persuade me not to again).
I wish that Patreon had a support format where I could pay, say, $20 a month to Patreon and have that spread between whoever I'm supporting in a way that's cost efficient on payment fees and stuff like that.
It doesn't help though that individual creators price very highly relative to the amount of their content I consume. Fundamentally, a podcast is just not worth $10 a month to me because if I lost access I'd just listen to a different one.
> I'm considering a Nebula subscription (if Curiosity Stream's sign up flow doesn't persuade me not to again)
Nebula and Curiosity Stream are in a bit of a "breakup period". Curiosity Stream will no longer bundle Nebula at all starting next month (next year).
If you want Nebula, sign up directly with Nebula at this point. Or find a referral code from a channel that you like because they still get paid slightly more for direct referrals. I believe for a few more weeks they are still selling lifetime memberships, as an interesting way to amortize your spread for the next few years (and basically get a long term $/hr deal for a bigger short term investment), if that is something that interests you.
The dice strategy is only unfair if you look at it from the perspective that you’re the only one doing things that way. But lots of people are likely doing something similar to that so that on average across enough people it works out. I would wager that most people who support at least one creator probably still consume media from far more creators than they can afford to support, so they just pick one or two somehow and call it a day. It’s basically the way I do it.
Oh sure I realise rationally that it's fair, but given that my aim is somewhat to support creators and somewhat to feel good about supporting creators, it doesn't really help me on the latter because irrationally it feels unfair. I am not sure lots of people would be doing this though.
I always think this is an intersting piece of human behavior. Either having to be perfectly "good" or not do anything at all. People do 0% instead of doing 5% because intellectually they understand what 100% looks like
> I wish that Patreon had a support format where I could pay, say, $20 a month to Patreon and have that spread between whoever I'm supporting in a way that's cost efficient on payment fees and stuff like that.
This is (effectively) how "user centric" revenue models that have been proposed in music would work. Your monthly subscription would be assigned to creators that you listen to. The challenge in music is that it doesn't necessarily benefit smaller musicians much because people still listen to the big hits from big artists and major labels.
In a platform like Patreon it could work quite well, because it's more of a walled garden. Pick a few creators, and then divvy up the revenue based on how much you engage with their content.
This is the attitude that makes people fork over $70/hr to CGPGrey. I like these people's content, and want to support them too. But they don't need my financial support. They're all making way more money than me and probably you. If they wanted some sort of micropayment they could ask for it, but they're all pushing for the $10/month rate instead. Your $1/mo is so inconsequential to them that they don't actually want it. So don't worry about it.
Just support them by thumbs-up-ing their videos and don't worry too much about their finances. They're fine.
Micropayments on the internet don't work. Payment processors charge 30¢ per transaction, plus a percentage.
We are not in a system that allows for micropayments to work.
You list a very famous content creator. On the other hand, there are lots of content creators who actually are struggling, and not making half as much as a minimum wage worker despite working longer hours than full-time.
If you look at the Twitch leaks, the payment curve has a long tail; the vast majority of creators do not make very much at all, while the top creators tend to make out with multigenerational wealth in a year.
This is especially true with CS-sphere content creators, because computer scientists seem especially reluctant to spend money, ever, if it isn't required of them, as they are very good at justifying not doing so with "They'll be fine!"
In many cases, a sentiment that's right. In other cases, not so much. There are lots of Twitch streamers, open source software developers, and YouTubers that can't seem to find ways to monetize their content that work well. Oftentimes, these are some of the people that have the most interesting content!
If a person likes someone's content, they should find a way to financially support that, if they're able.
> Micropayments on the internet don't work. Payment processors charge 30¢ per transaction, plus a percentage.
Well yes, micropayments don't work if you don't use a micropayment platform. There are solutions that cater specifically to micropayments that have different fee structures so that it makes sense.
A platform with enough resources and interest could also accept deposits from traditional payment processors in bulk, and payout at some threshold to content creators.
> If you look at the Twitch leaks, the payment curve has a long tail; the vast majority of creators do not make very much at all, while the top creators tend to make out with multigenerational wealth in a year.
This isn't because of the payment system. This is because content quality and discovery both have a long tail. The average content is poor quality and has almost no views.
> Micropayments on the internet don't work. Payment processors charge 30¢ per transaction, plus a percentage.
From what I remember, Patreon solves this by bundling all micro-payments together on the same day.
So if you have twenty 50¢ pledges, first you pay 10$ to Patreon, then Patreon spreads that money between creators. The final overhead is only paid once per user and once per creator.
I wonder if there would be interest in a non-crypto version of the Brave program. In theory, that's exactly what they do: you set a total monthly donation and which creators you want to support, and the browser keeps track of how much each should get at the end of the month.
Unfortunately, what ended up happening is that the program is too complicated for people with disposable income who would be interested and it got stuck in a bad spot between "big enough to attract crypto 'investors' who only care about hodling" and "not big enough to be attractive to high-profile creators".
Not to mention, it's pretty much impossible to get paid with the program in a lot of (most?) countries. As in, you get paid in BAT in some custodial service, but you can't really get it off that service to trade it to your local currency and get it into your bank account. You can't get it onto a blockchain to swap on a DEX and convert to USDT or whatever. And if you can, you'd be eaten away by fees.
Add to that, tax on BAT payments would be a nightmare to figure out.
You can trade BAT on Coinbase, Binance and Kraken. Probably a lot of smaller exchanges as well, those just seemed like the most logical one's to check.
So you pay $20-30 to send your BAT on Ethereum to your exchange, where you then pay additional trade and withdrawal fees.
You must be making a lot of BAT for this to even be worth it. I haven't seen anyone on https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject report making more than ~$10/month, and the overwhelming majority just make anywhere from $0.20 - $5/month. So maybe in two years it's going to be worthwhile for them to go through the withdrawal steps.
In the meantime they technically have to report their BAT distributions as earnings against their income (so they pay taxes for them). Then track the average cost basis til the time of their eventual disposal.
In many countries, the network fees, trading fees, and withdrawal fees won't be deductible unless they're filing as a business. So they may even lose money throughout the process when you take additional taxes into account.
And either way it's a tax headache, and you risk opening yourself up to penalties if you file improperly, or paying an accountant extra to sort through everything for you.
Either people are making enough money to withdraw, or the amount is so low that is not required to be reported. No tax authority will come after you because you didn't declare the $100 bucks worth of crypto you got in one whole fiscal year.
There was a startup many years ago that I can't remember the name of this who did a similar micropayment tipping sort of thing. The problem was that they essentially collected money on behalf of creators who had no idea the platform existed and they would have to then go and sign up to retrieve funds. I don't want to support creators through something they don't consent to using like that.
That might also have been Brave. Tom Scott was targeted by their crap[0] and I recall them fucking about with unsolicited donations for the archive.is operator as well.
It seems their business model has changed nowadays (unless they've lapsed again, which Brave has done a few times I think?) but that's definitely been the Brave model in the past.
To be honest, I don't mind if the middleman is actually holding the funds and gives them out when the taker signs up. Creating a totally new market where you need to develop both sides of the transaction is not an easy task.
Brave figured this out long ago with their BAT system IMO. Basically automated micropayments for content consumption (I mean, Basic Attention Token, what's in a name). You can either buy BAT directly or watch private-by-default ads, which takes away one of the biggest ethical qualms one can have with adblocking too.
I know that HN has a prety small but ultra-vocal minority that will hate on Brave any chance they get, so expect a lot of disparaging comments.
I do have a problem with the Brave/BAT system here, because it lacks consent from the creators. Brave show the user ads and grants them BAT, the user "gives" the BAT to the creator, and almost all creators won't know about this so it's in a black hole (controlled by Brave?). If I were a creator I'm not sure I'd like that, specifically not being able to opt-out at all(?) or at least not without signing up and giving my details.
Ah good, that's better than Flattr and previous attempts at this then. Does this mean that if none of the creators you support accept BAT then you aren't paying anything?
Does it mean that if just one of them accepts it then you're paying all of your BAT to them? What if you mostly watch YouTube channels of people who wouldn't be onboard with it, but get linked one video by someone you don't like but they do accept it, do they get all your BAT that month?
Perhaps there are good answers to all of this, but getting it right sounds tricky!
It's impossible for many creators to actually benefit from the program (but this isn't straightforward when they sign up, which does in fact leave a black hole)
You can trade BAT on Coinbase, Binance and Kraken. Probably a lot of smaller exchanges as well, those just seemed like the most logical one's to check.
So you pay $20-30 to send your BAT on Ethereum to your exchange, where you then pay additional trade and withdrawal fees.
You must be making a lot of BAT for this to even be worth it. I haven't seen anyone on https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject report making more than ~$10/month, and the overwhelming majority just make anywhere from $0.20 - $5/month. So maybe in two years it's going to be worthwhile for them to go through the withdrawal steps.
In the meantime they technically have to report their BAT distributions as earnings against their income (so they pay taxes for them). Then track the average cost basis til the time of their eventual disposal.
In many countries, the network fees, trading fees, and withdrawal fees won't be deductible unless they're filing as a business. So they may even lose money throughout the process when you take additional taxes into account.
And either way it's a tax headache, and you risk opening yourself up to penalties if you file improperly, or paying an accountant extra to sort through everything for you.
> Does this mean that if none of the creators you support accept BAT then you aren't paying anything?
Creator's can't really opt out of BAT afaik, Brave will just hold the BAT in escrow until they make an account. Brave itself doesn't really benefit. Maybe from a value increase in BAT?
I'm not entirely certain how much they seeded to themselves, but I can't imagine much if at all because of the optics.
Whilst it is not ideal, you have to remember that this is a three-step from a previous situation:
1. No one has adblock, security and privacy are deeply compromised
2. 'Everyone' has adblock, ads are blocked, creators make no money
3. Some users start to use BAT, those users now actually pay for content again
I pay pretty much all of the people whose stuff I use on a regular basis, but I don't pay any of them automatically or monthly. I just drop each of them a one-time $20 payment every so often.
I had an idea for a pay-per-minute youtube, where your time watched gets credited to the creator. I would rather just pay per use than worry about whether I'm using my subscriptions enough to be worth it.
Most people aren't like you FWIW; there's a lot of research that suggests consumers prefer higher fixed prices to lower variable prices. The trouble with PPV (even if it's much cheaper than something like YouTube Premium) is that now before I watch any video, I have to consider whether that particular video is worth watching. For lots of content on YouTube, that bar would be too high to clear. It's much more comfortable knowing I've already paid for the service and don't need to think twice.
> research that suggests consumers prefer higher fixed prices to lower variable prices.
I'm one of them. I value predictability pretty highly when it comes to expenses. The less mental energy I have to spend on money-related things, the happier I am.
Me too. I'd imagine anyone who values time more than money would prefer the fixed-cost option. (And I learned a long time back buying time is the best possible use of money!)
I agree. And for this reason I also think that people show hypocrisy when blocking ads on YouTube, saying that they support creators via other channels. Because everyone cares about price, and supporting creators individually gets expensive fast.
Is the average monthly usage of Netflix 43h/month? That's 1.1 hours per day! Where does this data come from? Is it global or specific to a country? It seems like quite a lot.
Can't believe Spotify, which I assume people listen to during work or commute so would potentially be higher, has only 5 hours/month compared to 43h/month from Netflix. That's why I'm curious to know the source of the data.
I suspect the stat gets blown out of proportion by people who leave the TV on as background noise. I'll never personally understand having a TV in the bedroom, but I know folks who can't fall asleep without it on.
It's median, but I think there's a similar effect actually. A lot of people "watch TV" as a side activity to something else (like browsing their phone). Alas, I've never been able to multitask as well as my digitally-poisoned peers.
Not the OP and certainly not my case (cause I don't have a Netflix account) but I have lots of people I know who do more than 1.1 hours per day on Netlix.
I'm talking mostly middle-class millenials from an Eastern-European capital city, but I'm pretty sure the same thing is in place in other locations, too. These people have effectively stopped watching television programming and it's all video-streaming for them now, mostly Netflix but also HBO Max and maybe Disney.
That seems eminently plausible to me. When I was growing up (and still the case for my parents, some of my childhood friends, etc.) at-home downtime meant TV time. This could easily be hours a day, especially on weekends.
I'm surprised by the cost. Is it really $23/month in the United States? I paid €13.50 a month, which seems to be about $14.50 for the ad-free level. And even that is a big price increase on what it used to be, which is why I unsubscribed...
> Is the average monthly usage of Netflix 43h/month? That's 1.1 hours per day!
While the author doesn’t actually know how many hours subscribers spend, we do know that a subscription is used by several people in a household. If we take a conservative view of on average two people per subscription (e.g. you and your partner), a combined 1 hour per day seems very reasonable.
Netflix, at “best” settings, streams 1-7 GB/hour [0]. At the highest public tier for AWS EC2 egress, that’s 5-35 cents/hour, which would not be amazing for Netflix’s bottom line. CloudFront is a bit better at 2-14 cents/hr.
Of course, Netflix surely doesn’t pay AWS retail prices, and Netflix doesn’t use AWS for streaming data anyway. But this does mean that any aspiring creator or startup that wants to try to collect its 50 cents/hr or so should either not deploy its streaming source in a big name cloud or should design it so it can be migrated off the big clouds quickly if the service takes off.
(Cloudflare R2 appears to be quite good for this purpose. So is a small fleet of collocated machines. A single low-end modern server streaming out 10Gbps accounts for several hundred dollars per hour of revenue, and you need to be truly successful indeed before anything resembling AWS’s internal infrastructure is needed to keep the pipes fed. Keep in mind that Netflix blogs about how their servers pump out streams at 40x that rate.)
Important to remember that the distributions here are multi-modal, so averages don't represent the data well. For AAA games I think you're way off. Looking at the 5 top played games in 2023, "main story" to "completionist":
Title Main Story (hrs) Completionist (hrs)
Baldur's Gate 3 57 146
Super Mario Wonder 10 19
Starfield 22 145
Zelda: ToTK 59 235
Hogwarts Legacy 27 68
Of these, the first two are co-op but not the same kind of multiplayer I think you allude to. Super Mario Wonder is not, I think, what many people would call "AAA".
If we add Spider-Man 2, that's still a 17 hour main story, and has been criticized for being "too short". Many people who purchase AAA titles do expect 20-30 hours of entertainment, for a ~$2/hour return. And the Game of the Year is the title with the second best ROI!
Depends on the type of the games you are looking obviously:
- 2023 shooters average just over 12h to complete
- 2023 RPGs 37.5h
- Battle Arena (all time) 433h
All in all average for 2023 releases is just under 20h _to complete_, which doesn't necessarily mean people actually played that much - the other article I've linked suggests that on average people got to less than half of the main story..
That's possible, but in general action games are shorter (unless padded with "open world") - e.g. all recent Tomb Raider games are around 12h mark, horror games average around 9h etc.
Since I can't filter data by "AAA titles only" I'm assuming that on average they are no different in length than all games in general - under 20h to complete. Add average completion percentage of less than 50% it gives you average play time per title of less than 10h.
To me, that's well worth it if the experience is unique, interesting, emotionally moving, etc.
I think that measuring something like that in terms of dollars per hour is a bit reductionist. I'd rather have a short but impactful game over something that sprawls for 40+ hours but doesn't do much with that time. Cocoon was around 5 hours for $25, but I don't regret that purchase for a second.
But when there are so many games out there vying for attention - and I don't know if the game will 'click' with me in advance, I myself often wait for sales. Most of what I buy ends up being in the $10-$30 range, and I frequently play games many years after their release. By then, computers have advanced so the game runs better, bugs have been patched, expansions released, etc.
Explains why Spotify and Kindle Unlimited is an automatic yes from me, and new fiction hard copies much less so, based on my usage.
- Spotify: 65k minutes a year, 90h/mo, so around 0.13/h
I’m a fast reader, so a novel averages 2-5 hours for me, probably 4h would be a fair guess.
Last few years have averaged 150 titles a year on KU, so… 50hr/mo and 0.25/h in costs.
And that print novel is usually 15-25 these days new… and still only 3-4h for me, at least $5/h. I’ll buy books I want to own in the long term, or support the authors, but that’s still expensive.
I think an e-book is a great idea, but Kindle Unlimited never has anything I want to read. I’m not saying they don’t have items I would read, but when I go to find a book I’ve heard about, it’s not available there.
Instead I just Libby through my local libraries and OReilly through my work. Those are services I’d pay Kindle Unlimited subscription prices for if not already available.
Maybe I'm not trying to read books in the target market that my local library is trying to serve with what it has available on Libby, but I probably have a 5% success rate with books I'm trying to read actually being available on Libby.
(Setting aside the very hostile payment structure that Libby imposes on libraries, which makes it look far less attractive as a tax-payer now that I know how it works)
If you don't know you can get a Brooklyn Public Library membership online not being a citizen of NY. They have one of if not the largest Libby/etc libraries. You'd get a card then put your # into Overdrive/Libby and check out books.
edit: Well nevermind apparently they stopped doing it. I can't even renew my card.. boo.
"As of July 15, 2022, Brooklyn Public Library is no longer offering its fee-based out-of-state library card. Our priority remains serving Brooklynites and assuring that they can access the materials they need in a timely manner. BPL Library cards remain free for anyone who lives, works, pays property taxes or attends school in New York State. Existing out-of-state accounts will remain active until their expiration date and will not be renewable."
Does anyone know of another huge library with online/out-of-State cards?
This may just confirm that your local library doesn't have what you're looking for on Libby, but if you have a Goodreads to-read list, you may find https://projecttbr.com/ very helpful. I used to comb through my list of books to read manually and had a hard time finding anything I wanted to listen to, but this site made it a pretty easy process.
I also consume a lot more Spotify than anything else, but get a lot more value/hour from eg YouTube.
Btw Spotify, if you want me to "agree" to your price hike, asking over and over again with the same threat of probably downgrade me to the free version is just stupid. I might simply resubscribe then. Or just try some different service that shows me some respect, instead of attempting to get a miss-click out of me.
Probably a good idea anyway, both to get out of my current bubble but also see what value/$ competitors offer.
Spotify average usage is 5 hours a month? No way, that's just 10 minutes / 3 songs a day. My yearly Spotify total was 57,000 minutes, which comes out to just over 2.5 hours a day - and that seems low when I think about it.
It takes a strong minded person to keep it to the numbers instead of jamming a 2k word blog post injecting their random commentary and bait title onto something that stands on its own. Major kudos.
I find it interesting to consider other forms of entertainment that aren't commonly thought of as such. Case in point, food is a form of "entertainment"; you need the basic nutrients, but those can be supplied very cheaply. If people consciously thought about how much a dinner costs per hour, it might lead more people to change their dietary habits.
Another example would be makeup and fashion. It's a more subtle type of entertainment (more akin to "being on a cruise"), but the cost per hour is relatively low. That said, the benefit per hour is also low, and it's something missing from this sort of equalized comparison. One hour being at a theme park versus scrolling on Twitter versus watching a movie are very different values.
> If people consciously thought about how much a dinner costs per hour, it might lead more people to change their dietary habits.
This is how I think about my food when I want to eat out. Most meals are now $10+, give or take, and I start to think, "that's one month of YouTube Premium, is it really worth it to eat this?". A "subscription" of eating out often starts adding up real quick compared to my own cooking.
I think that speaks more to the low price of YT premium than it does the high price of food. In general a lot of digital content (also most streaming services, and many video games) has amazingly good cost per time-entertained. And that food is still pretty cheap compared to a Broadway play or concert
I'm not sure about that last part. A meal that lasts an hour is on the long side while a concert is several hours long. In my area (San Francisco) and experience, it's like $20 for a dinner or $50 for a concert.
FWIW, I also operate on the experential-model, and I'm going to remember a concert far more than 3-4 random dinners.
Interesting idea and I’ve thought about some of these before.
Not sure a cruise is applicable since you’re also getting drinks and transportation. How much would it cost to watch Netflix while sippping whiskey and Ubering to Mexico?
Can the mods please fix the title? "$x/h" is fairly common but the capitalization threw me off. With most units (especially in SI/metric but also others) capitalization can be the entire difference between two units, e.g. MW (megawatts) vs mW (milliwatts) or g (gram) vs G (gravity).
The easy mistake to make with this type of data is to assume that any creator (or business like Netflix) would have a functional business model if they were paid "hourly" or by piece of content. Such a model would ensure the enshitification of content by enforcing pressure to create predictably "successful" content.
The alternative: Give real, predictable, support to creators and not content. Pay people to create.
Give them the opportunity to fail and support them anyways. If they keep failing, sure, stop supporting them. But at least give them a few chances.
This is why subscription models work: They provide stability and predictability. The problem with "microtransactions" is that it's all about commodification, which is the worst possible outcome for the creation of good art, reporting, and journalism.
This is why platforms like https://www.loor.tv/ are essential, which let you fund the tv shows you want to see, not just _all tv_ Netflix is producing.
Is it though? Because if they were doing something that good wouldn't I have heard of this service by now? I have a pretty good (I would wager better than most) understanding of which streaming services are available but I've never even heard of this one.
They just soft launched in June and are currently raising capital for marketing and customer growth. So it makes sense why you wouldn't hear from them.
I'm the founder! So I can answer any questions. Yes we're broad conservative and faith based. Going after what we call whiskey and cigar evangelical males.
IMHO there is too much arbitrary averaging (or selective non-averaging) going on without details on the methodology. Is the avg. number of minutes watched/listened on youtube/spotify the average of paying subscribers? Plus, video games priced at 60$ are the release price, where is the average retail price for this? Do people that pay $60 on a video game tend to play the game longer, or rather shorter? Etc...
To be fair, author acknowledges the numbers are probably incorrect, but there is too much going on without necessary details to do proper comparrison.
I'm interested to see a $/H breakdown of the cost of (self hosted htpc) piracy. You gotta buy hard drives and a media player, and spend time with set up and maintaince.
You own time would be highly variable in cost. A parent of 4 vs a highschool kid have very different time values.
> I'm interested to see a $/H breakdown of the cost of (self hosted htpc) piracy. You gotta buy hard drives and a media player, and spend time with set up and maintaince.
Why would you need hard drives? If your internet is reasonably fast you can just delete the file and download it again next time you need to watch it. Same goes with htpc. A laptop with a hdmi cord works fine as well and is way cheaper.
I have Plex thrown onto a headless old franken i5 that's also doing duty as a home assistant instance, running an instance of car speed tracking openCV python thing and a goesrecv decoding instance (from the atom processor'd sdr connected laptop out back in the schoolhouse).
You use the app on a phone to cast to a chromecast that's jabbered into the $84 projector, hooked to the "they are broken" Sony Bluetooth speakers and sub (not broken, now fixed!).
And all currently mostly stored on an external 4tb USB 3 drive I've had for years.
A rant, and a ramble, but nothing listed above is expensive or particularly hard to wing together.
Is the experience mind blowing? Nope. But it works for the kids and I, and has certainly been worth the time (and nominal $) expenditure here.
Zero. Qualms.
Edit: $10 a month in electricity for this ancient machine doing all of these things, if you round up.
For audiobooks, do most people really buy books that are 10 hours or less? Most of mine are at least 11 hours. The average seems to be closer to 13 - 20 hours. Typically each of my books gets at least two listens, too.
I would love to pay for a service that connects all my subscriptions and finds out how much I pay for them hourly basis but it would be hard to make it work with the existing APIs I assume.
I thought I won't be able to cancel Netflix. Whenever I made the decision to quit, they come up with a show that I would half watch and then think hmm maybe next one will be better, then come to a decision to cancel and well... rinse and repeat.
Anyway, been 6 months clean now. I even forgot most of things I watched there.
The “book” option as a single row seems incomplete. There are cheaper ebook versions, some can be accessed as a subscription - and sometimes for free in a library.
Let's say there's 4 weeks to a month - that's 12.8 hours a month. So using $23/m is going to be 1.8/h -- I'd be curious to see the median hours per month per user -- I am willing to bet the average is skewed by the top 20% of viewers.
A short game is still likely to be $60 - it is more dependent on the publisher setting price.
In 2020, each Netflix subscriber in the U.S. was watching an average of 3.2 hours of Netflix content per day
A lot has changed in the streaming landscape since 2020. I would not at all be surprised if while the daily avg. hasn't changed, it is now spread out over more streaming services. I know I watch a lot more Not Netflix now than I did a few years ago.
I don't have just one creator who I would consistently want to support the most, there are probably 10-20 who I would like to support, however I'm not going to pay 10x of them $5/h for content when YouTube is 1x $0.50/h (and has their content). To me, content creation is always going to need to be bundled at some level because I want diversity that no one creator is ever going to provide, and when bundling the price typically reduces because the bundling correctly recognises that consumption does not scale up.