This makes me wonder about those countless niche cable channels and how they're still surviving. I think the main reason most of them exist is due to channel bundles on cable and satellite. With those numbers falling, it has to be a hit to their bottom line.Iowaggie said:TCTTS said:Iowaggie said:
For a while, I've wondered what will become of a few of the smaller pay television/streaming services that mostly are just add ons to cable and sat packages, especially as those audiences continue to dwindle. My original thought they would be added to a parent company's already established service, but now I'm not sure that happens. It's been interesting to note that some of these parent company's haven't added to their streaming service so as to not cut out the revenue from the pay television.
Is there any reasonable chance that some consolidate?
So what happens to:
Starz (Lionsgate)
Cinemax (HBO/Warner)
Epix (MGM/Amazon)
Movie Channel (Showtime/Paramount)
Showtime (Paramount)
Is Flix still around?
- Lionsgate is currently in the process of "spinning off"/selling Starz. So Starz will be its own thing come spring, and then maybe someone else buys them eventually?
- Surely Cinemax is on the chopping block, under the new Discover deal.
- Epix recently rebranded as MGM+. Seems to be doing fine for now, and with Amazon's backing will likely stay afloat. Might eventually get folded into Amazon Prime Video, but doesn't sound like there are any plans to do so as of now.
- While Showtime channels still remain on cable, and there's still a dedicated Showtime app, all of Showtime's content was recently folded into Paramount+. So you can watch Showtime content on two different streaming platforms as of now. Word is the Showtime brand will eventually go away, though, and anything new will become "Paramount+" original series.
Thank you.
To me, it's crazy to think that most those channels are still earning enough revenue from cable/sat to justify their existence (Cinemax, TMC), but the fact that they still exist and their top content isn't already under the HBOMax/Showtime services makes me think it is a positive cash flow. I can't figure out why they aren't already merged into the larger brands.
With HBOMax pulling some of their content as a financial move, maybe the established services don't see the need for more content that they have to pay on residuals? I legit don't know.
Side note: I liked Quarry, Jett, Strike Back, and other content on Cinemax, but I'm not wanting to subscribe to another platform.
*** STREAMING INDUSTRY THREAD ***
40,903 Views |
411 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by TCTTS
Yeah, think about how even some of those non-niche channels are not doing well and mean significantly less to even the 20-somethings and/or younger kids then they did to many of us a decade or two ago.
Nickelodeon & Disney Channel - used to be our two main go-to for the kids for several years. If we had kids that age now, and actually still do, they watch Disney through the streaming app, and would watch Nick through Paramount+ app (if we had it, because we probably would be content with D+).
Comedy Central, BET, MTV & VH1. I have no clue what their audience is now with streaming, nor what value they add to a cable bundle, but their need and unique spot on the cable channel can be found in a lot of streaming services or social media sites. It's not hard to find new or established comedians on streaming services, especially Netflix.
TNT,TMC, TBS - These Turner stations used to be a great place to see syndicated TV or a Shawshank type movie running when channel surfing. Not sure channel surfing still happens, and again, there is so much old TV and movies on streaming, a good part of the country isn't going to these channels at all anymore, except possibly for live sports or reality type shows.
Now, my comments come from the perspective of someone who loved channel surfing and just having sat/cable TV on, but has cut the cord. There are millions that haven't, and I understand their perspective is different. But those channels have to be dying.
I've also wondered, how many people watch a movie on HBO East or StarzAction, or whatever those channels are? Or do people still "DVR" or "record" those movies when they are on those channels. I know I used to do that, but with streaming, it would never cross my mind to do that.
Nickelodeon & Disney Channel - used to be our two main go-to for the kids for several years. If we had kids that age now, and actually still do, they watch Disney through the streaming app, and would watch Nick through Paramount+ app (if we had it, because we probably would be content with D+).
Comedy Central, BET, MTV & VH1. I have no clue what their audience is now with streaming, nor what value they add to a cable bundle, but their need and unique spot on the cable channel can be found in a lot of streaming services or social media sites. It's not hard to find new or established comedians on streaming services, especially Netflix.
TNT,TMC, TBS - These Turner stations used to be a great place to see syndicated TV or a Shawshank type movie running when channel surfing. Not sure channel surfing still happens, and again, there is so much old TV and movies on streaming, a good part of the country isn't going to these channels at all anymore, except possibly for live sports or reality type shows.
Now, my comments come from the perspective of someone who loved channel surfing and just having sat/cable TV on, but has cut the cord. There are millions that haven't, and I understand their perspective is different. But those channels have to be dying.
I've also wondered, how many people watch a movie on HBO East or StarzAction, or whatever those channels are? Or do people still "DVR" or "record" those movies when they are on those channels. I know I used to do that, but with streaming, it would never cross my mind to do that.
MTV is really weird. It's basically the Ridiculousness channel. It's seriously 90+% of what the channel plays and there have been some interesting articles about it, though no real explanation. I assume they are floating by with extremely low costs - Ridiculousness is shot in a studio then they usually have one other name brand show going at a time (The Challenge, Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, etc). They must still be making enough from cable carriage fees to keep going.
Iowaggie said:
I think where the WWE ends up will be a fascinating watch. This isn't like buying rights to broadcast some NFL, NBA, or MLB games, it's like buying the whole league and their historic catalog. (The Monday "The Town" podcast covers this well).
This will be very interesting to me as well. It's pretty common for IP to be produced under one company but aired on another, right? At least in TV? Like I saw Magnum PI (the reboot) is going to NBC but wasn't it on CBS originally? So if Disney or Comcast winds up with WWE, I could see them letting current contracts play out but then bringing the live shows to their current portfolio and the archived stuff to their own OTT service pretty easily. If the Saudis buy it...who knows? Is the live WWE programming worth enough to Comcast/Fox to want to keep airing it? If it's not....then WWE has little value if they can't get on TV, right? Saudis haven't been able to get any airtime for LIV golf without paying for it.
The IP thing and rights holders thing has absolutely enthralled me lately. A couple of days ago Dr Dre sold his catalog to Universal Music. Yesterday John Fogerty announced he'd acquired publishing rights to his CCR songs and has control over them again (remember when he got sued for plagiarizing himself?) and a ton of artists like Springsteen and Dylan and who knows how many others have sold their rights to giant financial firm backed entities and I'm pretty sure you can even buy a share/stake in some of these. It's a wild time.
Showtime and Paramount+ Merging With Rebrand Planned https://t.co/KKlKEgjeC0
— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) January 30, 2023
Showtime Shocker: Linear Network Rebrands As Paramount+ With Showtime; Move Comes Amid Streaming Integration, Cancellations & Potential Layoffs https://t.co/MMPS4WmjJk
— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) January 30, 2023
“You should watch ‘Yellowjackets’!”
— Michael Schneider (@franklinavenue) January 30, 2023
“What channel is it on?”
“Paramount+ With Showtime.”
“I don’t have Paramount+, just Showtime.”
“It's now Paramount+ With Showtime.”
“But I don't have have Paramount+!”
AND SCENE.
That will be us (Yellowjackets scene). Currently we have Showtime (through college student's Spotify package), but no Paramount+
I would expect significant number of layoffs with the merger.
I thought this Income Statement graphic from AppEconomy twitter was interesting:
I would expect significant number of layoffs with the merger.
I thought this Income Statement graphic from AppEconomy twitter was interesting:
For comparison, here is a Netflix's (from this tweet thread)
Americans streamed over 19 million years of content in 2022 (+27% Y/Y).
— App Economy Insights (@EconomyApp) January 29, 2023
Netflix made up 10 of the top 15 programs:
• Stranger Things was #1.
• Wednesday made the top 15 (despite only 8 episodes, released in November).
Source: Nielsen (US only). $NFLX pic.twitter.com/GCynO5kddq
37.8B minutes of Cocomelon. Shoot me
What determines when a film is available for streaming? The wife and I have been wanting to see The Whale and didn't catch it in theaters and have been searching the Net but everything says no announcements have been made for streaming yet and that the movie may be available on HBO Max in July. The movie hit theaters in September, why hasn't it been released for VOD?
Lots of other movies hit VOD as soon as the theater run is over.
Lots of other movies hit VOD as soon as the theater run is over.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this post reflect the opinions of Texags user bonfarr and are not to be accepted as facts or to be accepted at face value.
It's different for every movie/studio. I imagine it'll be available to stream at some point in February, though, before the Oscars in March.
Netflix's new password-sharing rule: Every 31 days your device must log in on your home network — or it will be blocked.https://t.co/tK2D4d5Wpo
— Kendall Baker (@kendallbaker) January 31, 2023
A lot of (rightfully?) pissed off/interesting/informative responses in that thread.
TCTTS said:
A lot of (rightfully?) pissed off/interesting/informative responses in that thread.
I still don't get how they are the only company gatekeeping 4k and now you have to work to be able to watch your account outside of your home.
The extra $ for 4k is kind of ridiculous at this point. Reminds me of when Directv charged a premium for HD channels years ago.
That Twitter account is awesome. Followed. Thanks for posting that!
Wait, so I have to make sure that all of my devices I watch netflix on, which are all on my home network, are signed in at least once every 31 days? And what happens with things like phones or tablets that may watch netflix on a cellular network?
We don't even use Netflix all that often, have kept it around part out of laziness and part because we like the idea of being able to fire it up any time, regardless of how long it's been since we last watched. We don't share our subscription with anyone, but the second I get one of my devices locked out for not being logged in often enough, I'm cutting netflix loose. What a bad solution they came up with.
We don't even use Netflix all that often, have kept it around part out of laziness and part because we like the idea of being able to fire it up any time, regardless of how long it's been since we last watched. We don't share our subscription with anyone, but the second I get one of my devices locked out for not being logged in often enough, I'm cutting netflix loose. What a bad solution they came up with.
I'm not sure what a great solution is for Netflix, or the other providers that are probably going to follow if this doesn't fail miserably.
I feel like college kids are part of a household, but asking them to be login on the home wifi every 31 days is not always possible. Blocking a parent or child share that watches 1-2 things a month is going to frustrate a lot of families.
What do they do for snowbirds and others who leave their house for months or half a year?
Conversely, allowing 5 different households sharing the service isn't a great business model either.
I feel like college kids are part of a household, but asking them to be login on the home wifi every 31 days is not always possible. Blocking a parent or child share that watches 1-2 things a month is going to frustrate a lot of families.
What do they do for snowbirds and others who leave their house for months or half a year?
Conversely, allowing 5 different households sharing the service isn't a great business model either.
Iowaggie said:
I'm not sure what a great solution is for Netflix, or the other providers that are probably going to follow if this doesn't fail miserably.
I feel like college kids are part of a household, but asking them to be login on the home wifi every 31 days is not always possible. Blocking a parent or child share that watches 1-2 things a month is going to frustrate a lot of families.
What do they do for snowbirds and others who leave their house for months or half a year?
Conversely, allowing 5 different households sharing the service isn't a great business model either.
Feela like a better solution would have been to favorite 3-4 devices only and make people really think about how many devices are tied to the account. That would be a better solution than making every single device log on from your home WiFi once every 31 days.
What a gamble they are taking.
That may be better, but one thing they are saying is, "Don't watch Netflix on your work computer", so I guess that could make some employers happy.
So, all those hotels that have internet streaming. Is it now impossible to watch Netflix there?
So, all those hotels that have internet streaming. Is it now impossible to watch Netflix there?
There is something about getting a temp password for those scenarios.
So if my iPad uses a vpn (which it does), then I can't watch Netflix on it anymore? And I take my firestick with me during work trips to use on Airbnb or hotel tvs, which also uses a vpn, so I guess Netflix isn't useable there either? Or am I missing something? What a load of crap this is. As someone else said, the second they lock me out of a legit device I'm cancelling. I don't use it that often as it is, and between the current cost of the service and this crap, it is an easy thing to cut. The most expensive of the streaming services (for me) is the easiest to get rid of, especially with things like this. I hope this blows up in their face so no one else follows.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-pulls-original-content-jordan-215107137.html
Quote:
Paramount+ Pulls Original Content From Jordan Peele And More The Day After Showtime's TV Show Purge
The world of streaming has become the absolute wild west and there's no indication that the dust is going to settle any time soon. Streaming services are merging, changing, canceling shows, and even removing content that was created specifically for their platform, and Paramount+ is the latest streamer to be going through all those changes at once.
The Showtime and Paramount+ streaming services are set to be merged into a single entity, and alongside that news came the cancellation of several Showtime original series, and the disappearance of them from the current platform.
The same thing is now happening with Paramount+, as several shows owned by Viacom, including some made specifically for the streaming service, like Jordan Peele's Twilight Zone reboot, are now missing. Variety reports that alongside The Twilight Zone, other series like The Real World: Homecoming, The Harper House, and more have also been taken off Paramount+.
. . .
We'll have to wait and see if these Paramont+ shows get transitioned to other platforms the way the HBO Max shows did. The loss of a few shows likely won't have a major impact on Paramount+ subscribers, but as the landscape of streaming continues to change it's difficult to tell just how these sorts of changes will impact consumers.
Netflix has removed the new anti-password sharing rules from their website, stating that they were posted as an error and are not yet applicable to the U.S.
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) February 3, 2023
(Source: https://t.co/iCubgT2evW) pic.twitter.com/rC9p9cU3SH
They are just trying to make the actual policy look not as bad
Nevermind
This snl skit kind of encapsulates the fragmentation in the entertainment industry currently.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the effect of things like TikTok and YouTube (not YouTube TV) on the whole industry. My evidence is entirely anecdotal, but virtually every kid I know doesn't watch scripted TV, even Netflix. They watch YouTube. I think this is where the biggest growth will be over the next decade. As those kids get older, I don't think they're going to move over to scripted TV. They are more likely to continue to watch YT or TikTok.
Already, some of the shows on YouTube are outperforming even the biggest TV shows. Look at someone like Mr. Beast. He is getting more views than the Super Bowl with pretty much every video.
Already, some of the shows on YouTube are outperforming even the biggest TV shows. Look at someone like Mr. Beast. He is getting more views than the Super Bowl with pretty much every video.
Mr Beast and Dhar Mann are basically the only two pop culture exceptions I make for my kids on YouTube. There's definitely some exceptional talent shaking up the models.
I'll bet Mr Beast will be studied in business schools if not already.
I'll bet Mr Beast will be studied in business schools if not already.
Buy Google stock.
dreyOO said:
I'll bet Mr Beast will be studied in business schools if not already.
Funny you should say that, because I've recently gone down a rabbit hole of listen to Mr. Beast interviews. His success is definitely no accident. He spent about a decade studying YouTube and running tests to figure out how it's algorithms work. He would pay with titles, thumbnails, color schemes, etc. to figure out how to make something go viral. He's also very open about what he has learned. He doesn't try to keep it a secret. His view is that YouTube is still growing as a platform, and the more he can help people go viral, the more it helps everyone.
A couple of "lessons" I've learned from his interviews that I think are relevant to this thread:
1. Content matters -- several times he's talked about how a lot people think the key to YouTube success is just pumping out videos, but what's more important is good videos. Once you have one video go viral, it's much easier to have a second. I think streaming channels could learn from this. So much of what is out there is just trash. The channels that focus on quality over quantity will win.
2. Network's are too greedy. If you think about a show like Survivor, which can kind of compare to a Mr. Beast video, they are on for like 20 weeks and at the end give away a million dollars. There was a time that seemed like a lot, but it's not really all that impressive anymore, which makes the show less exciting. With the advertising money networks are getting for their reality shows, they should be giving away $10 million at least. That would gain more interest and in truth raise viewership for all their content. Mr Beast routinely gives away a million for doing stupid crap like staying in a circle, and gets much better viewership. After watching him give away a million dollars, or an island, or something stupid like that, viewers usually stick around and start to watch his older stuff.
AustinAg2K said:
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the effect of things like TikTok and YouTube (not YouTube TV) on the whole industry. My evidence is entirely anecdotal, but virtually every kid I know doesn't watch scripted TV, even Netflix. They watch YouTube. I think this is where the biggest growth will be over the next decade. As those kids get older, I don't think they're going to move over to scripted TV. They are more likely to continue to watch YT or TikTok.
Already, some of the shows on YouTube are outperforming even the biggest TV shows. Look at someone like Mr. Beast. He is getting more views than the Super Bowl with pretty much every video.
Yes. Social media eats up the young viewers attention and time. So do video games.
Netflix not only needs to be aware of what Amazon Prime and HBO Max might be doing, but they need to make sure they aren't losing viewers to video games and social media.
This is somewhat what happened to live sports viewing during the pandemic. I got out of the habit of watching sports and going to the movies, and I've tremendously reduced viewing of college football, and pro sports. Live sports are losing viewers, especially young ones, to entertainment outside their industry: streaming, social media, and video games.
Iowaggie said:AustinAg2K said:
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the effect of things like TikTok and YouTube (not YouTube TV) on the whole industry. My evidence is entirely anecdotal, but virtually every kid I know doesn't watch scripted TV, even Netflix. They watch YouTube. I think this is where the biggest growth will be over the next decade. As those kids get older, I don't think they're going to move over to scripted TV. They are more likely to continue to watch YT or TikTok.
Already, some of the shows on YouTube are outperforming even the biggest TV shows. Look at someone like Mr. Beast. He is getting more views than the Super Bowl with pretty much every video.
Yes. Social media eats up the young viewers attention and time. So do video games.
Netflix not only needs to be aware of what Amazon Prime and HBO Max might be doing, but they need to make sure they aren't losing viewers to video games and social media.
This is somewhat what happened to live sports viewing during the pandemic. I got out of the habit of watching sports and going to the movies, and I've tremendously reduced viewing of college football, and pro sports. Live sports are losing viewers, especially young ones, to entertainment outside their industry: streaming, social media, and video games.
Gotta disagree there, with some of it anyway. The forced infusion of political crap and the negatives of the "real world" is what turned off more viewers from sports than anything else, IMO. This obviously has been going on a lot longer than what COVID did (NFL anyone?), which simply sped up the impact. The sports viewers overall were desperate for a distraction from their lives being turned to ****, and instead had racial division and various other politically divisive opinions centered around hatred forced down our throats. Yes, most sports were cancelled in 2020, so there was less to watch, but MLB had a golden opportunity to give this country something positive, and it completely **** the bed by bringing politics of hatred and division into things. Instead of a positive distraction, we had more negativity brought in where it doesn't belong. Sports are supposed to be a way to get away from all the negativity and stress in our lives, not to have even more negativity brought into the one outlet many use to shut off and get away. IMO, politics in sports had more to push viewers away than COVID. The NFL and their antics pushed me away years ago, and many were tired of it and never went back. And that has only gotten worse once sports got "back to normal." Sports as a whole is one of the remaining options to just turn off our brains to enjoy something that doesn't actually even matter, and be able to enjoy watching a team of athletes play a game. Now it's just another medium to bring political opinions and division where it doesn't belong. All harm to sports viewership was done by their own actions.
Please keep this kind of stuff on F16. It's nothing but prime, thread derailing material, and has next to nothing to do with the intent of this thread. I hear you, but this isn't the place for it.
Warner Bros. Discovery has now decided to keep Discovery+ as a stand-alone streaming service
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) February 8, 2023
(Source: https://t.co/xNG4jnfOY7) pic.twitter.com/nwTPi1q4ig
Bump for this..
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/13/nbc-sports-prepared-to-make-nba-bid.html
Article is mostly talking NBCU throwing in on NBA rights after 20+ years away but as you could imagine, there's a lot of streaming talk.
Picking out a few interesting quotes..
Regarding my edited post upthread that just said "nevermind" ... it was somewhat related to this. I happen to know a couple of people involved in Amazon's ventures into live programming. I feel pretty confident in saying that Amazon isn't messing around...that couple of people I know are involved know everything there is to know about delivering ads in live sports programming.
So...this quote. Is Winfrey basically threatening to pull content that's also available via streaming? Or is this a negotiation tactic? Nobody's subscribing to Charter (Spectrum/BrightHouse/Time Warner Cable all roll up to Charter) to see Spectrum News and Circle TV.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/13/nbc-sports-prepared-to-make-nba-bid.html
Article is mostly talking NBCU throwing in on NBA rights after 20+ years away but as you could imagine, there's a lot of streaming talk.
Picking out a few interesting quotes..
Quote:
NBCUniversal executives have informed the NBA of their interest, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. NBC Sports wants a package that would include playoff games to air on NBC's broadcast network, two of the people said. Some regular season games could be exclusive to NBCUniversal's streaming service, Peacock. The NBA could also decide to force media companies to simulcast all games on streaming to increase reach, the people said.
Apple and Amazon have also expressed interest to the NBA in buying carved-out streaming packages, said people familiar with the matter. Amazon currently has a deal with the NBA allowing it to stream games in Brazil.
Regarding my edited post upthread that just said "nevermind" ... it was somewhat related to this. I happen to know a couple of people involved in Amazon's ventures into live programming. I feel pretty confident in saying that Amazon isn't messing around...that couple of people I know are involved know everything there is to know about delivering ads in live sports programming.
Quote:
It's possible NBCUniversal will be directly competing with Warner Bros. Discovery to be the league's second traditional TV partner, along with ESPN. NBCUniversal can offer a broadcast network (NBC) to air NBA games if pay TV providers begin dropping cable networks, such as TNT and TBS, that run mostly reruns of scripted programming when sports aren't on. Comcast also owns Sky, which could give the NBA another international broadcast outlet.
"What you have today is programmers selling us content at increasingly higher prices and asking us to distribute that to largely all of our customers, and at the same time, selling that exact same content either into streaming platforms or creating a direct-to-consumer product themselves at a much lower cost," said Chris Winfrey, CEO of Charter, the second largest U.S. cable provider, in comments published by CNBC last week. "Our willingness to continue to fund that for programmers when that content is available for free elsewhere is declining. That means within the linear video construct, you'll see an increasing number of distributors deciding it no longer makes sense to carry certain content."
So...this quote. Is Winfrey basically threatening to pull content that's also available via streaming? Or is this a negotiation tactic? Nobody's subscribing to Charter (Spectrum/BrightHouse/Time Warner Cable all roll up to Charter) to see Spectrum News and Circle TV.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
1d ago
2.3k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
1d ago
6.9k
47:49
1d ago
2.5k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
1d ago
2.2k