Online Series: Are we starting to see the oversaturation of streaming services

[Jumptheshark]

A few items have come out over the past few days and while some have made the entertainment section... it is the stuff in the business section that has gotten my attention

Yesterday it was announced that HBO max would not be releasing Batgirl on either HBOmax or into theatres. Today a few more articles appeared on line about the business structure of HBO max.

Why HBO Max Removed 6 Streaming-Exclusive Movies, with More to Come

Warner Bros. Discovery leader David Zaslav takes no prisoners, but he will take tax breaks.

www.indiewire.com

Speculation Is on Fire Around HBO Max's Future, Planned Layoffs in Major Streaming Shake-Up - TheWrap

Hollywood is buzzing around Warner Bros. Discovery's upcoming earnings results and plans for a combined streaming service, which can upend its most popular streamer

www.thewrap.com

For those who do not own stocks or pay attention to the stock market. Over the next few weeks you will be seeing "quarterly reports". Under performing companies have poor quarterly reports all the time, the problem arises when they have poor quarterly reports in back to back quarters and that is when wall street gets into the action and the bean counters take over and business either changed or get downgraded (if their stock gets downgraded it means they will have trouble either extending load or getting new loans)

It is not just HBO max that is having bad back to back quarterly reports. Netflix

Netflix knew they were going to have their third consecutive bad quarterly report and about 2 weeks ago took a knife to many things

Netflix Layoffs Cost Streamer $70M In Severance Charges; Nearly 500 Staffers Axed Recently

The recent pink-slipping of hundreds of employees cost Netflix a bundle, with more likely to come. Today’s second-quarter earnings letter to shareholders revealed the streamer paid out $70 mi…

deadline.com

Both companies in press releases are using key phrases such as "re adjustment" "aggressive correction procedures" and other stuff.

part of the readjustments at due to this will be the second quarterly report that has come out after lockdown in many countries ended and a certain problem in the Ukraine. So the streamers are now dealing with the fact many customers who signed up due to the lockdown are now quickly cancelling streaming services and going back to either traditional viewing habits or are watching on line directly from the different networks and putting up with commercials. Netfix is finalizing a viewing package where for a few pounds less--people can subscribe .

Amazon has the imbd freevew where you can watch a lot of shows and movies but have to put with commercials.

One of the original draws for streamers was to be able to watch something commercial free. That appears to be changing quickly if you read what the business papers are reporting

HBO is involved in a merger so every day their are new details coming out about how it will reflect on their over all business

But Netflix is a very delicate situation. While they have a few self produced assets, their business paradigm was built on buying series and movies to gain customers. With more and more studios creating their own on line service, Netflix has been hit with notifications that many series that they built the business in will not have their contracts renewed so that the asset can then be stream exclusively on the studios service

It will be interesting to see if we see streamers merging to save money?

Click to read more...

 

[beowulf]

Was bound to happen. Might see some mergers of the smaller ones into the bigger ones sooner than later. Big ones like Disney+ and Amazon Prime will continue on for a few reasons, popular content you can't get anywhere else or content created to sell other items like Amazon using it as a feature with Amazon Prime and to sell their own tablets etc.

If ones that are not profitable don't merge their streaming part into a bigger one, we might just see them going back to the old model of creating content for movie theaters etc. and then licencing it out to steamers like Netflix etc.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Yes..

Is this movie on Netflix? No.
Is it on Crave? No.
Is it on Disney+? No.
Is it on Apple TV? No.
Is it on Amazon Prime? Yes but I gotta pay for it.

Guess I'll stream it on my f***ing laptop illegally.

 

[beowulf]

Yes..

Is this movie on Netflix? No.
Is it on Crave? No.
Is it on Disney+? No.
Is it on Apple TV? No.
Is it on Amazon Prime? Yes but I gotta pay for it.

Guess I'll stream it on my f***ing laptop illegally.

Thing with Prime Video is you get it with Prime membership so meh I look at it as a bonus that comes with that. I likely would not pay for it alone.

 

[kook10]

The writing was always on the wall, especially since a few years ago Netflix inflated the whole market. They had a huge first mover advantage and tons of cash that they pumped back into their productions and production staff. IIRC they made a big deal about a $2B production budget one year. Knowing that their licensing deals would dry up in the face of new competition, they spent like drunken sailors to get top end talent and creators into their stable. They also poached and overpaid production professionals all over town.

The problem with such a huge production budget, though, is that there wasn't $2B worth of good projects out there. Just because they had a pile of cash didn't mean that there were good scripts or more good showrunners and directors. They just started throwing money at everything. What was that one big budget old school hip hop show they had that bombed 3-4? It was notorious for having a ridiculous budget loaded with expensive licensed music. It got so bad they started canceling hit shows after a couple of seasons because they just were too expensive and didn't move the subscriber needle despite good reviews and rabid fans. (On a related note I haven't ever watched Stranger Things but am very curious to see what $30m an episode buys you) my gut feeling at the time was that they would never have a good Return On Investment because it wasn't judicious spending.

The Netflix inflation still affects every company in town, and the rush for content is still happening. It is tough to staff the amount of productions out there, not just with crew but the writers rooms too. There are signs of it slowing though as streamers are taking a firmer stance on production planning and clutching the purse strings a little tighter when it comes to budgets. They don't want to budge for big names so much any more. They want to make fewer runaway art projects and more widgets.

 

[John Price]

hopefully more start combining

for instance i suppose disney+ and espn+ can become one, instead i have to pay separately for some reason

now this

 

[StreetHawk]

hopefully more start combining

for instance i suppose disney+ and espn+ can become one, instead i have to pay separately for some reason

now this

I doubt people enjoy having 4/5 separate streaming services.

Especially if there is only a show or two on a certain one that you want to see.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The "Quality vs Quantity" stuff makes me believe that HBO Max content people really enjoy (Older series/movies/etc) is going to be gutted

Fascinating how "Quantity" of content is bad thing for HBO Max but the countless "Quantity" of crap for Discovery+ is good

Personally, I would take some amazing high-quality stuff + Expansive library over some amazing high-quality stuff + shit library

One of the things that has turned people away from Netflix is the fact they have lost so much content thru recent years in streaming wars as titles were taken back (Look at Star Treks to CBS or Office to Peacock)

Gutting and limiting selection of films/shows going forward and once merger occurs is going to just turn people away from service that are movie/TV fans

To me a vast library including older content > Limited library

5 years from now I won't be shocked to see this merger viewed as disaster

Quoted to this thread where it's more relevant...

That's not what i think he's talking about. I think he's referring to the newer projects being axed because they're being done to provide viewers with more quantity at the expense of quality.

No offense to @Walkingthroughforest, i'm not trying to be a hater here. But there's such an abundance of superhero content in general and even the higher profile content is lacking in quality. I think this is a sign that these services aren't willing to shell out hundreds of millions unless they know something will resonate with viewers.

I wonder how much of a distortion COVID has been to these streaming companies, as maybe people's appetites for streaming content is waning now that the world is basically back to normal. I know personally i'd rather pay for HBO Max if it had even only 2 great shows as opposed to half a dozen decent ones. The amount of content is irrelevant when i'm scrolling past pages of uninteresting movies/shows.

The last Netflix original series i liked was Squid Game. Disney + has only been useful to me to watch seasons 2-8 of the Simpsons and once a year do a little MCU rewatching of Phases 1-3, oh and the Nat Geo nature documentaries are nice for when i come home drunk at 2am and chow down on a burrito. Amazon is only useful to me when the other services don't have the movie we want to watch, they're functionally a digital blockbuster which is pretty cool.

I think these services overplayed their hands by initiating these 9 figure $ projects most people won't be interested by or simply aren't compelling/quality enough to hook people. It's the over-corporatization of these services that are sinking them. Pumping out more content for more profits only works if the content is something people enjoy watching

 

[J T Money]

Netflix’s problem is that they’re a one trick pony. Their revenue comes from subscribers (though they recently added a version to include ads while lowering monthly cost).

Other streaming companies like Amazon, Disney and Apple have numerous sources of revenue and streaming is just a bonus on top of it.

 

[bobholly39]

As a consumer I love it. Are there too many streaming services? Maybe I guess, but I'm currently subscribed to 4 services, each of which seems great value for the content they deliver (some slightly better than others). I'm all for paying an additional ~10-15$ a month for an additional service if some specific series that looks really good is on there too.

Prices are quite low, so it's a bargain.

My favorite tv show ever is probably 24. When I first watched it, it was by renting out dvd's from the video store (Blockbuster I think?). So it was 5$ to rent disc 1 of season 1...and there are 6 discs per season. So 30$ per season, times ~6 seasons out at the time....as opposed to paying a streaming service 10$ and I get the whole series on demand for free, along with so much other content. That math is amazing, and I'll never complain about streaming services costs. It's much, much cheaper to get content today than in the past, and there's also so much more available. Win/win for consumers.

 

[John Price]

MSN

www.msn.com

good as long as HBO max price stays the same. Imagine a 20 dollar a month streaming service

 

[Satans Hockey]

I only have 2 services and next year I'll have 3.

Prime because it's included with the Prime service and the shipping is something my whole family uses to buy things. Peacock I only have because I split it with a friend and it's only for the WWE events live, way back when I use to actually pay for each ppv individually so $50 for an entire years worth of ppvs is worth it.

Next year I'll have 3 because I'll be getting part of Apple+ because the MLS is moving all of their games to there and looks like it will be just an add on for people who want it but since I'm a Red Bulls season ticket holder they told us they will be giving us the MLS portion for free.

I'll never pay for anything else, don't care what's on it.

 

[KevinRedkey]

I pay for multiple subscriptions (all of which I have "family" accounts for which I share with friends and family), but I don't personally use any of them. I use torrents to download whatever I want, and use Plex to host the files. That way, all my stuff is in one app. I absolutely hate using multiple apps for stuff.

So I pirate Stranger Things but also pay for Netflix. lol

 

[beowulf]

As a consumer I love it. Are there too many streaming services? Maybe I guess, but I'm currently subscribed to 4 services, each of which seems great value for the content they deliver (some slightly better than others). I'm all for paying an additional ~10-15$ a month for an additional service if some specific series that looks really good is on there too.

Prices are quite low, so it's a bargain.

My favorite tv show ever is probably 24. When I first watched it, it was by renting out dvd's from the video store (Blockbuster I think?). So it was 5$ to rent disc 1 of season 1...and there are 6 discs per season. So 30$ per season, times ~6 seasons out at the time....as opposed to paying a streaming service 10$ and I get the whole series on demand for free, along with so much other content. That math is amazing, and I'll never complain about streaming services costs. It's much, much cheaper to get content today than in the past, and there's also so much more available. Win/win for consumers.

Except it's started to be like the old cable model. And the total cost is starting to get there also.

 

[Osprey]

I pay for multiple subscriptions (all of which I have "family" accounts for which I share with friends and family), but I don't personally use any of them. I use torrents to download whatever I want, and use Plex to host the files. That way, all my stuff is in one app. I absolutely hate using multiple apps for stuff.

So I pirate Stranger Things but also pay for Netflix. lol

Plex can now search and organize content across streaming services. Have you tried that?

https://www.plex.tv/blog/end-the-streaming-struggle-with-plex/

 

[KevinRedkey]

Plex can now access all of your streaming services. Have you tried that?

https://www.plex.tv/blog/end-the-streaming-struggle-with-plex/

Ohhh I have not. I'll check it out! thanks

 

[Voight]

IMO there are just too damn many of them. I get everyone wants to have a horse in the race but jeez, its hard to keep track these days.

It also makes it a lot easier to pirate stuff when its already online. So I'm sure they lose a bunch of money that way.

 

[The Macho King]

The only one that I want and don't have is Apple+. I think I'm going to scrap Netflix though and just re-up whenever there's a new season of I Think You Should Leave.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I only have 2 services and next year I'll have 3.

Prime because it's included with the Prime service and the shipping is something my whole family uses to buy things. Peacock I only have because I split it with a friend and it's only for the WWE events live, way back when I use to actually pay for each ppv individually so $50 for an entire years worth of ppvs is worth it.

Next year I'll have 3 because I'll be getting part of Apple+ because the MLS is moving all of their games to there and looks like it will be just an add on for people who want it but since I'm a Red Bulls season ticket holder they told us they will be giving us the MLS portion for free.

I'll never pay for anything else, don't care what's on it.

I have 3... Disney+(mostly for star), Prime and Paramount+(for star trek)

 

[John Price]

@Fixed to Ruin

 

[PK Cronin]

It's definitely getting oversaturated and I think consumers are losing interest. Having shows switch streaming services or being split up between it's a current season or an older season isn't going to endear anyone to the system. It's confusing and/or a chore to keep tabs on everything that is coming out and where it's streaming. Plus, the prices seem to continually increase so it makes it less likely I'll subscribe to more services and am more likely to reduce services.

I still prefer this method to cable though, but someone or something will come along and shift the current system soon.

IMO there are just too damn many of them. I get everyone wants to have a horse in the race but jeez, its hard to keep track these days.

It also makes it a lot easier to pirate stuff when its already online. So I'm sure they lose a bunch of money that way.

Probably not as much as you'd think. If I can't access something because the cost is prohibitive, I just don't consume the product. I think that's true with most people.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Where's this business section?

Imo the wild success of movies like Top Gun: Maverick and Spiderman: No Way Home sent ripples through the industry that there is value in theatres by creating an event experience compared to if it comes out on streaming.

 

[beowulf]

Looks like Paramount+ is trying to remain relevant, if they even are, in streaming by teaming up with Walmart.

Basically turning a Walmart membership, I didn't even know they had such a program, into an Amazon Prime by adding Paramount+ to it like Amazon Video which comes with Prime.

Walmart is hoping that two pluses equal a Prime. After assessing its options, the mega-retailer is joining up with Paramount+ and adding the streaming service to its Walmart+ membership. Subscribers will have access to the ad-tier level of Paramount+, at no additional cost, starting in September, according to a company blog post released Monday.

Walmart and Paramount+ Team Up to Try to Compete With Amazon Prime

The big box store and lesser known streaming service have come together to offer a membership bundle.

gizmodo.com

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Looks like Paramount+ is trying to remain relevant, if they even are, in streaming by teaming up with Walmart.

Basically turning a Walmart membership, I didn't even know they had such a program, into an Amazon Prime by adding Paramount+ to it like Amazon Video which comes with Prime.

Paramount really needs to work on their god awful apps if they ever want to compete. I use it only for Big Brother/Survivor live broadcasts and it's frustrating as hell to navigate. The app is laggy and bugg and prone to crashes... I can't even scroll through the app to browse even if I wanted to.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

So, what would Walmart+ members get with free ad tier membership?

Will it be full library of shows/movies just with ads or is the ad tier far more limited in what selections are available?

If its limited selections it probably won't be that well received compared to Amazon Prime membership benefit of getting Prime Video and its full selection of available titles (Nearly 10,000 titles) while Paramount+ has far less to offer (Less, then 3,000)

So, if the ad tier is even more restrictive and say cuts that less then 3,000 to even less the benefit as comparable to Amazon offering won't be looked at as major benefit/positive to consumers