Warner Bros. CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Warner Bros. CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long
https://gizmodo.com/warner-bros-cfo-thinks-streaming-prices-need-to-go-up-1850839302
84 comments
> I think it's valid to say that the streaming services have been focused on growth rather than profits for the past several years, and that's changing as the era of cheap money ends.
Or to put differently, now that a majority of the audience has been pulled into the streaming world by years of loss-leading pricing, it's time to let the trap snap shut.
Or to put differently, now that a majority of the audience has been pulled into the streaming world by years of loss-leading pricing, it's time to let the trap snap shut.
Its not valid to talk about fair market value on any product given a monopoly government though. By definition the product will be priced above fair market value because of the monopoly
Thanks. That headline is malpractice, as it gives the impression of a near quote
I don't know what the streaming services have been paying for their content, so its hard to evaluate whether the content has been given away below FMV. However, I do know that the way things are moving now into everyone and their dog having their own streaming brand is also not going to work long term. Not for me, and not for anyone else either. No-one wants to subscribe to 101 different services. Either there will be some sort of reconsoliation, or we'll resort to buying shows a-la-carte, or people will switch services every week, or as a last resort back to piracy.
Last resort? Nah, minor inconvenience and I’ll go back to sailing.
I agree with your main point.
FWIW, FMV is agnostic of cost.
FWIW, FMV is agnostic of cost.
Imagine if someone came along and bundled all the streaming services into one.
or make all content available on demand from any service. the streaming brand isn't important beyond reliable delivery. each show has value to a limited set of viewers. The maximize revenue for piece of content, make it available to any streaming service and deliver it anyway they want, price per plate, monthly fee, with advertising.
The actual quote is valuable, but if the CFO had been caught on a hot mic saying the exact words in the headline, would that have been all that different? The intentions are the same, just without the PR department whitewashing things. ChatGPT can take the phrase
> "Warner Bros. CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long"
and rewrite it as
> "It has come to our attention that a significant portion of our consumer base has been leveraging our content without contributing to its monetization. We believe it's time to reevaluate this unsustainable model to ensure long-term value creation for all stakeholders involved."
It can further rewrite that as
> "Enough freeloaders. Time to pay up if you want to keep enjoying our content."
> "Warner Bros. CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long"
and rewrite it as
> "It has come to our attention that a significant portion of our consumer base has been leveraging our content without contributing to its monetization. We believe it's time to reevaluate this unsustainable model to ensure long-term value creation for all stakeholders involved."
It can further rewrite that as
> "Enough freeloaders. Time to pay up if you want to keep enjoying our content."
Agree, clickbait headline.
A more dispassionate (and informative) newsletter I like about the economics of Hollywood is https://entertainment.substack.com
A more dispassionate (and informative) newsletter I like about the economics of Hollywood is https://entertainment.substack.com
That's on him though. And 'given away'? As if the consumers that pay for access are getting that for free. If the CFO of Warner Bros. can't be bothered to read the contracts before signing them that's really his problem, not the problem of either the counterparty (the streaming services) or the general public.
I don't know about the rest of you all but I'm about streamed-out. I'm so overwhelmed with content that I find myself not watching much of anything anymore - save for some YouTube channels for my hobbies. And sports.
I'm now cancelling service while this nitwit thinks they should be charging more for it.
I just don't care about their content any more.
I'm now cancelling service while this nitwit thinks they should be charging more for it.
I just don't care about their content any more.
Go ahead and raise prices. These things will work themselves out. There is no shortage of options for consumers' attention: other streaming services, TikTok, video games, the entire outside world.
Using streaming services the way it is today feels trashy, awkward, and plastic. It's vaguely contemptible but I can't put my finger on why.
I could care less what he thinks
> Wiedenfels continued by saying that increasing streaming prices would reduce churn, AKA the number of subscribers who drop every month, especially if the company tries to commit more folks to annual plans. He also pushed the potential for advertising-based streaming tiers. Among the biggest streaming platforms around, HBO is not alone in that. Netflix has continued to highlight its cheaper, ad-based tier while limiting options for non-ad subscriptions.
This is the first time I've seen an exec explicitly argue to make streaming cable again. Good luck with that.
This is the first time I've seen an exec explicitly argue to make streaming cable again. Good luck with that.
Paramount+ just announced the new Frasier, and they were quick to announce that each episode would drop weekly, as opposed to all at once.
*Click, click, click, Wikipedia, last episode = 12 Dec 2023; click, click, click; Google Calendar :: New Event, 12 Dec :: FRASIER REBOOT S1 READY TO VIEW*
Am not going to pay 4 months when I can pay 1.
Re: Yearly plans to curb stream jumping? HA HA HA. No.
*Click, click, click, Wikipedia, last episode = 12 Dec 2023; click, click, click; Google Calendar :: New Event, 12 Dec :: FRASIER REBOOT S1 READY TO VIEW*
Am not going to pay 4 months when I can pay 1.
Re: Yearly plans to curb stream jumping? HA HA HA. No.
Even ignoring the high seas,there's so much entertainment out there, why choose to be locked in to legacy media? Personally I can think of a dozen youtubers who's videos I always choose over any of a thousand movies or tv shows.
[deleted]
There is audio books, games going for a walk.
I mean he is competing with not just other streaming services but everything i could spend my attention on. My attention is the scares resource here, not content.
I mean he is competing with not just other streaming services but everything i could spend my attention on. My attention is the scares resource here, not content.
I think Amazon has the most effective strategy here. I find it distasteful, but the main risk is that the federal government might start enforcing anti-trust law.
They have two tiers of video offerings that I think are anti-competitive:
1) They give away access to some stuff ad-free as part of the prime bundle.
2) The more premium part of their catalog has ads (Freevee)
(They also have a very expensive, non-differentiated service where you can buy/rent stuff, but their prices and selection are similar to other services.)
Prime Video is a standard monopolistic dumping scheme: They're providing it for free to depress streaming plan prices and starve competitors.
With Freevee, they use account data they gathered from their online shopping monopoly to provide better streaming ad targeting than anyone else can.
They have two tiers of video offerings that I think are anti-competitive:
1) They give away access to some stuff ad-free as part of the prime bundle.
2) The more premium part of their catalog has ads (Freevee)
(They also have a very expensive, non-differentiated service where you can buy/rent stuff, but their prices and selection are similar to other services.)
Prime Video is a standard monopolistic dumping scheme: They're providing it for free to depress streaming plan prices and starve competitors.
With Freevee, they use account data they gathered from their online shopping monopoly to provide better streaming ad targeting than anyone else can.
The only reason I have Amazon Video is because of Prime.
I got a Prime membership years ago to get low-cost fast shipping and at that time, Netflix was far superior to Prime Video. As it's gone up in price, I can justify that because I also get streaming movies & music (although I keep forgetting about the music). All in all it's a good enough deal to the point where I honestly don't even know how much I'm paying for it anymore.
I got a Prime membership years ago to get low-cost fast shipping and at that time, Netflix was far superior to Prime Video. As it's gone up in price, I can justify that because I also get streaming movies & music (although I keep forgetting about the music). All in all it's a good enough deal to the point where I honestly don't even know how much I'm paying for it anymore.
If it weren't for a family member using my Netflix account that begs me to keep it, I would have canceled it long ago.
Occasionally, I play the Netflix game. I lose so often that I'm surprised when I win and find something I want to watch.
Infinite LaGrange and BG3 are much more entertaining games...
Occasionally, I play the Netflix game. I lose so often that I'm surprised when I win and find something I want to watch.
Infinite LaGrange and BG3 are much more entertaining games...
I like Prime Video because it provides a subscription dashboard with a grid of other video streaming services and buttons to cancel or restart subs. So I sub to one at a time and rotate.
I do the same. (This further depresses the revenue of their competitors though, so it reinforces my point about it being an anti-competitive business model.)
you can also cancel individual services too. For example, I'm canceling Disney plus. I may turn on for a month or two next year to catch up on the new movies but I need to cancel it pretty quickly afterwards. I subscribed to Paramount plus to catch up on Star Trek. When the season is done, it goes away.
enough people do this, and then the streaming services will try to fix that by insisting on long-term contracts for short-term life for the content on the service. At which point, it is not worth subscribing.
enough people do this, and then the streaming services will try to fix that by insisting on long-term contracts for short-term life for the content on the service. At which point, it is not worth subscribing.
I fail to see the link between 'increasing streaming prices' and 'reduce churn'. Usually it is the opposite.
Max is likely the first in my collection to go if they raise prices (*I don't even pay for it right now, AT&T gives it to me for free)
> I don't even pay for it right now, AT&T gives it to me for free
Same here. I'm waiting for the inevitable email saying that only 5Gbps plans will get free Max
Same here. I'm waiting for the inevitable email saying that only 5Gbps plans will get free Max
> So in short, Warner Bros. wants less content, and more easily monetized big-tentpole productions for known brands. It wants viewers to pay more for the content they watch, and you shouldn’t expect to cancel as easily when you find out there’s nothing available worth watching. But there’s a positive to all this, you see. When asked about a potential theme park centered around Barbie to make bank off the company’s recent success, Wiedenfels said “the short answer is yes.”
Pretty much sums it up.
Pretty much sums it up.
That's funny. I think the CFO has been on a paid ride for way too long!
I see the point; most of the streaming service (Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount, and Disney (except a handful of new feature pre-releases during Covid)) have taken the cable bundle approach thus far (even more true as they add ads) ; that is, you buy the service, you get access to the whole catalog.
Disney differentiated with some pre-releases/theater times with $$ ups like Jungle Cruise during Covid, -- and should probably do more of that. But with the catalog system, I had 0 desire to see Ant Man and the Wasp knowing I could watch it at home in ~ 1 month.
Amazon / Fandango / Apple are struggling to keep their high margin rental models precisely because every other vendor gives you the whole catalog; and the user just has to rotate.
Giving the whole catalog (the HBO/Netflix) model is a subscription as a service -- which just as in software is attractive until you realize that your marginal income per user based on usage (and support/infrastructure) is below your revenue per user -- much more, below your previous income per user.
Disney differentiated with some pre-releases/theater times with $$ ups like Jungle Cruise during Covid, -- and should probably do more of that. But with the catalog system, I had 0 desire to see Ant Man and the Wasp knowing I could watch it at home in ~ 1 month.
Amazon / Fandango / Apple are struggling to keep their high margin rental models precisely because every other vendor gives you the whole catalog; and the user just has to rotate.
Giving the whole catalog (the HBO/Netflix) model is a subscription as a service -- which just as in software is attractive until you realize that your marginal income per user based on usage (and support/infrastructure) is below your revenue per user -- much more, below your previous income per user.
> you get access to the whole catalog
This isn't true for any of the services you mentioned, though there's substantial consumer confusion about what is and is not included.
Studies have shown that people will simply pirate content that isn't readily commercially available. I suspect that this result generalizes to situations where the customer paid for access to a catalog, but something from the catalog is missing from the streaming service.
I'm not sure where the cliff is, exactly, but to the extent that the services withhold some content from their catalogs they encourage people to just pirate the thing they thought they already paid for.
This isn't true for any of the services you mentioned, though there's substantial consumer confusion about what is and is not included.
Studies have shown that people will simply pirate content that isn't readily commercially available. I suspect that this result generalizes to situations where the customer paid for access to a catalog, but something from the catalog is missing from the streaming service.
I'm not sure where the cliff is, exactly, but to the extent that the services withhold some content from their catalogs they encourage people to just pirate the thing they thought they already paid for.
Those who really want the content and are technologically capable of pirating will; everyone else will just opt to go elsewhere.
Or not bother.
The list of big name "content" I think I really should watch/finish/whatever seems ever-increasing.
In reality I spend most of my screen time watching undemanding random and niche vids on YouTube made by individuals with fairly small followings.
The list of big name "content" I think I really should watch/finish/whatever seems ever-increasing.
In reality I spend most of my screen time watching undemanding random and niche vids on YouTube made by individuals with fairly small followings.
I really don't think it's sunk into these executives' heads just how much high-quality free content is readily available.
Or how powerful survivor bias is. Something over 99% of the best movies were made over a year ago. I guess that's why recent remakes are usually available for free on streaming, but you have to pay to watch the originals.
> Disney differentiated with some pre-releases/theater times with $$ ups like Jungle Cruise during Covid, -- and should probably do more of that. But with the catalog system, I had 0 desire to see Ant Man and the Wasp knowing I could watch it at home in ~ 1 month.
It's what I don't get about these sites; I mean I do, but it baffles me. They have the perfect opportunity to re-invent and broaden consumption of their product except they dig their claws deeper into the media business of the 1980s refusing to imagine a world other than multi-year cable contracts with channel upsells.
These companies, especially Disney, should just have a yearly Day 1 Streaming pass that gives you release day streaming access like they were doing during COVID. I don't recall but I remember the single movie passes were pretty steep, like $30 per movie and apparently it worked.
Anyone who buys such a pass is already unlikely to go to the theater, so they aren't cannibalizing. What they would do is bring them into the movie sooner so you have more time to market to them from that movie (buy our plushies, buy a copy, come to the park, etc)
It's what I don't get about these sites; I mean I do, but it baffles me. They have the perfect opportunity to re-invent and broaden consumption of their product except they dig their claws deeper into the media business of the 1980s refusing to imagine a world other than multi-year cable contracts with channel upsells.
These companies, especially Disney, should just have a yearly Day 1 Streaming pass that gives you release day streaming access like they were doing during COVID. I don't recall but I remember the single movie passes were pretty steep, like $30 per movie and apparently it worked.
Anyone who buys such a pass is already unlikely to go to the theater, so they aren't cannibalizing. What they would do is bring them into the movie sooner so you have more time to market to them from that movie (buy our plushies, buy a copy, come to the park, etc)
I have only paid for one movie in 10 or so years, and that was buying Barbie on iTunes because I loved it.
Otherwise, there hasn’t been anything worth paying for to me vs contributing to a few Youtuber’s Patreons.
HBO is the only streaming service I’ve found useful or good.
Otherwise, there hasn’t been anything worth paying for to me vs contributing to a few Youtuber’s Patreons.
HBO is the only streaming service I’ve found useful or good.
6kVShitPost(1)
The 'God Given Right to Income' delusion strikes again. Competition is such a hard concept for these companies.
They do not owe us content. We do not owe them our hard earned dollars. The tug of war continues.
I think this CFO will find that while he is free to think whatever he likes, words said out loud that weren’t cleared with people who pick up his paycheck tend to complicate things.
The power relationship between consumers and producers of entertainment has changed and things may not work out the way he expects.
The power relationship between consumers and producers of entertainment has changed and things may not work out the way he expects.
By definition, a CFO focuses on the money. Creators and customers are secondary, if not a nuisance.
Also at the same time they are kicking their workers as well and refusing any concession.
I think someone with a History background should inform them how going to war on multiple fronts won't work.
I think someone with a History background should inform them how going to war on multiple fronts won't work.
Good thing he never said those words, then!
My post addresses his words as quoted in the article (which I read), not the clickbaity title.
Lately I've found myself renting individual movies because they aren't being streamed on anything I have and it might just be cheaper for me after all. Netflix I pay for my mom, Prime I get included, and my main media source is YouTube because without Premium it's unwatchable; the rest I'll go without.
> CFO Thinks You Deadbeats Have Been on a Free Ride for Way Too Long
Actually, it’s the other way around. The studios have gotten away with charging way too much for sub par content. Let’s be honest, the pie is limited in both user spending and attention. You can raise the prices all you want, but you’ll end up going back to revenues you generated in early-mid 2000s because not everyone will watch your shows and pay as much as you’re asking for.
Actually, it’s the other way around. The studios have gotten away with charging way too much for sub par content. Let’s be honest, the pie is limited in both user spending and attention. You can raise the prices all you want, but you’ll end up going back to revenues you generated in early-mid 2000s because not everyone will watch your shows and pay as much as you’re asking for.
And now max wants you to pay $17/month to watch a bunch of reality TV shows that cost about $40 total to produce.
If I want some sort of trashy drama to watch, there's no shortage of freely available stuff on YouTube; the reason I paid money was because I wanted, you know, actual TV shows, and they decided to get rid of most of the ones I liked.
EDIT:
Just to ward off the pedants, I know reality shows cost more than $40 to produce. I still believe the sentiment stands though; they're cheaper than good TV.
If I want some sort of trashy drama to watch, there's no shortage of freely available stuff on YouTube; the reason I paid money was because I wanted, you know, actual TV shows, and they decided to get rid of most of the ones I liked.
EDIT:
Just to ward off the pedants, I know reality shows cost more than $40 to produce. I still believe the sentiment stands though; they're cheaper than good TV.
I was thinking the quote should have been: CFO thinks we deadbeats should profit from the work of someone's grandparents"
Because a lot of the content out there is from shows made in the 20th century. And a lot of the better content imo...
Because a lot of the content out there is from shows made in the 20th century. And a lot of the better content imo...
“For a decade, in streaming, an enormously valuable amount of quality content has been given away well below fair market value.”
I'm not sure they understand how fair market value works.
I'm not sure they understand how fair market value works.
I don't disagree with the notion that streaming services are priced too low for what we receive. As someone who watches a lot of film and television I get tremendous value from these services. As a consumer I of course prefer to pay less, but this content isn't cheap to produce and it is often risky to do so. I'm not privy to the financials of running these services, but that's my gut feeling.
At this very moment my iMessage window is open to a group chat between my business partners (who are all professionals in the music industry) about how much music has been de-valued. People are paying $10/month for Spotify and receive tremendous value. That subscription fee is simply not enough to keep Spotify and the artists afloat. If Spotify doubled their subscription cost tomorrow and it went to the artists I would gladly pay it. Unfortunately I think I may be in the minority and I don't know if casual listeners would be so sympathetic to having their subscription rates raised so dramatically.
In short, I believe we've been a little bit spoiled by the wealth of music and film that's been on offer from these services for the last decade.
At this very moment my iMessage window is open to a group chat between my business partners (who are all professionals in the music industry) about how much music has been de-valued. People are paying $10/month for Spotify and receive tremendous value. That subscription fee is simply not enough to keep Spotify and the artists afloat. If Spotify doubled their subscription cost tomorrow and it went to the artists I would gladly pay it. Unfortunately I think I may be in the minority and I don't know if casual listeners would be so sympathetic to having their subscription rates raised so dramatically.
In short, I believe we've been a little bit spoiled by the wealth of music and film that's been on offer from these services for the last decade.
The competitor is piracy. A mixture of 'too many' streaming services with unique exclusives, which is arguably already the case, or too high of prices will correspondingly drive more piracy.
In a way we're kind of regressing into the scenario that Netflix originally resolved. It sucked having to rent movies a la carte, at movie rental places that often wouldn't even have what you wanted. Now you're basically doing the same thing, except you're renting access to an exclusive catalogue instead of a single movie.
In a way we're kind of regressing into the scenario that Netflix originally resolved. It sucked having to rent movies a la carte, at movie rental places that often wouldn't even have what you wanted. Now you're basically doing the same thing, except you're renting access to an exclusive catalogue instead of a single movie.
Another competitor for new music is old content. Today's popular music is popular, but the proportion of music played that's considerably older is higher than ever before. Distribution isn't a push model where radio play and what's stocked in record stores drives everything and devalues the old; people have broader tastes than before.
This means that if you try to jack prices, people will substitute existing things they have in their library much more readily.
This means that if you try to jack prices, people will substitute existing things they have in their library much more readily.
I pay for a streaming service and watch about four hours of it a month.
We balance each other out, I think?
We balance each other out, I think?
The Spotify subscription fee is plenty to keep good artists "afloat", at the level of a middle-class living wage. It probably isn't enough to keep all of the record label executives' yachts afloat. Thus we see more artists going independent in order to keep a larger share of the limited streaming revenue.
You're right about artists going independent to capture more value for themselves, but you're wrong about the Spotify payouts being enough for a middle-class living wage. It's nowhere close to being enough to support an artist. Streaming music is basically a loss-leader for artists these days.
1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify.
And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, less your label's cut. It goes on and on.
[0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify.
And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, less your label's cut. It goes on and on.
[0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
A year of Spotify is about what people used to pay for 8-10 cds. I don’t know many who in their twenties who bought much more. At least for me the music spend is about the same.
This is true. To the user the cost may stay the same, but the user now receives VASTLY more value for the same spend. They have a seemingly infinite pool of music to listen to. Whereas they would only have 8-10 CDs worth of music for the same amount.
At the same time, the artist are now capturing a significantly smaller fraction (think 1%) from that same pool of money. And that's being generous. It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day.
The distribution of value and compensation is massively skewed when it comes to music streaming. Subscribers are getting tremendous upside while the creators are getting massively hosed under the existing model.
At the same time, the artist are now capturing a significantly smaller fraction (think 1%) from that same pool of money. And that's being generous. It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day.
The distribution of value and compensation is massively skewed when it comes to music streaming. Subscribers are getting tremendous upside while the creators are getting massively hosed under the existing model.
> It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day.
In fairness, most artists didn't receive anything from a CD purchase, either, as the costs to make and promote the album are usually deducted from the artist's share of royalties. (Also, said "costs" are often inflated/charged above the label's actual cost).
In fairness, most artists didn't receive anything from a CD purchase, either, as the costs to make and promote the album are usually deducted from the artist's share of royalties. (Also, said "costs" are often inflated/charged above the label's actual cost).
It’s obvious that it’s the labels that are the problem. If the artists I listened to in a month got part of my subscription directly they would probably make a decent bit. If I listen to 8 artists maybe as much as a buck. Instead I would be surprised if they got any more that a couple of cents each.
Even if you remove the label from the equation Spotify payouts are nowhere close to being enough to support an artist.
1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify.
And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, etc. It goes on and on.
[0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify.
And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, etc. It goes on and on.
[0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
Guess what. Reset copyright to 50 years and we call it even.
Unless they force annual contracts, I don’t see how they plan to get people to switch. If they start making less content and increase prices, why would anyone subscribe especially with an annual contract.
I also don’t understand the comment about increasing prices reduces churn. I canceled paramount plus and Hulu because of price increases and didn’t see the value in their content. AppleTv+ is under $10/m and their content is amazing. I am about cancel Netflix because their content has been declining and they keep raising rates. And it’s going to get bad when we start feeling the effects of the writers strike.
I also don’t understand the comment about increasing prices reduces churn. I canceled paramount plus and Hulu because of price increases and didn’t see the value in their content. AppleTv+ is under $10/m and their content is amazing. I am about cancel Netflix because their content has been declining and they keep raising rates. And it’s going to get bad when we start feeling the effects of the writers strike.
I’m seeing content posted to YouTube dominate anything from streaming to the extent that we hit up YT on our TV 1st before any streaming service.
We’ve been binging “Best Ever Food Review Show” and it pretty much destroys any travel food show on any paid streaming platform.
We’ve been binging “Best Ever Food Review Show” and it pretty much destroys any travel food show on any paid streaming platform.
this is psychological "low hanging fruit"
he's projecting his own reality outwardly. I'm saying he's saying this because it describes his own subconscious perspective of his own life: he's had it too easy.
but I'm not sure if I'm referring to WB's CFO or to the editors making the headlines
he's projecting his own reality outwardly. I'm saying he's saying this because it describes his own subconscious perspective of his own life: he's had it too easy.
but I'm not sure if I'm referring to WB's CFO or to the editors making the headlines
If I could purchase a movie at DVD price and actually own the files, then I’d be happy to agree with the CFO here. There is an over abundance of content out there, and I already don’t use streaming services because I don’t like having to sort through so many shows. I rent movies individually on Amazon quite a bit, and rental is really the only place where DRM makes a lot of sense.
I, for one, am very excited for the studios (and the younger generation) to re-discover that piracy is an option, too.
The near-disappearance of piracy for many relatively-well-off people happened _because_ it was in many ways cheaper (in terms of time too) to just subscribe to all three streaming services there were out there.
Now, with... fifteen? or so? out there, if there's a _single_ show out there I'm interested in on a platform I'm not paying for, let me tell you, I will not be subscribing to another one.
The near-disappearance of piracy for many relatively-well-off people happened _because_ it was in many ways cheaper (in terms of time too) to just subscribe to all three streaming services there were out there.
Now, with... fifteen? or so? out there, if there's a _single_ show out there I'm interested in on a platform I'm not paying for, let me tell you, I will not be subscribing to another one.
This was always going to be the natural outcome. Each company knows that the IP they own is key, and why Netflix started making originals vs. having to constantly pay higher prices everytime Friends was set to be renewed.
Now each service wants to own and control their own content and we have just a new version of cable tv that is streaming based, with less commercials, but is going to cost more overall due to lack of ad revenue subsidies.
Now each service wants to own and control their own content and we have just a new version of cable tv that is streaming based, with less commercials, but is going to cost more overall due to lack of ad revenue subsidies.
Honestly I think I am going to cancel my Max subscription.
The main reason that I subscribed to it was for its broad range of exclusive animated content, like Close Enough, Final Space, Infinity Train, and Adventure Time: Distant Lands. All but one of those have been removed from Max now (I guess for tax writeoffs and avoiding royalties?), and with their recent price increase for a bunch of awful reality TV shows, I'm done.
I do not know that there's anything I care about less than "My 600 Pound Life", and no matter how much they try and get me to watch that or "Pawn Stars", I find it unlikely that that's going to change no matter how many times they try and convince me otherwise.
I'm generally all for paying for my media (I have a lot of blu-rays, I own the entire series of Adventure Time and Adventure Time: Distant Lands on blu-ray), but I almost feel like piracy is kind of a civic duty at this point. If these corporations are going to make it impossible to watch their media legitimately, then the community needs to step and preserve the shows themselves.
And maybe we should resist programs that are "exclusive to streaming".
The main reason that I subscribed to it was for its broad range of exclusive animated content, like Close Enough, Final Space, Infinity Train, and Adventure Time: Distant Lands. All but one of those have been removed from Max now (I guess for tax writeoffs and avoiding royalties?), and with their recent price increase for a bunch of awful reality TV shows, I'm done.
I do not know that there's anything I care about less than "My 600 Pound Life", and no matter how much they try and get me to watch that or "Pawn Stars", I find it unlikely that that's going to change no matter how many times they try and convince me otherwise.
I'm generally all for paying for my media (I have a lot of blu-rays, I own the entire series of Adventure Time and Adventure Time: Distant Lands on blu-ray), but I almost feel like piracy is kind of a civic duty at this point. If these corporations are going to make it impossible to watch their media legitimately, then the community needs to step and preserve the shows themselves.
And maybe we should resist programs that are "exclusive to streaming".
> The main reason that I subscribed to it was for its broad range of exclusive animated content, like Close Enough, Final Space, Infinity Train, and Adventure Time: Distant Lands. All but one of those have been removed from Max now (I guess for tax writeoffs and avoiding royalties?), and with their recent price increase for a bunch of awful reality TV shows, I'm done.
The depressing US tradition of animation (especially the 2D variety) being treated as third-rate or worse continues.
The depressing US tradition of animation (especially the 2D variety) being treated as third-rate or worse continues.
Yeah, it's frustrating, especially since there's a lot of talented animation people that have a lot of interesting stories to tell.
I'm not sure how they managed to get it past all the recent cuts, but Adventure Time: Fiona and Cake is genuinely pretty good thus far; clearly there's still a lot of smart and talented people at Cartoon Network and Warner Bros who just want make entertaining media and are being treated as "lesser" because they work with cartoons.
I thought Infinity Train, for example, was fantastic, particularly season 2. It was a great show that used animation to showcase a lot of interesting art, while also working in metaphors about the frustrating nature of introspection and themes about individualism and personhood. Now they've replaced it with a TV show about a bunch of ostensibly "hot" mothers hitting on younger guys in a beach house.
I'm not sure how they managed to get it past all the recent cuts, but Adventure Time: Fiona and Cake is genuinely pretty good thus far; clearly there's still a lot of smart and talented people at Cartoon Network and Warner Bros who just want make entertaining media and are being treated as "lesser" because they work with cartoons.
I thought Infinity Train, for example, was fantastic, particularly season 2. It was a great show that used animation to showcase a lot of interesting art, while also working in metaphors about the frustrating nature of introspection and themes about individualism and personhood. Now they've replaced it with a TV show about a bunch of ostensibly "hot" mothers hitting on younger guys in a beach house.
And thus piracy spikes again, the cycle continues.
I don't think he's wrong at all. Streaming services are not only selling but producing enormous amounts of content which if anything has gotten more expensive. I think most people are old enough to remember what it cost to buy a DVD box set of one season of a show, or even just rent a physical copy of a movie over a weekend. Goes for other media as well. Spotify giving you access to a substantial amount of the world's music for about ten bucks is kind of wild, or Game Pass. All these services are easily operating under their actual market value.
Something has to give in that equation, either its artists, studio profits in the name of user acquisition, but it never seemed sustainable or very reasonable to me. It was always obvious that at some point they'd switch from subsidizing their platforms to raising prices. It's arguably healthier.
Something has to give in that equation, either its artists, studio profits in the name of user acquisition, but it never seemed sustainable or very reasonable to me. It was always obvious that at some point they'd switch from subsidizing their platforms to raising prices. It's arguably healthier.
"old enough to remember what it cost to buy a DVD box set of one season of a show, "
I bought Get Smart to enjoy with my child. IIRC it cost over $100. That was and is ridiculous. If Disney had not bribed so many legislators, it would have been more like $10...
I bought Get Smart to enjoy with my child. IIRC it cost over $100. That was and is ridiculous. If Disney had not bribed so many legislators, it would have been more like $10...
MakeMKV is a worthy investment. If I can't find it to stream (did you know yt-dlp works on tubi?) I find a copy of the dvd in a $1 bin and make my own digital edition. And it also works with new boutique 4k UHD blurays.
In Canada, it's hard to find ways to stream a lot of 70s, 80s, 90s studio 'classics' (my standards). Because of legacy licensing arrangements with the big 2 and their spinoffs, not even the studio services carry their own movies. So my options are buy it digitally for $20, rent it for 48 hours for $6, or hit the dollar bins at flea markets, garage sales, and the like.
I use the money I save to support film conservators like vinegar syndrome. They've brought me far more compelling releases over the last few years than anything these executives would dream of touching.
I've got a backlog longer than I am tall. And if I need to zone out on brain-dead mindless TV, I've got an unlimited amount of it on YT to keep me going.
Part of the fun is the hunt for something good to consume.
YouTube has made it clear we can pay direct to content creators and cut this executive out of the equation entirely. This is nothing more than the thrashings of a drowning rat.
In Canada, it's hard to find ways to stream a lot of 70s, 80s, 90s studio 'classics' (my standards). Because of legacy licensing arrangements with the big 2 and their spinoffs, not even the studio services carry their own movies. So my options are buy it digitally for $20, rent it for 48 hours for $6, or hit the dollar bins at flea markets, garage sales, and the like.
I use the money I save to support film conservators like vinegar syndrome. They've brought me far more compelling releases over the last few years than anything these executives would dream of touching.
I've got a backlog longer than I am tall. And if I need to zone out on brain-dead mindless TV, I've got an unlimited amount of it on YT to keep me going.
Part of the fun is the hunt for something good to consume.
YouTube has made it clear we can pay direct to content creators and cut this executive out of the equation entirely. This is nothing more than the thrashings of a drowning rat.
Who was it that said if you skip ads then you're stealing the content?
> For a decade, in streaming, an enormously valuable amount of quality content has been given away well below fair market value, and I think that’s in the process of being corrected.
He did not say anything about deadbeats, free rides, etc.
I think it's valid to say that the streaming services have been focused on growth rather than profits for the past several years, and that's changing as the era of cheap money ends.