Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Entertainment

Streaming Wars Drive Media Groups To Spend More Than $100 Billion on New Content (ft.com) 39

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The top eight US media groups plan to spend at least $115bn on new movies and television shows next year in pursuit of a video streaming business that loses money for most of them. From a report: The huge investment outlays come amid concerns that it will be harder to attract new customers in 2022 after the pandemic-fuelled growth in 2020 and 2021. Yet the alternative is to be left out of the streaming land rush. "There is no turning back," said media analyst Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson. "The only way to compete is spending more and more money on premium content." The Financial Times calculated the planned expenditures based on company disclosures and analyst reports. One entertainment executive called them "mind-boggling." Most of the companies -- a list that includes Walt Disney, Comcast, WarnerMedia and Amazon -- are set to rack up losses on their streaming units. Including sports rights, the aggregate spending estimate rises to about $140bn. Disney's investment in streaming content is likely to grow 35-40 per cent in 2022, according to estimates by Morgan Stanley. The company's spending on all new movies and TV shows is expected to reach $23bn, though the number rises to $33bn including sports rights -- up 32 per cent from its total content spending in 2021 and 65 per cent from 2020.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Streaming Wars Drive Media Groups To Spend More Than $100 Billion on New Content More

Streaming Wars Drive Media Groups To Spend More Than $100 Billion on New Content

Comments Filter:
  • So competition helps push for innovation/investment?

    While these long term investments won't be able to keep up at the current pace, I'm not really seeing a problem overall. Stagnation is a bad thing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Stagnation is a bad thing."

      Eternal growth is cancer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        True, but new growth to replace the old is a good thing.
        Otherwise these companies would sell you the same old content again every few years, far more profitable than creating anything new.

        • So, Nintendo with it's virtual console?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by bjwest ( 14070 )

          True, but new growth to replace the old is a good thing. Otherwise these companies would sell you the same old content again every few years, far more profitable than creating anything new.

          Sounds like Disney Movie's business plan.

    • I think they may be fighting for a winner takes all scenario, i.e. they expect one or two companies to come out on top overall. You know, like Google & Apple with the smartphone market. The intangible economy demands it.
      • Yep, and even if you're one of the losers you'll have content to sell/syndicate to the winners.

        • Yep, and even if you're one of the losers you'll have content to sell/syndicate to the winners.

          Yes, with massive losses.

          • Not necessarily. If we end up with only 2-3 on top, they might get into bidding wars to scoop up all the losers.

            Having said that, I'm pessimistic that this "healthy competition" thing will continue for too far in the future. If you signed up for all the major streaming services right now you'd end up paying more than you would for cable. Some people rotate services, but I don't think anyone subscribes to more than 2-3 at a time.

      • There's no reason why that should happen, though, let alone have to happen. Any number of streaming providers can exist, and they all have different content so there's reason for them to do so. It's only a problem for users if they are addicted to multiple TV shows from multiple networks, and even then the cost is only comparable to cable. For those of us who don't mind waiting to see something, we can subscribe to one or two services a month and save a lot of money compared to the legacy paradigm of packag

      • Nope, they're doing the only thing they know how to do: We're losing a fuckton of money, let's throw a fuckton of money at the problem and see if it gets any better.

        Later on, blame any losses on piracy and Chinese hackers.

    • What really needs to happen is an evolution in Streaming along with a revolution

      First off, there should just be a SINGLE point for streaming where ALL media,content,copyright/producers run the SINGLE point. This will mean that ALL streamable content is available from all around the world and avaible from a single point of access.
      This will get rid of all the shitty middlemen and companies who offer nothing to the streaming experience and will then lower the cost of content.

      When a user logs onto the SINGLE gl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 605dave ( 722736 )

        Yes, and we should ALL get a PONY.

        Apparently you have never heard of contracts, lawyers, incompatible tech, and competition. Other than that the ALL IN ONE PLACE plan sounds great.

      • First off, there should just be a SINGLE point for streaming where ALL media,content,copyright/producers run the SINGLE point. This will mean that ALL streamable content is available from all around the world and avaible from a single point of access.

        I see you work for Disney.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        What really needs to happen is an evolution in Streaming along with a revolution

        First off, there should just be a SINGLE point for streaming where ALL media,content,copyright/producers run the SINGLE point. This will mean that ALL streamable content is available from all around the world and avaible from a single point of access.
        This will get rid of all the shitty middlemen and companies who offer nothing to the streaming experience and will then lower the cost of content.

        When a user logs onto the SINGLE gl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      No, it doesn't. Doubling the number of shows halves the number of people watching each show at best, resulting in a race to the lowest common denominator to find the most viewers. You want far less competition for innovation to occur.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gmack ( 197796 )

        That was only true when there was scarcity of airwaves and you had to get the most money out of each time slot. It is no longer true now that streaming is the new reality and our time is the bottleneck rather than the distribution system. People are not going to watch something they sort of like if they can watch something they enjoy more. I can only see streaming trending towards content tailored to smaller groups and that is a good thing.

  • This is perhaps a new golden age of television where there is massive investment in new content like we haven't seen perhaps ever before. And even better, everything that is created today should be available to new subscribers indefinitely into the future. I was looking at Netflix recently (I one of the few people who don't subscribe), and there are a ton of Netflix TV series that look interesting, so I see why everyone else is now pushing to have lots of content to compete.

    Maybe in a few years, we may se

    • What could also make this better is that it also means that they aren't limited to the rating system, aka, HBO doesn't have to be the only ones that make mature TV shows anymore. I don't mean just sexy times and gore, but more serious content in general that doesn't do well on prime time tv.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        What I like about content created for streaming is that they aren't forced to edit to exactly 44 minutes to account for ads and a fixed time slot. Instead, they can edit them to be as long as appropriate for the content. Some episodes will be longer than others, but you don't get filler fluff or miss stuff that was cut for time. You also don't have to have scene transitions timed for commercial breaks. In essence, you give TV directors the same freedom as movie directors.

    • This is perhaps a new golden age of television where there is massive investment in new content like we haven't seen perhaps ever before

      Yes and no. While the number of new TV shows has doubled in the past decade there's never been a real lack of them. Pretty much for as long as most of us have been alive content has been created for TV at a faster rate than it could be consumed even restricting yourself to USA / english releases alone.

      What is fuelling a bit of a golden age is a will to experiment. Netflix directly funding Korean series, Anime series, development of cartoons based on game IP (seriously if you haven't watched Arcane you're mi

    • > everything that is created today should be available to new subscribers indefinitely into the future.

      Assuming by available you mean "Available on the streaming platform" :
      Where do you get that idea from?
      License revocations, cultural shifts (read "censorship"), corporate buy-outs/sell-outs. With a single central source, metaphorical book burning will become very, easy.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      This is perhaps a new golden age of television where there is massive investment in new content like we haven't seen perhaps ever before. And even better, everything that is created today should be available to new subscribers indefinitely into the future. I was looking at Netflix recently (I one of the few people who don't subscribe), and there are a ton of Netflix TV series that look interesting, so I see why everyone else is now pushing to have lots of content to compete.

      Maybe in a few years, we may see some consolidation between the services, and we'll certainly see a reduction in new content, but we'll have huge libraries available.

      You're not paying attention. Television today is a nightmare of fractured markets and paywalls. Netflix is a dead man walking now that Disney own whole back catalogue of their own material, Marvel, 20th Century Fox, National Geo, Sky, Pixar, and Lucas Arts with no requirement at all for them to use someone else to distribute. It would take a second miracle to save Netflix now (the first being Covid which bought them a couple of years).

      Apple, Amazon, HBO, Disney, Netflix. Why the fuck do I have to have separ

      • You're not paying attention. Television today is a nightmare of fractured markets and paywalls.

        A nightmare? You take this television shit way too seriously.

        Netflix is a dead man walking now that Disney own whole back catalogue of their own material

        False. Netflix has a bunch of its own content, and some of it is very good. Remember how HBO built itself out of the showing-other-peoples-movies channel with comedy? Netflix is paying for a shitload of original comedy that you can't see anywhere else.

        The one thing that I do like about Netflix is that I can access a lot more foreign-language material

        Yeah, that's the other reason Netflix isn't dying any time soon. They have international appeal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      More formulaic shows is not really new content, just old content with a different cast.

    • It is terrible for consumers. it fractures the streaming market meaning you will need to signup to many many streaming services to get the good cross section, it also means many of the shows you like will likely die due to funding crisis that is almost certainly in their future and will lead to a rapid consolidation and large price hikes.
  • I hope they don't mind me missing all $115 billion of their "new content".

  • I'm having a hard time keeping up with them. :(

  • I have been streaming since I dropped DishTV over 10 years ago and will NEVER go back to a satellite service/paid package content provider again. I'm 65 and GOT tired of paying for 250 channels and only watching 5, rest were crap ! I do pay for Netflix as it as huge amount of original content. Got free Apple TV thru buying an iPhone. I can stream any sporting / PPV event I want to watch. MY kids will NEVER PAY for a content provider package. The CHAINS have been broken as I watch what I want w/o paying for
  • If they are losing money now, it is because they expect to be able to recover it eventually. Prices will rise and people will get frustrated like they did with cable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gmack ( 197796 )

      Just had a look at Netflix' financials and they are very profitable even at current spending levels. At any rate, the main difference vs cable is that if a streaming service charges too much, I can drop just that one, or set a max budget With cable you get one option and they are not motivated to lower your price.

  • Streaming wars have resulted in spending more than $100 billion on virtually identical shows following the same formulae as all other shows for the last half century.

  • Having communicated with many people in https://callmechat.com/ [callmechat.com] I came to this conclusion long ago, so it is better to make prices based on income, because someone gets a thousand dollars a month (and more), and someone can earn that amount for six months. You have to be careful. In fact, it is clear to everyone that pirate services is the biggest misfortune of not very developed countries, because there is no great opportunity to pay for streaming.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close