Paging Mr. Eleven. Paging Mr. Eleven. Message at the front desk. Paging Mr. Eleven.Because that would be like the tenth time I've done that.
Paging Mr. Eleven. Paging Mr. Eleven. Message at the front desk. Paging Mr. Eleven.Because that would be like the tenth time I've done that.
Most mergers are not monstrousities and regulatory nightmares like the ones proposed in that THR story.Well, since all deals work on exactly the same timeline, then I guess she's f***ed.
But wouldn't buying/merging other tech companies be considered growing the tech company? Facebook acquired something like 91 companies and rolled them all under Meta(tm). Most notable are: Instagram, Friendfeed, Threadsy, WhatsApp, TheFind, and Twistedpixel Games.What do you mean by "current definition?" Big tech didn't get to be big by buying the competition. They kept creating new products and adding new businesses to their existing business, so they never faced government approval.
But how did WB manage to avoid that?(I swear to God the avatar just makes it worse....)
Are you going to really make me one more time explain that launching a streaming platform at the exact same moment as other major competitors and spending billions to instantly attain the scale that Netflix and Hulu had 15 or more years to attain, including loss-leader pricing to drive subscribers while losing as much as $3 billion a year is the problem?
Because that would be like the tenth time I've done that.
Meta even launched Threads using the Instagram infrastructure!But wouldn't buying/merging other tech companies be considered growing the tech company? Facebook acquired something like 91 companies and rolled them all under Meta(tm). Most notable are: Instagram, Friendfeed, Threadsy, WhatsApp, TheFind, and Twistedpixel Games.
Oh, well, this is only the third time I've had to say this, so I'll call it a win---they cut costs.But how did WB manage to avoid that?
But how did WB manage to avoid that?
They didn't. AT&T mismanagement grossly overspent on streaming product with little to no return on investment.But how did WB manage to avoid that?
I guess that makes sense. I was thinking CBS in 2019 wanted to re-merge with Viacom to launch a streaming platform with the content, since everyone else was. Perhaps they thought their linear assets would be more of treasure.Oh, well, this is only the third time I've had to say this, so I'll call it a win---they cut costs.
![]()
How Warner Bros. Discovery’s Cost-Cutting Will Affect its Content Strategy | 3Vision
In this insight, we take a look at how Warner Bros. Discovery have adjusted their strategy and what their activity looks like now including their stable but expected reduction in commissions, investment in reliable IP, and shifting approach to...www.3vision.tv
www.vox.com
Pretty much from day one, larger publicly traded companies are always keeping their eye on potential acquisitions or merger opportunities whether they eat, or are eaten. Most of the scanning and potential discussions are purely informational or informal and likely never come to fruition.So apparently, she was trying to merge with someone else again and even in 2019 acknowledged it would not be big enough to compete.
Heard this on the radio this morning. Subscription cancellations at various video streaming services increased.
![]()
More people are canceling their streaming services as companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Disney hike prices
Streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video have been hiking prices. And subscription cancelations are also on the rise.www.yahoo.com
Pretty much from day one, larger publicly traded companies are always keeping their eye on potential acquisitions or merger opportunities whether they eat, or are eaten. Most of the scanning and potential discussions are purely informational or informal and likely never come to fruition.
That's just the way business works.
Okay, but it's still a 6.3% loss of customers, and it apparently is increasing. And the article stated that 24% of customers cancelled at least two services over the past year. That's a lot of streaming consumers ditching a service.Yeah, but a 6.3% churn rate isn't epic. Stand the figure on its head---93.7% of streaming customers stayed put in November.
And it's important to note that unlike, say, SiriusXM, where a cancellation usually is a cancellation ("I don't need this"), a chunk of these cancellations are people like me starting to be a bit wiser with our bucks and only paying for the streamers we're actively watching---open to and in some cases expecting to re-subscribe when the next seasons of the shows we care about drop.
I always find those types of articles interesting. A few times I saw pieces like the one Boombox posted - That had a headline about how all the streaming services across the board have or are raising their prices, that they're all having a tough go of it, or having to merge or package with other streamers or dropping their streaming services completely, or experiencing a mass exodus of customers, etc. While some of those articles were interesting and solidly written and I have sometimes posted them on Radio Discussions as I thought they'd be of interest here, in most cases I found that the headline didn't represent the facts and information in the actual article, that the headline and in some cases the article was sensationalism rather than well-researched and objectively written, or it was so slanted or subjective that it couldn't really be taken seriously.Yeah, but a 6.3% churn rate isn't epic. Stand the figure on its head---93.7% of streaming customers stayed put in November.
And it's important to note that unlike, say, SiriusXM, where a cancellation usually is a cancellation ("I don't need this"), a chunk of these cancellations are people like me starting to be a bit wiser with our bucks and only paying for the streamers we're actively watching---open to and in some cases expecting to re-subscribe when the next seasons of the shows we care about drop.
Okay, but it's still a 6.3% loss of customers, and it apparently is increasing.
And the article stated that 24% of customers cancelled at least two services over the past year. That's a lot of streaming consumers ditching a service.
Maybe the churn is built into the business plan. But if streaming services are beginning to struggle with profitability, I can't see how an average 6.3% loss of customers is a positive, especially when the 'churn' seems to be increasing.
What you're witnessing is the free market at work. Want to sign up for Peacock for a few months for Big Ten football and cancel thereafter? Or Paramount+ to binge watch one specific Star Trek show for one month? Or Disney+ just to watch Loki and then cancel after a month? Now you can!Heard this on the radio this morning. Subscription cancellations at various video streaming services increased.
![]()
More people are canceling their streaming services as companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Disney hike prices
Streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video have been hiking prices. And subscription cancelations are also on the rise.www.yahoo.com
That's a great point as compared with the days of cable and satellite plans, whether basic or premium services like HBO, Showtime, etc. Consumers who are paying attention can binge-watch a particular series or pay ala carte for a streaming service, then cancel and sign up again when the next season of a series resumes. You can't do that with cable or satellite. Usually, it's a minimum one or two year commitment to get a lower rate.What you're witnessing is the free market at work. Want to sign up for Peacock for a few months for Big Ten football and cancel thereafter? Or Paramount+ to binge watch one specific Star Trek show for one month? Or Disney+ just to watch Loki and then cancel after a month? Now you can!