Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?

[michael hagerty]

Makes me wonder how Max was able to turn a profit. I know from advertising, but how was that able to offset the losses everyone else experienced?

Streaming Profitability Is More Than Just Subscriber Growth | AdExchanger

In the quest for profitability, streaming services are struggling to grow subscriber accounts and advertising revenue at the same time.

www.adexchanger.com

(And they spent a lot on Friends, South Park, ect.)

And this is three years ago---so just multiply the profits and factor in the new ad revenue on top:

‘Friends’ Is Already Looking Like It’ll Be HBO Max’s Crown Jewel

How ‘Friends’ gives HBO Max an immediate advantage.

observer.com

It worked less well for Paramount than it did for Max because WBD raised the price of its ad-free tier to drive viewers to its ad-supported tier----where it gets both a monthly subscription fee from each household and ad revenue (which only gets better the more eyeballs you have).

https://www.fastcompany.com/90956587/why-every-streaming-service-wants-you-to-watch-ads-now

Paramount+ was slow to raise the price of its ad-free tier because it hadn't hit the subscriber number it was looking for---so fewer of its customers opted to watch commercials. They simply weren't able to drive eyeballs and capitalize on ad revenue plus subscription the way Max was.

 

[tall_guy1]

Streaming Profitability Is More Than Just Subscriber Growth | AdExchanger

In the quest for profitability, streaming services are struggling to grow subscriber accounts and advertising revenue at the same time.

www.adexchanger.com

And this is three years ago---so just multiply the profits and factor in the new ad revenue on top:

‘Friends’ Is Already Looking Like It’ll Be HBO Max’s Crown Jewel

How ‘Friends’ gives HBO Max an immediate advantage.

observer.com

It worked less well for Paramount than it did for Max because WBD raised the price of its ad-free tier to drive viewers to its ad-supported tier----where it gets both a monthly subscription fee from each household and ad revenue (which only gets better the more eyeballs you have).

https://www.fastcompany.com/90956587/why-every-streaming-service-wants-you-to-watch-ads-now

Paramount+ was slow to raise the price of its ad-free tier because it hadn't hit the subscriber number it was looking for---so fewer of its customers opted to watch commercials. They simply weren't able to drive eyeballs and capitalize on ad revenue plus subscription the way Max was.

Paramount Plus and stations have markedly more ads than other streamers and TV, maybe that is why. I wonder what will become of Peacock? It is also losing money

 

[davideduardo]

Paramount Plus and stations have markedly more ads than other streamers and TV, maybe that is why. I wonder what will become of Peacock? It is also losing money

Counting the number of ads is futile. Unless you know the rates charged for each one on each channel or service, there is no way of judging income.

 

[tall_guy1]

Counting the number of ads is futile. Unless you know the rates charged for each one on each channel or service, there is no way of judging income.

Yes, I know that. WBD probably can charge more.

 

[Voicetrack of Reason]

I have clearly chosen the wrong week to stop taking the Lord's name in vain:


View attachment 6279

I feel your pain, believe me. The ignore feature has definitely helped. 😂

 

[tall_guy1]

I feel your pain, believe me. The ignore feature has definitely helped. 😂

Ignore?

 

[davideduardo]

Ignore?

He obviously means to use the “ignore“ feature on this board, so that he does not have to see posts from one or more members.

If you happen to feel that you are the member in question, my advice as moderator is to consider asking questions about areas that you Expert or knowledgeable on before making conclusions.

There are many, many posters here, who have lifetime career experience in different aspects of broadcasting and related fields. It does not hurt to hear what their evaluation of a situation is. You do not have to accept everyone’s opinion as views and perspectives certainly do change over time..

 

[Rusty Muck]

So talking with someone wearing a Sylvester The Cat costume isn't unusual?

Directly appropriating commercial or trademarked intellectual property is generally frowned upon. There might be some derivatives based on existing art styles but people want to have their own unique identity for any variety of reasons.

Furries aren't the same as mascots.

The WMMS Buzzard never existed as a mascot but only in print advertising. A giant buzzard with arm-length hair drawn by a former American Greetings employee...

 

[Rusty Muck]

Counting the number of ads is futile. Unless you know the rates charged for each one on each channel or service, there is no way of judging income.

The ultimate question is, does vertical integration work or not for streaming services? It's one thing for a studio to license content to a Netflix or a Prime, which have become content distributors themselves. Sony/Columbia/Tristar has been licensing content since giving up Crackle and they appear to be their own island here among the entire industry.

 

[michael hagerty]

The ultimate question is, does vertical integration work or not for streaming services? It's one thing for a studio to license content to a Netflix or a Prime, which have become content distributors themselves. Sony/Columbia/Tristar has been licensing content since giving up Crackle and they appear to be their own island here among the entire industry.

I think we're about to see whether and how well it works. All the streamers seem to be making those deals and keeping their own platform, and hiking prices of ad-free tiers as a means of pushing viewers to ad-supported, where they can get a subscription fee and an increased share of ad revenues.

Frankly, it feels like we're in the plate of spaghetti phase, where they're trying whatever they can to open up revenue streams and get the numbers into the black. For some it will be in pursuit of long-term profit. For others, it'll be in an attempt to make themselves more attractive to a buyer. And for some, it won't be enough.

 

[CTListener]

The WMMS Buzzard never existed as a mascot but only in print advertising. A giant buzzard with arm-length hair drawn by a former American Greetings employee...

AOR WHCN Hartford had a green walrus as a mascot, and a human in a walrus suit was a prominent part of its marketing. When the station stopped playing new music and became a classic rocker, the walrus (which never had a name) disappeared from its imaging, but the costume was repurposed, ending up as a secondary mascot for the minor league baseball team in New Britain, the Rock Cats, and given the name of Blooper.

 

[tall_guy1]

He obviously means to use the “ignore“ feature on this board, so that he does not have to see posts from one or more members.

If you happen to feel that you are the member in question, my advice as moderator is to consider asking questions about areas that you Expert or knowledgeable on before making conclusions.

There are many, many posters here, who have lifetime career experience in different aspects of broadcasting and related fields. It does not hurt to hear what their evaluation of a situation is. You do not have to accept everyone’s opinion as views and perspectives certainly do change over time..

Did not know such a feature existed on this site. Will try to keep an open mind.

 

[Kelly A]

Directly appropriating commercial or trademarked intellectual property is generally frowned upon.

So the furry community polices that? Is the officer dressed up in costume like Deputy Dawg when they make the bust?

There might be some derivatives based on existing art styles but people want to have their own unique identity for any variety of reasons.

The WMMS Buzzard never existed as a mascot but only in print advertising. A giant buzzard with arm-length hair drawn by a former American Greetings employee...

Have no idea what that means.

 

[Kelly A]

Did not know such a feature existed on this site. Will try to keep an open mind.

Depending on who's posting inaccurate info or guilty of annoying behavior, the "Ignore" feature is an awesome tool.
You can literally make all their posts disappear.

 

[tall_guy1]

Depending on who's posting inaccurate info or guilty of annoying behavior, the "Ignore" feature is an awesome tool.
You can literally make all their posts disappear.

Never saw that feature before scrolling through names, but looks like the one member you can't do that to is David! 🧐

 

[kfbkfb]

With National Broadband the coming thing, how about giving away 1 steaming decoder box/household (possibly the box could play a downloaded ad when it's first turned on to help pay for the box).

The "free" streaming box could have multiple ways of inputting streamed content from the National Broadband system and several ways of outputting the picture and sound to a TV (HDMI, wireless etc.).

Such a "free" box would eliminate the need for the current TV transmitting hardware and the Big 3 (4?) + PBS TV Networks could move to streaming services, thus, no OTA TV Networks to sell and/or shut down.


Kirk Bayne

 

[TheBigA]

With National Broadband the coming thing, how about giving away 1 steaming decoder box/household (possibly the box could play a downloaded ad when it's first turned on to help pay for the box).

Hmmm. You understand that the plan is implemented by internet providers? This plan doesn't replace existing ISPs. All it does is dedicate some money so poor people can afford to pay for internet. The existing "boxes" don't get replaced. This isn't government run internet. It's all private competing companies. That's the American way.

As for eliminating the need for transmitting hardware, the plan wasn't intended to replace broadcasting. Just augment it.

Go to broadband.gov for more info.

 

[kfbkfb]

I know there's an ongoing cost/person(family) for National Broadband, but, with a high minimum data rate for the most remote/rural user and the newest low data rate video and audio codecs, National Broadband can easily replace all the OTA TV infrastructure.

After all, the Internet wasn't designed for streaming, but to get data from point A to point B reliably (likely with variable latency), however, now it's used quite a lot for streaming, once it's recognized that by providing a "free" 'streaming decoder box (and of course a free app download for Smartphones/Tablets and the like), the current TV Networks can move to streaming exclusively.

My proposed "free" 'streaming box is separate from the ISP provided Internet hardware, the box is, IMHO, the missing piece to bypass the OTA TV Networks (for a while, after the move to all streaming, the TV Networks could operate the way they always have, as linear program providers, gradually changing to a more on-demand method).


Kirk Bayne

 

[TheBigA]

National Broadband can easily replace all the OTA TV infrastructure.

Maybe. Just as Spotify can replace local radio. But people like choice. Not everyone doing the same thing.

My proposed "free" 'streaming box is separate from the ISP provided Internet hardware, the box is, IMHO, the missing piece to bypass the OTA TV Networks

You don't need another box. I'm streaming all of my TV now through an Amazon Fire.

 

[davideduardo]

Such a "free" box would eliminate the need for the current TV transmitting hardware and the Big 3 (4?) + PBS TV Networks could move to streaming services, thus, no OTA TV Networks to sell and/or shut down.

It hasn't been "big three" for decades (ignoring for a moment the cable channel dilution of viewing followed by streaming's total fragmentation) as traditional networks include, definitely, Fox, Telemundo, Univision and, sort of, The CW.