Already there---began December 13 on Apple TV, Vudu, Amazon Prime, Xfinity, Google Play, and YouTube. $19.89 a pop.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
- Status
Already there---began December 13 on Apple TV, Vudu, Amazon Prime, Xfinity, Google Play, and YouTube. $19.89 a pop.
That's partly what I said in my previous post, but thanks for mentioning the price
My understanding is Eras was released on a Pay-Per-View basis on AZ Prime, though not yet free viewing for subscribers. You want to watch Taylor 10 times, you pay 10 times. Each time you have 48 hours to watch the movie front-to-back (with pauses, if necessary). But once you've seen it to the end, or the 48 hours expires, it's another toll charge (so to speak).
I never looked to see what a ticket cost when it was in theaters. Does anyone know if the streaming price of $19.89 is higher than a non-IMAX theater ticket for it was?
A lot of streaming services are offered as part of a “bundle”, in a way, or better yet as a free bonus/add on - I get Max with no commercials free from AT&T (I believe it’s a grandfathered deal from when they were with Warner) with my cell phone plan, and I get Paramount+ with ads for free with my Walmart+ subscription (which I got for a year on Black Friday for $49). I believe T-Mobile offers a Netflix deal as well. Before the TMo integration, Sprint customers got a certain level of Hulu for free with their plan.
I do have to wonder if the streamers are making much from these deals or if it benefits the company offering it for free more. Someone is likely taking a loss/cut to include them. I’m sure Walmart’s Paramount+ inclusion is to try to compete with Amazon Prime offering video.
I do have to wonder if the streamers are making much from these deals or if it benefits the company offering it for free more. Someone is likely taking a loss/cut to include them. I’m sure Walmart’s Paramount+ inclusion is to try to compete with Amazon Prime offering video.
In many (not all) cases, it's a situation where they're trying to entice people to appreciate the programming their streaming service offers, hoping that once the free or reduced price offer ends, they'll continue to subscribe at full price. In other cases they lure people in on a low cost or "bundle" deal that lasts for a certain period, with the caveat that they need to provide their credit card or banking information in order to sign up. Once the lower priced offer is over, they continue to bill, often unannounced, at full price.
In other cases when they bundle plans, one might be a loss leader in favor of attracting customers to one of the services in the bundle.
Sounds about the same as the theater price. Tickets were higher than a typical movie.
Getting back to the Paramount Global sweepstakes, and who will buy the company that owns CBS. Now there are reports that one of the possible buyers might be Comcast, owner of NBC-Universal:
variety.com
Obviously the latest announcement from the FCC about its ownership rules reiterated the ban on one company owning two of the major networks, so CBS couldn't be part of the deal.
Paramount Global Clinches Cable Carriage Deal with Comcast as Acquisition Rumors Swirl
Paramount Global has clinched a carriage deal with Comcast that is crucial to its financial future as acquisition rumors swirl around the company.
variety.com
Obviously the latest announcement from the FCC about its ownership rules reiterated the ban on one company owning two of the major networks, so CBS couldn't be part of the deal.
Americans Are Canceling More of Their Streaming Services
Hulu and other streamers are turning to bundles, discounts and ad-supported plans as customer defections rise.
www.wsj.com
One in four people who cancel a premium streaming service typically resubscribes to that service within four months, and one in three does so within seven months. Half do so within two years.
How about a very low cost tier (for example, $1.99/month) with a large number of ads, VHS quality picture (and stereo/surround sound of course), at least people would likely continue to subscribe and some of the ads could be promotions for upcoming programs (or returning favorites) on the streaming service.
I don't check the "deals" for streaming services (I have max free w/AT&T Fiber), I found out about the $0.99/mo Hulu deal doing ongoing research for OTA DTV news (subscribed right away), a low cost (very) ad supported streaming service is something I would probably subscribe to on an ongoing basis.
Kirk Bayne
Netflix announced they lost 17% of viewing last year:
Netflix Viewing Declined By 17% in 2023
Based on Netflix's own data, viewers spent over 7 billion hours less last year watching the platform than they did in 2022
www.nexttv.com
Wait, you're paying $0.99 per month for something you can get for free?
A PT Barnum saying comes to mind...
Netflix announced they lost 17% of viewing last year:
Netflix Viewing Declined By 17% in 2023
Based on Netflix's own data, viewers spent over 7 billion hours less last year watching the platform than they did in 2022
Looks like a TSL (TSV?) problem. Subscriber numbers are up, viewing hours down.
People started going out more as pandemic stay-at-home lifestyle habits continued to wane.
Writers and actors strikes started impacting the amount of new content late in the year. The effects are still causing a reduction of new content even as all the platforms keep jacking up their prices.
17% decrease in viewership over the period of a year is a pretty big deal, one would think.
Sure, they're still getting that subscription money. But I'm sure the almost 20% loss in time spent viewing affects ad revenues. And if that almost one out of 5 Netflixers eventually decide it's not worth the money, there's that.
But, then again. a lot of people keep subscriptions even for services they aren't using all the time. If the price is low enough, there's always that "but I want to keep it because there may be that one program (or movie) I want to watch" thing going on.
looks like it's safe to say, the Streaming bubble has finally busted, it's a matter of time before we start seeing bundling of all streaming services on a few internet providers similar to how channels were bundled on basic cable/satellite companies because it's clear streaming is becoming more and more like the same cycle people escape from when they left Cable/Satellite, i bet the streaming channels that stream for free are the one benefiting from this, also wouldn't be surprise to find out internet piracy of content might be on the rise again too.
Probably not all that much yet. The ad-supported Netflix tier is pretty new. As of November, only 15 million of Netflix' 77 million subscribers are on it. But that's triple what it was in spring, so the advertisers are seeing a rapid climb in eyeballs.
In the last couple of months, I've been more aggressive about dropping services when there's not anything we're actively watching. Peacock, Paramount+, Disney+, Hulu and Starz have all gotten the ax.
Given the nature of streaming originals, I'll probably be back at some point ("Poker Face" season 2, whenever it drops, will bring me back to Peacock---"What We Do In The Shadows" will have me signing up for Hulu again).
But the writers' and actors' strikes will delay a lot of these---could be a year and a half to two years between the end of one season and the beginning of the next. Even Apple+, where we have three favorite shows ("The Morning Show", "Shrinking" and "Severance"), may end up on pause until new seasons drop (though I have that bundled with Apple Music, so it might be advantageous to leave it alone).
Regardless, it will show up as "churn", and it will affect the streamer in terms of not having my whatever-99 per month---but it would be a mistake to read that as dissatisfaction with the platform or with streaming in general.
No. Again, too many players rushed into a space Amazon, Netflix and Hulu were already dominant in and spent too much money to be instantly competitive in terms of content and subscriber numbers.
There's room for four major streaming platforms. There's not room for eight.
Four is plenty. I wish there were room for four major parties.
One fundamental problem is that when people started really "cutting the cord" en masse, it was because cable had become cost prohibitive, especially considering the fact that they could view 1,000 + TV and music channels through their cable provider, when they maybe only watched 10 of them at most on a regular basis. One big difference back then is that one could often see many of the NBA, NFL or MLB games they wanted to watch at ESPN.com or another site for free. It was also simple to go to the Travel Channel, Discovery or HGTV and watch a whole hosts of back episodes of your favorite shows, for free, and so folks with a laptop, maybe 1 or 2 (relatively low cost back then) streaming subscriptions to Netflix or similar and an OTA antenna could really save a lot of $$ relatively easily. Now all those back episodes and free sports streaming are locked down and only available via a paid streaming service. More and more content is only available via streaming and the cost of those streaming subscriptions is rising - to the point where, for many who aren't terribly unhappy with the offerings from their cable company, it may be worth it financially to just stay with them.
- Status