Americans Are Spending Less On Streaming As Fatigue and Options Grow (techspot.com) 83
In 2024, Americans spent 23% less on streaming subscriptions compared to 2023, driven by rising costs, streaming fatigue, and increased password-sharing restrictions. The findings have been reported in Review's annual State of Consumer Media Spending Report. TechSpot reports: Of those surveyed, 27.8 percent said they are experiencing streaming fatigue - or the feeling of being overwhelmed by the growing number of streaming apps on the market. And with the cost of goods and services at an all-time high, it's hitting folks in the wallet as well. The report additionally found that the average American has two streaming subscriptions, and watches three hours and 49 minutes of content each day. More than a quarter of subscribers - 26.5 percent - share subscriptions with others to save on cost although with recent crackdowns on password sharing, that might not be an option for much longer.
As such, Reviews recommends downsizing the number of subscriptions you pay for each month or spending more time using free services if you're looking to cut down on costs in the New Year. For example, you could stagger subscriptions by signing up for a service temporarily to watch a specific show or movie and canceling when you are finished. It's also wise to keep an eye out for free trials, discounts, and limited-time streaming deals like those occasionally offered from Internet and mobile providers.
As such, Reviews recommends downsizing the number of subscriptions you pay for each month or spending more time using free services if you're looking to cut down on costs in the New Year. For example, you could stagger subscriptions by signing up for a service temporarily to watch a specific show or movie and canceling when you are finished. It's also wise to keep an eye out for free trials, discounts, and limited-time streaming deals like those occasionally offered from Internet and mobile providers.
Password sharing restrictions (Score:5, Interesting)
Weren't crackdowns on password sharing supposed to increase revenue? How interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Cocaine-addled MBAs are taught "cut costs cut costs cut costs" as their golden hammer. Everything they do revolves around assuming that "cutting costs" will result in greater profits without causing revenue losses due to product quality declines.
In reality, almost every time they do this, product quality declines. Sometimes it's not enough to significantly move the needle, but more often they hit the Trust Thermocline [medium.com] and run off a significant part of their customer base.
In the early days of streaming,
Re: (Score:2)
The PE firms that run most of today's restaurant chains are heavily into this.
"Hey, they won't notice if we cut portion sizes."
"They won't notice if we use cheaper ingredients here. And there. And there."
"They won't notice if we increase prices."
"They won't notice if we reduce the number of wait staff and servers."
'They won't notice if we increase prices again."
"Ah... anyone know why sales are down?"
What they refuse to believe is that we notice. Every single time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Cutting cost has the fundamental problem that you are not improving your product anymore. As the world changes, that means it falls behind. But to see that takes a scope of more than the next quarter. The second problem is that if you cut cost too much, you start doing things cheaper than possible. There is a reason all sound engineering involves some redundancy and that reason is that you do not know where exactly the minimum is and you have variation in processes, supplies, border conditions. etc. an
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It did, just not in the market they were hoping for: https://www.precedenceresearch... [precedenceresearch.com]
Re:Password sharing restrictions (Score:4, Informative)
The headline says, "Americans Are Spending Less On Streaming." But look at what's actually in the article - they did a poll and people said they are spending less on streaming. It's just a poll. What it really suggests is people have negative feelings about subscription services, therefore they report spending less on them. That might be bad news for services long-term, but it doesn't mean people are really spending less. They could report this same thing for 10 years in a row and revenue might or might not go down.
Here's the reality:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If they're like me, they're probably just rotating through the streaming services on a monthly basis to catch up on their favorite shows. It doesn't seem like any of the streaming services have enough quality content on them to justify having a year round subscription anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I just recently canceled my month to month Amazon Prime Video as football season is over so I don't need to see Thursday Night Football. I also canceled a Disney+ sub since I've watched the few things on wanted to watch and feel I got my money's worth for the month I had it.
None of these services have enough content to keep someone long term and the streaming service space has way to many operators, so you are forced to bounce around to see different content.
Good for people getting smarter on these th
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Apple TV+ subscription because I'm on Apple's bundle for Apple TV, iTunes, News, and storage upgrades. I have a Netflix sub that's managed not to be cut. Oh, and I have a basic YouTube subscription because I like watching YouTube videos, but I wouldn't do it if I had to watch the ads.
But I've dropped Disney+, primarily because I'm Marvel'ed out. I dropped Hulu at the beginning of last year. I dropped my Prime subscription because I'm not interested in watching ads on content I've already paid for.
Re: (Score:1)
they did a poll and people said they are spending less on streaming. It's just a poll. What it really suggests is people have negative feelings about subscription services, therefore they report spending less on them.
Finally, to determine the average monthly cost of streaming, we surveyed 1,000 Americans to determine the median amount the average person spends on streaming services per month
You're actually trying to say at least 500 people lied on a poll of 1000 people to be able to skew the results to match your crazy view of people aren't actually spending less on streaming services because I said so? The people that did the poll actually took the time to put together the stats, while you just stand there and say nuh-uh. Your stats mean the opposite because I said so. Hahaha.
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
we surveyed 1,000 Americans
I don't believe it. They actually found 1000 Americans with usable broadband?
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
80-90% of US households have broadband.
https://www.census.gov/library... [census.gov]
What's your angle with pretending otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Also the reason polls are almost meaningless for factual information isn't because they are "lying," it's because the default way people summon information to mind is by emotion. Polls are useful for finding sentiment, but be extremely wary of trying to determine facts from them.
Re: (Score:1)
ou fail to grasp that if people were spending 23% less on streaming on average, then revenue at the streaming companies would plummet.
This may come as shock to you, but polling isn't always right or accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s possible they're spending less, the streaming companies have started leaning into ad revenue. Less consumer cost, higher revenue. But maybe not, they’ve only just begun.
https://www.emarketer.com/cont... [emarketer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My friend and I can afford a subscription if we split it, but not 2 subscriptions. So, streaming company, you can have half a loaf or none.
Re: (Score:1)
My friend and I can afford a subscription if we split it, but not 2 subscriptions. So, streaming company, you can have half a loaf or none.
The company will take the whole loaf, monitor all your activities and ban you based on arbitrary guidelines of their choosing. Alternative, they'll make you and your friend pay 3x as much for the one loaf.
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
Get better jobs so you can afford your own account?
Re: (Score:2)
As individual price subscriptions increase, customers are carrying less of them. Me personally, there's a show or 2 I want to see on a specific service, I cancel immediately after I complete the show and hold off till the next season drops. Essentially people are paying for the shows they want, and not carrying streaming services.
Also, with the end of t
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy to me how outraged some people got about the end of password sharing that they STILL bring it up like it was some kind of huge calamity that "everyone" cares about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy to me how outraged some people got about the end of password sharing that they STILL bring it up like it was some kind of huge calamity that "everyone" cares about.
I'm just the opposite. I really *like* the new Netflix password sharing changes. I used to pay $9.99 per month for Netflix basic service. Then, Netflix cancelled my basic plan and tried to force me over onto an ad-based plan. After just two weeks of that hell, I dropped my subscription outright after a decade and a half, and I am now paying $7.99 per month as an add-on user on my mom's account in another state.
Let me reiterate that. Because Netflix now offers a password sharing option, I'm now paying N
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
Worked well for Netflix, their profits were up 15% and added 9.3M new accounts in the first quarter after cracking down on password sharing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/busin... [bbc.com]
How does password sharing increase subscriber count, profits?
Re: (Score:2)
How does password sharing increase subscriber count, profits?
Simple: The older people get, the more disposable income they have. Duh.
Re: Password sharing restrictions (Score:2)
It seems to be working for Netflix. Just probably not all the also-rans.
Re: (Score:3)
Hehehehe. Well, there is two approaches to "business":
1. Make a good product that people want. That gives you reliable, but not excessive revenue that you can depend on long-term. You know, as a sane person would do.
2. Give in to greed and make a cheap, crappy product and then try to coerce people into using it. If you have a monopoly, that ends your enterprise when that monopoly falls. (Countless historic examples and some current ones, including some where that will happen in the future.) If you do not ha
Wow, you don't say? (Score:2)
It's so obvious! Why didn't anyone ever think of that before?!
Re: (Score:2)
It's so obvious! Why didn't anyone ever think of that before?!
Speaking of before, watch the response from Greed become a corruptly collusive environment where the Streaming Collective all stressed out on revenue fatigue works to Make Contracts Great Again.
Re:Wow, you don't say? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I wonder is why they don't have a non-binge subscription. One where there would be total restriction in hours or number of episodes, e.g. not two episodes of the same show in any day, or not more than 4 total in a day. Healthier, better for parenting, brings suspense again in viewing your favourite shows, and makes sure you'll keep the subscription on a longer term. Not everybody might like it, but there's a number of people who will like and would otherwise not subscribe, or do the trick of subscribing a month per year, which is worse for both the streaming service and for the viewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with just one episode per day, a month is enough for a whole season.
What they could do more is release one or two episodes per week, like on cable and satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd still get the same amount of people subscribing a month a year to watch the entire year of the show. Also first-time subscribers still would binge 10 years of past shows in a short time then stop subscribing.
Re: (Score:2)
What they could do more is release one or two episodes per week, like on cable and satellite.
That is exactly why I planned to cancel Disney+ for 11 months out of the year, then binge watch everything in one month. So I canceled 14 months ago, and completely forgot about it. When I recently remembered about it and looked at it, I found nothing I cared for. As a result, I didn't resubscribe.
Feeding the Addiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I wonder is why they don't have a non-binge subscription. One where there would be total restriction in hours or number of episodes, e.g. not two episodes of the same show in any day, or not more than 4 total in a day.
I think you just reinvented throttling.
A perfectly cromulent solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Better for parenting, in my view, because you make sure your kid does not spend 18 hours a day in front of a given show on Saturdays and Sundays. My opinion is this situation is absolutely to be avoided.
Besides that I don't get your point. You assume I want to watch the same things as the kids, on the same day, but SEPARATELY? I cannot make sense of that parenting scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably have the idea that any "low subscription tier" has to be ad-supported, and they wouldn't want to limit your exposure to ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be shocked if any significant fraction of people sustain subscription rotation for more than a year. If there's anything the last 15 years have shown, it's that subscriptions (getting somebody's payment info on file so you get to drain their bank account perpetually until they take active measures to stop it) WORKS. It works all too well.
Re: Wow, you don't say? (Score:2)
"I outsmart all the companies" is up there with "advertising doesn't work on me" on the list of Shit Slashdotters Say.
Content fatigue indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
If there was any interesting content. Of last year I only remember liking the latest Deadpool, Hellboy, and Despicable movies. Oh, and the Oceans one that was not an Oceans one. Of all the other movies I thought might interest me, I stopped watching in half an hour or less. Definitely not enough to warrant even one subscription. I'll snatch up hardcopy versions when I come across the ones I do like.
Watching movies from before 2000 has become much more fun. Currently enjoying the Poirot series, and played Demolition Man as fireworks during new year's.
Re: (Score:2)
Watching movies from before 2000 has become much more fun. Currently enjoying the Poirot series
The TV series starring David Suchet, not one of the innumerable worse films, right? That is very good, e is the definitive 'ercule, mon ami. If you like that have you tried the Jeeves & Wooster starring Hugh Laurie and Steven Fry?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. There is nothing I will even bother to to pirate these days. This crap is simply not worth my time.
I mostly stream for free.... (Score:3)
The Internet Archive is my favorite (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather support them and the public's domain. Not only that, I don't I want to support the same people who corrupted our copyright laws in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Just who do you think is producing all that public domain material? Do you think it materializes out of thin air?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just who do you think is producing all that public domain material? Do you think it materializes out of thin air?
I know, right?? If Mickey had gone public domain any earlier than last year, why good old Walt would never have had any incentive to create content!
Re: (Score:2)
It was produced by dead people. It materialized out of the mists of time.
Re: (Score:2)
we the people produce and pay for all this culture, it's ours, we paid for it, we created and it and our culture it's ours
notice how classist people assume corruption of copyright is somehow okay
Re: Streaming LOSING Viewers Because of DEI and WO (Score:2)
Re: Streaming LOSING Viewers Because of DEI and WO (Score:2)
"Whites only cast as pathetic, weak men, or as immoral villains"
Hits too close to home, eh?
Re: Streaming LOSING Viewers Because of DEI and W (Score:2)
Just an actual white man that isn't afraid of girls.
Re: Streaming LOSING Viewers Because of DEI and W (Score:2)
Retired laying next to my lady as I type this.
Federated payments and frontdoor services (Score:5, Interesting)
In my country at least, they have used the schema for music for ages - radio stations get blanket licenses, pay some fee for it, and then the license fees are distributed to artists according to how many minutes their music was played.
Why couldn't these guys, instead of a race to the bottom, just partner together with something like Justwatch.com that would provide access to any and all content. I could create an account and pay my monthly fee - there could be tiers as per streaming quality or offline downloads or number of devices. If, in a given month, I watch the latest Marvel series, Stranger Things, and Wheel of Time, Disney would get 1/3 of my fees, Netflix would get 1/3 and Amazon would get the last third. If I don't watch anything, every provider who is a member up would get equal share. If I only watch Netflix productions, they'd get 100% of the fee.
The monthly fee could be something like the price of two or three services. The providers could still allow for direct subscriptions with some discounts or whatever, but if I wouldn't particularly care for a particular platform's offerings but instead just want it all, I could just sign up for this centralized payment.
Now we are just rotating streaming services. At the end of last month, Prime Video and Disney+ went on break, and now starting with Skyshowtime and Netflix (want to see Squid Game season 2). Probably will switch again at the end of February in the latest. I'd rather not jump through all those hoops and streamers would avoid the race to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
In my country at least, they have used the schema for music for ages - radio stations get blanket licenses, pay some fee for it, and then the license fees are distributed to artists according to how many minutes their music was played.
One difference is how musicians and songwriters are paid performance royalties, they get paid per play, unlike actors who generally are paid up front; and people will often play the same set of songs repeatedly , unlike a movie which you may only watch once. The fees would have to be significant for a studio to do taht over the current model, where the get a somewhat stable revenue stream form their entire catalogue and do not have to relie on a movie to be a hit to make money.
Why couldn't these guys, instead of a race to the bottom, just partner together with something like Justwatch.com that would provide access to any and all content. I could create an account and pay my monthly fee - there could be tiers as per streaming quality or offline downloads or number of devices. If, in a given month, I watch the latest Marvel series, Stranger Things, and Wheel of Time, Disney would get 1/3 of my fees, Netflix would get 1/3 and Amazon would get the last third. If I don't watch anything, every provider who is a member up would get equal share. If I only watch Netflix productions, they'd get 100% of the fee.
That could have been the Netflix model, but content providers decided their content was valuable enough to only offer it through their service in many cases; and thus the subscription model was bor. I suspect, if a significant number of subscribers chose the subscribe - binge - cancel moel they will try to find ways to limit that; we already see new shows coming out over several months vs. al at once, so you have to wait 3-4 months before you can binge. I don't mind that, but a lot of people want to see i
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not jump through all those hoops and streamers would avoid the race to the bottom.
I think your ideal plan is exactly what the alternative streamers don't want. With your ideal system, you would stop rotating. Which one would you choose? A small unknown player because you enjoy helping small companies? I don't think so. Chances are most people will o for the biggest name they know, because of brand value and most people just want the normal thing so they can watch the same as their friends.
So if e.g. Netflix gets access to everybody's catalogue, the risk is Netflix will become a monopoly,
Re: (Score:2)
For movies I tend to watch older films that sound interesting. If there was a streaming service where I could look up any random movie and there's a decent chance it'll be available, I would subscribe to it. Like I do with music streaming.
I don't care about original content, I don't care about what they're promoting. I want something I can feed a title, and the movie starts playing.
There used to be such a service (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the rows of DVDs in the pawn shop the other day, I really started contemplating how to get one of my DVD drives working again.
Probably will be easier just to torrent. The music streaming services have got enough selection on them now that it isn't worthwhile to torrent music. Torrenting films is still a very attractive option.
Re: Federated payments and frontdoor services (Score:2)
Vudu/Fandango has pretty much everything, but it's not a subscription service, it's a la carte.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately we had something like this, then they spread the costs of sports and other niche networks to everyone, added more and more commercials and consistently raised the prices until the cost for cable TV was so high that everyone left.
Golden Age of TV shows is long gone (Score:3)
Blaming it on the landscape of streaming which now mirrors cable at its worst is not the whole picture. The quality has seriously gone downhill too. The golden age of tv shows is long, long gone and it really shows.. even with all access to pirate anything I want, there are simply no really good shows anymore. Nothing on the level of TheWire, TrueDetective Season1 etc., so why should anyone pay all those monthly fees for getting fed horrible TV slop?
Re: (Score:2)
Forested Rural (Score:3)
Being out in the boonies, streaming really isn’t viable with the “High Speed WiFi” service we have. As such, over the past 10 years, we’ve just purchased the physical media and have been doing a weekly date night. Make a little popcorn and kick back on the couch. Currently we’re watching a DVD at a time of Picard (so 4 episodes at a time). But I also pick up movies when we’re at one of the big box stores during our weekly shopping trips.
My wife has Amazon Prime and Netflix but we’ve not been able to get a good solid run of any TV show or movie. It starts and stutters to pause often enough that we simply stopped trying after a while.
[John]
Industry is just too fragmented (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy (Score:2)
We are spending less (Score:2)
We have a spreadsheet with ongoing subscriptions.
Sporadically, we analyze all of them and make keep/change/drop decisions.
Did this recently with TV streaming and decided to drop Hulu+Live which was $100/month.
We added Disney+ separately.
Total annual savings has been $800.
Rising costs (Score:3)
Just a few short years ago it was cheap to stream from many providers. All streaming providers have since raised prices and if I kept them all then I'm back to the cost of cable.
So, if I have a budget for streaming, and all of the services have raised prices, and now fewer services fit in my budget. I might find that I can't quite fit two subscriptions within my budget, so I go with one. Now I'm spending less but it wasn't exactly my choice, I was priced out.
If streaming companies are unhappy with low prices and unhappy with high prices, well maybe they need to work on the business model.
Piracy is back (Score:1)
it's better to teach them not to expect your money (Score:1)
24 month contracts coming in 3,2,1 (Score:2)