Streaming Services Are Ordering Fewer Series - Except for Amazon and Apple TV+ (nytimes.com) 89
"Peak TV has peaked," reports the new York Times:
The never-ending supply of new programming that helped define the streaming era — spawning shows at a breakneck pace but also overwhelming viewers with too many choices — appears to finally be slowing. The number of adult scripted series ordered by TV networks and streaming companies aimed for U.S. audiences fell by 24 percent in the second half of this year, compared with the same period last year, according to Ampere Analysis, a research firm. Compared with 2019, it is a 40 percent drop. "The second half of the year has really gone off a bit of a cliff," said Fred Black, a research manager at Ampere.
It may take some time for that to become apparent to viewers — if it becomes apparent at all, given the glut. It is usually months and sometimes more than a year for a TV show to premiere after a network orders it.
The drop is a result of broader reckoning inside the entertainment industry. For years, television executives tossed off billions of dollars on TV series to help build out their streaming services and chase subscribers. The spending has been a boon to high-profile writers and producers, who captured eight- and nine-figure deals, as well as for the actors, directors and behind-the-scenes workers who kept the engine going. But Wall Street soured on the buy-at-any-cost strategy starting in the spring, when Netflix, the streaming powerhouse, announced that it had lost subscribers for the first time in a decade. Netflix's stock nose-dived, and other entertainment companies soon watched their share prices fall, too. Hollywood companies quickly shifted, putting a new emphasis on higher profits instead of raw subscriber counts.
Then, in recent months, entertainment companies became increasingly anxious about a slowing economy, the cord-cutting movement and a troublesome advertising market. Since the summer, scores of executives have abruptly been dismissed, strict cost-cutting measures have been adopted and layoffs have taken hold throughout the industry.... Netflix also cut hundreds of jobs and introduced a cheaper advertising tier, overturning the company's longtime pledge to never allow commercials on the service. Warner Bros. Discovery, a company that was formed in April, faces a debt of roughly $50 billion, and has been in severe cost-cutting mode. There have been rounds of layoffs companywide, including at HBO and HBO Max, as well as sudden cancellations. The once-popular series "Westworld" was canceled last month — a move that surprised Hollywood — and the lesser-known, raunchy dating series "FBoy Island" was cut a few weeks ago....
There are a few outliers to this year's trend: Apple TV+ and Amazon have increased the number of adult scripted series they have purchased this year. So has Disney, according to Ampere's research. (For the second half of the year, however, Disney's buying has declined compared with the same period last year.)
It may take some time for that to become apparent to viewers — if it becomes apparent at all, given the glut. It is usually months and sometimes more than a year for a TV show to premiere after a network orders it.
The drop is a result of broader reckoning inside the entertainment industry. For years, television executives tossed off billions of dollars on TV series to help build out their streaming services and chase subscribers. The spending has been a boon to high-profile writers and producers, who captured eight- and nine-figure deals, as well as for the actors, directors and behind-the-scenes workers who kept the engine going. But Wall Street soured on the buy-at-any-cost strategy starting in the spring, when Netflix, the streaming powerhouse, announced that it had lost subscribers for the first time in a decade. Netflix's stock nose-dived, and other entertainment companies soon watched their share prices fall, too. Hollywood companies quickly shifted, putting a new emphasis on higher profits instead of raw subscriber counts.
Then, in recent months, entertainment companies became increasingly anxious about a slowing economy, the cord-cutting movement and a troublesome advertising market. Since the summer, scores of executives have abruptly been dismissed, strict cost-cutting measures have been adopted and layoffs have taken hold throughout the industry.... Netflix also cut hundreds of jobs and introduced a cheaper advertising tier, overturning the company's longtime pledge to never allow commercials on the service. Warner Bros. Discovery, a company that was formed in April, faces a debt of roughly $50 billion, and has been in severe cost-cutting mode. There have been rounds of layoffs companywide, including at HBO and HBO Max, as well as sudden cancellations. The once-popular series "Westworld" was canceled last month — a move that surprised Hollywood — and the lesser-known, raunchy dating series "FBoy Island" was cut a few weeks ago....
There are a few outliers to this year's trend: Apple TV+ and Amazon have increased the number of adult scripted series they have purchased this year. So has Disney, according to Ampere's research. (For the second half of the year, however, Disney's buying has declined compared with the same period last year.)
Watered-down entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
TV series entertainment has been watered down during the last 15 years, to the point where there are now 200+ (made-up number, could be more or less) active TV shows all competing for the same viewer count. There's also a tendency (which needs to die) to abuse a TV series' success and stretch it to the point of no return.
As a couple examples, "The Walking Dead" should have ended at least three seasons ago. Its sibling, "Fear The Walking Dead", should have ended with the literal bang one season ago. "Wynonna Earp" was good until Season 4, where it became illogical, and I admit I could only bring myself to watch four episodes before abandoning it. The crowd seemed to have liked it, though. De gustibus...
Re: (Score:3)
"The Walking Dead" should have ended at least three seasons ago.
It truly became a Walking Dead. Ugly to behold, but still strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the opposite to me. We used to get far too many crap shows from networks, most of them cancelled a few episodes into the first season.
Now we get expensive prestige TV, with more of a commitment to at least do one whole season. Fewer shows, often only 10 episodes per season.
Or at least we used to, now it's back to cancelling everything good again.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, man...
https://editorial.rottentomato... [rottentomatoes.com]
Top 100 ongoing shows - that's quite a large list, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Top 100 ongoing shows....
I skimmed through the top half of the list. Most of those shows sound terribly dull. I know it's personal preference, so you may enjoy them.
The one show that jumped out at me on that list was The Order, which I liked a lot (barring one or two character arcs I really could have done without). However, it was canceled years ago, so I question how many of the shows on the list are "ongoing shows" when new episodes may not have been made in years.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a google-found article, I guess they just updated the year for clicks.
At any rate, the point stands, there are many, MANY shows being churned out, time for stuff to settle down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy Star Wars. I don't enjoy deciding if I should watch Andor, The Mandalorian, Obi Wan, or The Book of Boba Fett. I'll watch 1 of them half way through, then it will get canceled because it wasn't the one everybody else watched, then it won't matter because some other series I like just came out with 5 simultaneous TV series and a video game and a movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Watered-down entertainment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Andor, The Mandalorian, Obi Wan, or The Book of Boba Fett"
None of those were releasing new episodes simultaneously with any of the others. Even if they were, they're they're not broadcast in a specific time slot such that if you don't see it then you'll never see it again. Only one has been cancelled, and that's because it was a one season order in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
None of those were releasing new episodes simultaneously with any of the others.
As far as I know... just confirmed by Wikipedia now to be sure... The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and Andor are all releasing new episodes right now, as of December 2022. Or is Mandalorian and Boba Fett done now and Wikipedia isn't up-to-date?
Even if they were, they're they're not broadcast in a specific time slot such that if you don't see it then you'll never see it again.
My problem is that they release them at such a rate that in my lifetime I will never watch them all. I'm still catching-up on TV series released in the last 20 years because I couldn't keep up. Using Marvel as another example: My wife and I watched Loki sinc
Re: (Score:2)
"The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and Andor are all releasing new episodes right now, as of December 2022."
Episodes of _Andor_ were released from September 21 to November 23, 2022. Episodes of Obi -wan Kenobi were released from May 27 to June 22, 2022. Episodes of _The Book of Boba Fett_ were released from December 29, 2021 to February 9, 2022. The most recent episode of _The Mandalorian_ was released on December 18, *2020*. These dates are all in Wikipedia.
There is absolutely no overlap in time betw
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember when I could get two broadcast network stations, and maybe the third network depending on conditions, a public broadcasting station, and an independent station. Your station could get #3 in a time slot just by virtue of having the transmitter on at the time. Your show didn't have to be any good, and it probably wasn't
Westworld (Score:2)
It's no surprise Westworld was cancelled. The first season was too good and could only go downhill from there. Season 2 wasn't bad with the standout episode where Akecheta explains how he became self aware and remembered his previous "life" in the park. Season 3 was a mess and the last season seemed to get slightly better. Still nothing compares to that first season.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, another TV series which started very well, but then became preachy and confused.
Re: Westworld (Score:2)
only a matter of time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon cancelled The Tick. There is The Boys. Lost interest in Rings of Power. What else do they make?
Re: (Score:1)
I fucking L O V E D The Tick!
SPOOON!
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's people didn't understand the humor at all.
Re: (Score:1)
I think Patrick Warburton made a better Tick, but enjoyed the Prime version too.
Re: only a matter of time. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, watched the first episode and it was great but then had a browse around online and it drops off a cliff after episode 5. Episode 1 is seemingly loved by all but 90% of the responses after that all seem to suggest it goes downhill fast. Not sure I can bring myself to watch it to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched episode 1 and forgot to watch the rest. I'll have another look.
Re: only a matter of time. (Score:2)
Re: only a matter of time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't The Expanse over now? I know they were talking about making more, but the novels jump ahead 30 years.
I'll have a look at Jack Ryan.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoyed Reacher as well and actually just finished watching it again.
Too bad Amazon created that LotR garbage. If they increase the price of Prime memberships over that failure to recoup, then I'll probably take a break from Prime. They should have stuck to the lore instead of focusing on diversity and political allegory, because now they're stuck with a flop. Attacking Tolkien fans wasn't so smart either because animosity is very hard to win back.
Re: only a matter of time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care, as long at HBO doesn't cancel Doom Patrol.
I want to see how they're going to stop the Were-Butt Apocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
Need more Umbrella Academy too.
Re: (Score:2)
AmiMoJo opined:
Need more Umbrella Academy too.
Seconded. Wonderful show all the way around: casting, writing, world-building, visual design, costuming, effects, etc. And it didn't run out of creative gas by the end of season three ... !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind that if it finishes the story and is what the writers intended, sad as it is to see it go.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple TV has some pretty good shows:
For All Mankind
Severance
See
Such.. a.. shame. (Score:4, Funny)
Whatever shall we do without more of those semi-scripted reality shows where the participants babble on into the camera about some self-important drama for an hour?
stop overproducing and waits between seasons (Score:2)
For example, for the WoT series, Amazon let the producers and directors build entire towns just to burn them down. That is a ridiculous waste of money. Maybe a building or parts of a building, but not everything. They could save a ton of money just there. And they could use it to find help to get stories out faster so that users don't have to wait an entire year or more between seasons. I've abandoned shows because I've grown tired of the wait and am no longer interested. Costs go up exponentially with deta
Re: (Score:2)
Re:stop overproducing and waits between seasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Fans of scifi/fantasy books really are the worst.
I'm not much of a reader these days but what I do realise is that books and TV/film are very different mediums that don't easily translate to each other (if at all in some cases). You can almost guarantee that 99% of negative reviews for any TV or film that's based on a sci/fi or fantasy book is from some fanboy/girl who just wants their favourite book series made for TV/Film exactly like it is in their imagination. Unfortunately nothing ever lives up to that ridiculously high standard.
I've never read the WoT books but I understand they are excellent. My wife, son and I thoroughly enjoyed the WoT series because we didn't care about its faithfulness to any books. It was just a decent, fantasy series with decent acting and a good story. Was it in any way as good as the books? Almost certainly not of that I can guarantee but that doesn't make it a "steaming turd". Could it have been better than it was, certainly. Could it be more faithful to the books and been better for it? Again almost certainly. But that doesn't objectively change the fact it was a decent enough fantasy series that definitely wasn't worthy of all the derision the fanboys/gilrs gave it.
I think some people need to reduce their ridiculously high expectations regarding book to screen adaptations and just accept the series or program for what it is. Constantly referring to the source material and going "well it's not as good as the book" is utterly pointless and a pretty "no shit Sherlock" statement to make for almost every single adaptation ever. In a book, you can describe enough story in a couple of pages to easily account for 30 mins of quality on screen time. Extrapolate that out and without massive amounts of editing you'd have single books translating into 100's of hours of TV. That's never going to work so interesting side stories and often major plot lines have to be sacrificed. Sadly, so many fanboys/girls just don't recognise that.
Even when they get it so very right e.g. Lord of the Rings there were still countless LOTR fanatics complaining about the lack of Tom Bombadil...
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a fan to expect a reasonable amount of following the source material not because the resulting show is good or bad but because not doing so is deception. I haven't read or seen WoT so no opinion there. They called it WoT to get the fans to watch, otherwise call it something else. Saying people shouldn't be disappointed that what was implicitly advertised wasn't what they got is trying to have your cake and eat it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody seems to know how to plan and budget.
Re: (Score:2)
One season only is fine. As long as it "ends". The never ending cliffhangers of Walking Dead should stop. Tell a story that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Too much stuff feels like it is intentionally created to be an endless series. Ie, Strange Things (before it had seasons) was good - new, original, interesting story, good acting, instant hit. I *could* have stopped there. Now hints of season 5 and I'm just saying "meh". I haven't watched any new Star Wars in years, it's "meh". Note that
Big Ol Streaming Pile Of Poo (Score:2)
Maybe folks will begin to go back outside and talk to each other.
Or maybe we just need to outsource it to China like everything else.
Streaming is going the way of cable (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason streaming soared is simply that people were fed up with the crap they got on cable. Boring shows with formulaic content that was rife with checkbox-writing (where the writer cares less about plot or character development and more about ticking off marketing checkboxes), constantly interrupted by more and more ridiculous ads and you had to get the superspecialawesome package to even remotely have a chance to have all the shows you're interested in, and everything around that one show you wanted to see is fluff and filler material, produced on a nonexistent budget.
Streaming was the escape. No ads, interesting shows that dared to push the envelope and go beyond the same old shit and most of all, you subbed to Netflix and all the shows were there. Everything cable gave you, except the ads, and at a much more agreeable price.
Then new streaming services came and the market fragmented. Today, you'd have to subscribe to about 5 different services to see the 5 shows you'd like to see, the rest is filler crap nobody gives half a shit about, ancient movies they probably got for free when they bought one or some "artist's" pipe dream he produced for free, or even paid them to see it aired, because nobody else would pay for that crap.
We're back to cable now.
And we're waiting to see what's next. Because we all are anxiously waiting to see what replaces streaming so we can kick that to the curb next to cable TV. Same shit, time to get rid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all are anxiously waiting to see what replaces streaming so we can kick that to the curb next to cable TV. Same shit, time to get rid of it.
Why would something else replace streaming? We're not likely to go back to broadcast or cable en masse, so it's going to continue to be streaming until they figure out how to send ads directly into your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
The something else might involve not watching tv. My viewership is way way down. I think media companies don't realize that once viewers have cut the cable/satellite cord that they're much more likely to decide to cut the cord on streaming companies they don't like, or even just cut down viewing significantly, maybe unsubscribing altogether except for a month or two a year. I'm watching more youtube than I am paid services by far.
They really need to fix the model too. The content creator should not also
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted that, I'd be watching YouTube.
Re: (Score:1)
Overwhelmed with too many choices? (Score:4, Funny)
Was the author actually able to type that with a straight face?
Re: (Score:2)
Too many players (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to the rise of streaming, there were basically only a few players in the U.S. TV market. You had CBS/Paramount/Viacom, ABC/Disney, NBC/Universal, Fox, Discovery, Warner, and that's about it. Just about everything fell under one of those six umbrellas (and only five now that Discovery and Warner have merged).
Now, you have Netflix, Amazon, Apple, CBS, Disney+, ESPN+ (owned by Disney), Hulu (mostly owned by Disney), NBC Peacock, HBO Max, YouTube, Sling TV, Fubo TV, Philo TV, Roku TV, and who knows how many others, AND all of the original cable/broadcast TV channels that still exist in their original form, and those are all competing for roughly the same number of eyes.
The market fragmentation is simply way too high, and consolidation is, IMO, inevitable. There are simply too many companies competing in this space right now. Most of them probably won't be around in ten years. Amazon is primarily not a media company, so I doubt Prime Video will go away, though nothing is guaranteed. However, Prime Video and Apple TV are in the strongest position to still be around, because both of them offer ways to subscribe to other companies' services under their umbrella.
Similarly, YouTube and Roku TV are also both subsidiaries of companies whose main revenue sources come from something other than streaming video, which presumably puts them in a decent position for hanging around, though whether they will still be producing original programming in ten years is anybody's guess.
ESPN+ and Disney+ have a decent chance of getting killed and folded back into Hulu, because despite huge subscriber growth, Disney's streaming division is still losing a truckload of money, and keeping multiple streaming services alive under that umbrella really doesn't make much sense. It never did.
Netflix is also in real trouble, because they aren't part of a larger company, their original content isn't enough to sustain them, and everybody else is pulling out their best content to make it exclusive to their own networks. The new Netflix ad-supported tiers are helping keep them afloat for now, but their entire business model has been running on borrowed time from the very start. I can't predict the future; they might be able to limp along like this for decades, or in five years, they might sell their content library to NBC/Universal and close up shop. But they're the most precarious of the major streaming services, IMO. My money is on them being acquired by a bigger fish sooner rather than later; it's their best chance of still being around in ten years (in one form or another).
And at some point, broadcast TV will simply wither and die, at which point Sling is gone, as are Philo TV and DirecTV's similar offering.
No idea what will happen with Fubo.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Re: (Score:1)
I remember splicing RGB cables into my coax so that my old CRT could play content off my PC that had a TV tuner wtih S-Vid out.
What's old is new again.
I'm not asking for "free" ... but when I go to WalMart or Target, I don't have to buy Tampons along with my potato chips (no matter the brand or flavor).
Ala-cart is lost on the for-profit entertainment system.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think Netflix has an uphill task but they are also the most mature service. Of course, they've slowly lost some of their vendors as they've set up their own streaming services which is why they need to lean so much on original content. Fortunately they saw this coming and do have some strong shows. The main issue they
Re:Too many players (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure I agree with your rationale or some of your facts. Your comment also seems to be centric to North America which misses the much larger market that is the rest of the world.
I did say "U.S. TV market". I'd be lying if I said I understood the competition among non-English content sources and/or in non-English-speaking countries. To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to it, because I'm not a fan of dubbed TV, and even less a fan of subtitled TV.
Apart from the UK, Australia, and Canada, there's not a whole lot of English-language content out there, and even with dubbing, non-English content tends to not be all that popular (ignoring anime among its small, but devoted fanbase). And a lot of content from the UK, Australia, and Canada is largely publicly funded, which makes competing for ad dollars less critical.
I do think Netflix has an uphill task but they are also the most mature service. Of course, they've slowly lost some of their vendors as they've set up their own streaming services which is why they need to lean so much on original content. Fortunately they saw this coming and do have some strong shows. The main issue they have is to keep coming up with things as good as shows like Stranger Things year on year.
Their main problem is that they're literally competing against the owners of the content for almost their entire catalog, and those content creators can easily raise the price at renegotiation time to squeeze Netflix (and do, roughly annually).
Before they added the ad-supported tier, they reached a point where they were actively losing subscribers at their current price point because so much of their popular third-party back-catalog content has gone away, replaced by obscure overdubbed foreign shows that they could get cheap. That doesn't sound sustainable in the long term without a much larger back-catalog than Netflix has. Their best bet long-term would be to buy one of the smaller major content providers.
Disney+ is going to survive, it's matured quickly, has new content all the time and also has an excellent back catalog (I'm in Europe and get Star).
If it keeps losing money, at some point, they're likely to cut their losses. I don't know how you lose money with that large a subscriber base unless you just don't know what you're doing, which leads me to suspect that they don't know what they're doing.
I'm not sure why you think Apple will survive?
Apple, the company, will almost certainly survive. Right now, their TV offerings probably don't make enough money to cover their production costs. But they can also easily hide any losses in the balance sheet of such a large company almost indefinitely until such time as it does start to make a profit. Whether they do or not depends largely on whether they think it will eventually be profitable.
They've already had to compromise on exclusively being on apple devices.
Trying to keep their content only on Apple hardware was always a foolish idea. Most people don't watch TV on their phones, and most computers run Windows and most TVs use Roku, statistically speaking, largely because Roku and Microsoft embed their hardware/software into other companies' TVs/PCs and Apple doesn't. Just like when Apple failed to license Mac OS in the 80s, Apple's failure to license Apple TV for use in other companies' TV sets doomed its TV software offerings to being a minor player. Thus, their content would have to have been the almighty's greatest gift to mankind for it to reverse that trend and make Apple TV hardware outsell Roku somehow.
Although they have some good content (For All Mankind), they also have some real duffers (See and Invasion). I expect them to be the first high profile service to go, probably being bought out by one of the existing streamers.
Apple has a long history of continuing to try
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is competing for live sports, which would really be a game-changer for Apple TV+. They have a few good shows (Ted Lasso, for example), but just as many absolute stinker bombs, but live sports could totally change their value especially if they don't up the monthly fee.
Yeah, and if anything ends up bankrupting Apple TV+, that will be it. Going into live sports right now is, frankly, a big mistake. The fees that broadcasters pay to the various leagues are exorbitant, and as a result, even ESPN is struggling financially, and that's with cable TV viewers who don't watch sports at all heavily subsidizing its operating costs. More competitors fighting for those contracts will only encourage the leagues to charge more money for the contracts, making live sports coverage even
Re:Too many players (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix is also in real trouble, because they aren't part of a larger company, their original content isn't enough to sustain them, and everybody else is pulling out their best content to make it exclusive to their own networks. The new Netflix ad-supported tiers are helping keep them afloat for now, but their entire business model has been running on borrowed time from the very start.
This bit is quite wrong.
Netflix are making HUGE amounts of profit (5 billion last year) and are still very cash rich and cash positive and are also have a market capitalisation of $130 million. They are 5 TIMES the size of the likes of Warner-Discovery, 10 TIMES the size of Paramount. Disney is only a 50% larger at $170m. Comcast is also slightly larger at $150m. Yes Apple, Google and Amazon are possible suitors but I don't think any of those except maybe Apple have the means to make a 150billion acquisition right now (Amazon and Google have both been slashing jobs and products). What would be FAR more likely is Netflix become the predator and go for Paramount or Warner to boost their offering but it's certainly not the other way around.
Their output is roughly the same quality as everyone else' (apart from Amazon who's quality on average is considerably worse) with a similar 10/80/10 bad/ok/great rule that most other companies share. They have a strong pipeline of new shows (more spending that anyone else) and keep on getting hits that are VERY high profile and hugely popular (I can think of Ozark, Cobra Kai, Stranger Things, Dahmer, the Watcher, Bridgerton and most recently Wednesday) that give them a massive amount of positive press with enough other middle of the road series in the 80% to keep huge numbers subscribed. In an economic downturn and recession you are always going to see a reduction in subscriber numbers but Netflix is actually one of the strongest performing streamers.
The likes of Disney, Paramount+, Discovery+ are certainly eating into their subscribers too at the moment but I'd suggest that's primarily because almost everything you buy these days gives you a free 6month sub to one or even all of those services. I'm 99% sure it's why Disney is making massive losses is because a HUGE chunk of their subscribers don't pay and are likely to not pay once the free option ends.
Adding to this is the almost ubiquitous presence on every device with most devices still coming with a "Netflix" button on the remote meaning it's the first service most people think about when streaming. So I don't agree with you at all, I think they're in one of the strongest positions and it's fashionable to shit on them but the reality is it's still one of the best streaming platforms out there.
Re: (Score:2)
But it also seems quite likely that they have a huge number of subscribers remaining from the days when they were "the one service with everything"
It's going to be hard to keep all of them with only original content.
Most people want a couple of new shows, but also a good archive of past hit shows. Especially the classic sitcoms.
They have had the archive of other companies shows, but it is getting smaller, and that diminishes their value for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is arguing that Netflix's value has diminished, the question is if it has diminished enough to be gobbled up during the consolidation, or is it still big enough to survive and do some of that gobbling?
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is also in real trouble, because they aren't part of a larger company, their original content isn't enough to sustain them, and everybody else is pulling out their best content to make it exclusive to their own networks. The new Netflix ad-supported tiers are helping keep them afloat for now, but their entire business model has been running on borrowed time from the very start.
This bit is quite wrong.
Netflix are making HUGE amounts of profit (5 billion last year) and are still very cash rich and cash positive and are also have a market capitalisation of $130 million.
They have the advantage of momentum. But they also have the disadvantage of being almost 100% dependent on content providers. Their original content catalog and back catalog are nowhere near adequate to justify a subscription by themselves, even at half the price.
They are 5 TIMES the size of the likes of Warner-Discovery, 10 TIMES the size of Paramount. Disney is only a 50% larger at $170m.
Their market cap is a figment of Wall Street's overactive imagination. In the year 2021, they brought in just $30B in revenue, which makes them roughly the same size as Warner-Discovery, which brought in $26 billion from October 2021 to Septembe
Re: (Score:2)
They have the advantage of momentum. But they also have the disadvantage of being almost 100% dependent on content providers. Their original content catalog and back catalog are nowhere near adequate to justify a subscription by themselves, even at half the price.
Sorry but you literally couldn't be more wrong if you tried. While a couple of years old now this article shows Neflix have AN ENTIRE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more original programming than anyone else other than Amazon (and still 5 times more than amazon).
https://uk.pcmag.com/why-axis/127855/netflix-has-the-most-original-tv-shows-but-disney-shows-the-best-originals
This article https://www.televisual.com/news/netflix-looks-to-international-commissions-for-growth/ is more recent and to quote
"Since the start of 202
Re: (Score:2)
They have the advantage of momentum. But they also have the disadvantage of being almost 100% dependent on content providers. Their original content catalog and back catalog are nowhere near adequate to justify a subscription by themselves, even at half the price.
Sorry but you literally couldn't be more wrong if you tried. While a couple of years old now this article shows Neflix have AN ENTIRE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more original programming than anyone else other than Amazon (and still 5 times more than amazon).
https://uk.pcmag.com/why-axis/127855/netflix-has-the-most-original-tv-shows-but-disney-shows-the-best-originals
What part of "back catalog" don't you understand? Do you have any idea how big Disney/ABC's back catalog is? Eight *decades* of original programming for ABC, seven for Disney. Plus all of the original programming over several decades from the History Channel, Lifetime, A&E, and FX. Also Marvel's back catalog, Lucasfilm's back catalog, Pixar's back catalog, etc. I'm probably missing something.
No, Netflix's original programming isn't an order of magnitude larger than that. Maybe they have more of it
Studios' streaming services not profitable (Score:3)
I think the studios that traditionally are in the business to mainly produce shows and movies are realizing it's difficult to make money by setting up their own streaming services to distribute their content (e.g. Disney, Warner Bros, etc.). Traditionally, these studios would produce their content and then license distribution rights for it (theatrical, broadcast, syndication) to others. This could explain why Warner Discovery appears to be on the verge of shutting down most of HBO Max and licensing the streaming rights of their shows and movies to other services and on ad-supported streaming platforms.
But why is it that Amazon and Apple can afford to produce more content? I think it's because their shows and movies are loss leaders -- but they serve as perks to help keep their regular customers loyal to their platforms (Amazon Prime, the Apple platform).
Re: (Score:1)
Traditionally, these studios would produce their content and then license distribution rights for it (theatrical, broadcast, syndication) to others.
That's exactly how it was running until a couple years ago. The companies got greedy, said "How hard can it be to run our own streaming site? We'll keep all the money then!" and pulled their licensing for anything remotely popular to their own platforms.
If they're struggling now, all I have to say is "good" and "I told you so". Greed gets them nowhere, and drives people who don't want to manage 20 streaming accounts to piracy (again).
no surprise (Score:1)
Obviously (Score:3)
The two players that can give their content away for free and have no noticeable effect on the company's wealth are not cutting back. Why would they? The Free Market(TM) will ensure that their competitors' need for a profit will run them into the ground. Netflix has been doomed from the day Amazon entered the field.
To survive in the cut and thrust of the modern TV industry you have to be a cloud computing company or a phone manufacturer. Actually focusing on TV is suicide.
Good analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
In effect Apple and Amazon are using subsidies from their other business to run their competitors off the road. What is needed is for both streaming services to be split out of their parent companies as an anti-monopolies action. And while they're at it, making Amazon separate its cloud computing division as well would be good.
Re: Good analysis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two players that can give their content away for free and have no noticeable effect on the company's wealth are not cutting back. Why would they? The Free Market(TM) will ensure that their competitors' need for a profit will run them into the ground. Netflix has been doomed from the day Amazon entered the field.
To survive in the cut and thrust of the modern TV industry you have to be a cloud computing company or a phone manufacturer. Actually focusing on TV is suicide.
Amazon Prime is well positioned to become the default streaming service, but that doesn't doom Netflix.
The key with streaming vs cable is people can subscribe to multiple services at once. What Netflix needs to do to survive is keep producing enough hit TV shows (Stranger Things, Sandman, Wednesday, etc) so that people keep their subscriptions active to view them.
More choice is better - article is wrong! (Score:2)
"overwhelming viewers with too many choices "
That's such a loaded statement. Who decides if consumers have "too many choices"? The current bevy of programming is great. If you like niche interests you finally have something for you. It's so paternalistic to decide there's too much choice.
So they're going to focus on... (Score:2)
Finally! Maybe back to quality content now? (Score:2)
I remember the golden age of TV shows when this whole new hype started, and how far from it we are nowadays.
More streaming services than ever, and less actual quality content to watch than when TheWire and Sopranos and BSG were around.
Maybe now they will finally focus on a few real quality shows with quality writing and good productions again instead of throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks.
Nothing left worth buying (Score:1)
Steaming made two big mistakes (Score:2)
By streaming I mean Netflix. But many others followed in the same wrong footsteps:
First, they ordered any series that were rejected by mainstream channels. But, these were usually rejected for good reason. But since "Netflix Money" was a thing, many otherwise bad ideas saw the light of the day. They had to be more selective here.
Second, they only focused on getting new subscribers, at the expense of trying to keep existing people. That meant ordering new shows, instead of trying to continue existing ones. A
Re: (Score:1)
Add-Supported BS (Score:2)
It's too bad so many really decent series on Prime moved to that ad-supported channel.
The reason I use prime is to not have commercials. Moving the series I like into that model cost them a subscriber.,
I guess they've forgotten how easy it is to download shows instead of paying....