The Business of Hollywood & Streaming

[HamsterHookah 112]

I'm very interested in the industry and business of Hollywood and Streaming Tech and Studios and think it's a very fascinating space that has faced at least two different inflection points, with some really interesting moving parts recently. Instead of randomly having the economic and business conversations in content-focused threads (e.g. Velma, Netflix recommendation, etc.) I figured there might be a good catch-all thread for the discussion, if there is similar interest or watchers (or investors) of the industry.

For starters Netflix is going through a huge changing of the guard and seems to have rebounded from it's "death spiral", but is emerging from 2022's bloodbath with cutting out password sharing and slashing it's content budget. That tells me that if you are in the Hollywood industry and couldn't get Netflix to greenlight something when they were throwing billions at garbage, you are in for a tough time in 2023+.

Beyond that, I read this interesting article about what streaming did for the documentary. What used to be the academic purview of PBS with stolid narrators like Ken Burns, we are now seeing them pumped out with more docutainment fare. It's also a continuation of the discussion around how streaming has created a modern dynamic where movie theatre releases are for the unwashed masses (MCU, reboots of popular IP, sequels, etc.) versus cinema, art films, documentaries, avant-garde, etc.

Quote

 

When streaming began its Hollywood takeover in the 2010s, documentaries presented themselves as a low-cost way to burnish a reputation. Netflix won its first three Oscars for documentaries, including Icarus, a 2017 investigation into the Russian sports-doping scheme, which was produced by Cogan.

But as Netflix and other streamers battled for market share, documentaries themselves began to change. The streamers had enough data to know what people liked — murders, celebrities, episodes that end with a cliffhanger — and by 2020, when Netflix was releasing a new documentary or docuseries every week, the streamers were competing less for awards than for the next true-crime hit. Between 2018 and 2021, demand for documentaries on streaming services more than doubled, and films that once had hoped to eke out a couple of million bucks at the box office were now selling to streamers for $10 million, or $15 million, or $20 million. A genre that had always existed in part to inform and enlighten was now primarily a commercial product.

 

https://www.vulture.com/article/tv-documentaries-ethical-standards.html

Edited February 2, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[HamsterHookah 112]

Also here is Netflix's new anti-password sharing policy announced which is interesting:

https://thestreamable.com/news/confirmed-netflix-unveils-first-details-of-new-anti-password-sharing-measures

[McCroskey 1504]

Business Breakdowns podcast did a deep dive on Netflix back in late November, pretty interesting following their evolution.

[henrygandorf 29189]

whatever people think is happening will be turned on its ear in may when the writers strike.

[HamsterHookah 112]

18 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

Business Breakdowns podcast did a deep dive on Netflix back in late November, pretty interesting following their evolution.

I'll search for it.

One of the things I found to be very interesting about Netflix specifically is this revisionist history we (collectively as a culture) have about Netflix and Blockbuster.

I blame the easy to manipulate digital disruption narrative, but essentially Netflix didn't put Blockbuster out of business because Blockbuster refused to buy them and so then Netflix just disrupted and outcompeted them while Blockbuster sat on their hands, but Blockbuster put up a great fight and but a decision or two would have nipped Netflix's essential ascent in the bud if not for some C-level mixups and running out of money while trying to lay siege and starve Netflix out:

Quote

 

The simplified story of Netflix’s founding starts with Reed Hastings grumbling over a $40 late charge from Blockbuster, and ends with the brick-and-mortar giant going bankrupt as customers came to prefer online rentals from Netflix, with streaming providing the final coup de grâce.

Neither are quite right.

The Blockbuster Fight

Netflix was the idea of Marc Randolph, Netflix’s actual founder and first CEO; Randolph was eager to do something in e-commerce, and it was the just-emerging DVD form factor that sold Hastings on the idea. He would fund Randolph’s new company and be chairman, eventually taking over as CEO once he determined that Randolph was not up to the task of scaling the new company.

Blockbuster, meanwhile, mounted a far more serious challenge to Netflix than many people remember; the company started with Blockbuster Online, an entity that was completely separate from Blockbuster’s retail business for reasons of both technology and culture: Blockbuster’s stores were not even connected to the Internet, and store managers and franchisees hated having an online service cannibalize their sales. Still, when a test version went live on July 15, 2004 — the same day as Netflix’s quarterly earnings call — Netflix’s stock suffered its first Blockbuster-inspired plunge.

Three months later Netflix cut prices and referred to Amazon’s assumed imminent entry to the space; Netflix’s stock slid again. Hastings, though, said the increased competition and looming price war was actually a good thing. Gina Keating relayed Hastings’ view on that quarter’s earnings call in Netflixed:

“Look, everyone, I know the Amazon entry is a bitter and surprising pill for those of you that are long in our stock,” he told investors on the earnings conference call. “This is going to be a very large market, and we’re going to execute very hard to make this back for our shareholders, including ourselves.” The $8 billion in U.S. store rentals would pour into online rentals, setting off a grab for subscribers, he said. The ensuing growth of online rentals would cannibalize video stores faster and faster, until they collapsed. As video store revenue dropped sharply, Blockbuster would struggle to fund its online operation, he concluded. “The prize is huge, the stakes high, and we intend to win.”

Blockbuster responded by pricing Blockbuster Online 50 cents cheaper, accelerating Netflix’s stock slide. Netflix, though, knew that Blockbuster was carrying $1 billion in debt from its spin-off from Viacom, and decided to wait it out; Blockbuster cut the price again, taking an increasing share of new subscribers, and still Netflix waited. Again from Keating:

Hastings agonized over whether to drop prices further to meet Blockbuster’s $14.99 holiday price cut, but McCarthy steadfastly objected. With Blockbuster losing even more on every subscriber, relief from its advertising juggernaut was even closer at hand. Kirincich checked his models again—and the outcome was the same. Blockbuster would have to raise prices by summertime. Because Netflix was still growing solidly, McCarthy wanted to sit tight and wait until the inevitable happened. “They can continue to bleed at this rate of $14.99, given the usage patterns that we know exist early in the life of the customer, until the end of the second quarter,” Kirincich told the executives.

Netflix was right:

By summertime [Blockbuster CEO John Antioco could no longer shield the online program from the company’s financial difficulties. Blockbuster’s financial crisis unfolded just as McCarthy and Kirincich’s models had predicted. The year’s DVD releases had performed woefully so far, and box office revenue — a fair indicator of rental revenue — was down by 5 percent over 2004. It was clear that Blockbuster would miss its earnings targets, meaning that it was in danger of violating its debt covenants. Antioco directed Zine to again press Blockbuster’s creditors for relaxed repayment terms, and broke the news to Evangelist that he would have to suspend marketing spending for a few months, and possibly raise prices to match Netflix’s…

The flood of marketing dollars that Antioco had committed to Blockbuster Online was crucial to keeping subscriber growth clicking along at record rates, and Cooper feared that cutting off that lifeblood would stop the momentum in its tracks. He was disappointed to be right. The result of the deep cuts to marketing was the same as letting up on a throttle. New subscriber additions barely kept up with cancellations, leaving Blockbuster Online treading water after a few weeks. While Netflix had zoomed past three million subscribers in March, Blockbuster had to abandon its goal of signing up two million by year’s end.

Still, Netflix wasn’t yet out of the woods: in 2006 Blockbuster launched Total Access, which let subscribers rent from either online or Blockbuster stores; the stores were still not connected to the Internet, so subscribers received an in-store rental in exchange for returning their online rental, which also triggered a new online rental to be sent to them. In other words, they were getting two rentals every time they visited a store. Customers loved it; Keating again:

Nearly a million new subscribers joined Blockbuster Online in the two months after Total Access launched, and market research showed consumer opinion nearly unanimous on one important point — the promotion was better than anything Netflix had to offer. Hastings figured he had three months before public awareness of Total Access began to pull in 100 percent of new online subscribers to Blockbuster Online, and even to lure away some of Neflix’s loyal subscribers. Hastings had derided Blockbuster Online as “technologically inferior” to Netflix in conversations with Wall Street financial analysts and journalists, and he was right. But the young, hard-driving MBAs running Blockbuster Online from a Dallas warehouse had found the one thing that trumped elegant technology with American consumers — a great bargain.

His momentary and grudging admiration for Antioco for finally figuring out how to use his seven thousand–plus stores to promote Blockbuster Online had turned to panic. The winter holidays, when Netflix normally enjoyed robust growth, turned sour, as Hastings and his executive team—McCarthy, Kilgore, Ross, and chief technology officer Neil Hunt—pondered countermoves.

Netflix would go on to offer to buy Blockbuster Online; Antioco turned the company down, assuming he could get a better price once Netflix’s growth turned upside down. Carl Icahn, though, who owned a major chunk of Blockbuster and had long feuded with Antioco, finally convinced him to resign that very same quarter; Antioco’s replacement took money away from Total Access and funneled it back to the stores, and Netflix escaped (Hastings would later tell Shane Evangelist, the head of Blockbuster Online, that Blockbuster had Netflix in checkmate). Blockbuster went bankrupt two years later.

 

 

[HamsterHookah 112]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

whatever people think is happening will be turned on its ear in may when the writers strike.

Why are the writers striking? Do you have any links we can read up on the grievances and the gulf between what the union wants and what is offered, etc.?

[HamsterHookah 112]

In respect to Netflix vs the other streamers and their financial positions:

Quote

 

The fact that Netflix is now profitable — and, more importantly, generating positive free cash flow — wasn’t the only reason for optimism lately: Netflix had the good fortune of funding its expansion into content production in the most favorable interest rate environment imaginable; Netflix noted in this past quarter’s Letter to Shareholders:

We don’t have any scheduled debt maturities in FY23 and only $400M of debt maturities in FY24. All of our debt is fixed rate.

That debt totals $14 billion; Warner Bros. Discovery, meanwhile, has $50.4 billion in debt, Disney has $45 billion, Paramount has $15.6 billion, and Comcast, the owner of Peacock, has $90 billion. None of them — again, in contrast to Netflix — are making money on streaming, and cash flow is negative. Moreover, like Blockbuster and renting DVDs from stores, the actual profitable parts of their businesses are shrinking, thanks to the streaming revolution that Netflix pioneered.

Warner Bros. Discovery and Disney are almost certainly pot-committed to streaming, but Warner Bros. Discovery in particular has talked about the importance of profitability, and Disney just brought back Bob Iger after massive streaming losses helped doom his predecessor née successor; it seems likely their competitive threat will decrease, either because of higher prices, less aggressive bidding for content, or both. Meanwhile, it’s still not clear to me why Paramount+ and Peacock exist; perhaps they will not, sooner rather than later.

 

 

[henrygandorf 29189]

12 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Why are the writers striking? Do you have any links we can read up on the grievances and the gulf between what the union wants and what is offered, etc.?

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=writers+strike

[HamsterHookah 112]

28 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=writers+strike

Seems like it's still in the air-- not a ton of meat about this out there about it when you google it to be honest:

"Amid restructurings at such companies as Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery and the threat of a potential recession that writers say is hurting both the showrunner and workaday writer class, “This is going to be a weird moment that is going to test our ability to figure out whether or not we can get some of the things we need in a treacherous economic position,” says one veteran TV scribe who puts the odds of a strike after the WGA contract expires at 20 percent. (The WGA West says in a statement that general membership meetings about the negotiations are set to begin in early 2023.)

David H. Steinberg, showrunner of Netflix’s No Good Nick, adds that with middle-class writers feeling the pain from streaming-era issues like “mini-rooms” — which tend to pay writers less than official writers rooms — and shorter orders of series than were typical in the past, “That’s why you would think there would be an inclination toward a strike because these issues just need to be resolved.” But he adds that the likelihood of a strike will ultimately depend on what studios offer writers: “Until they sit at the table, you have no idea what the studios are going to do.”"

 

It sounds like the bolded is the crux of the issue? A general devaluation (or dilution) of writers and creators in the streaming era? With streamers cutting budgets you'd think it would tighten a bit and go back to normal from the insane pandemic budgets and ton of content. I see a lot of analogy between the tech industry and the content/streaming (which I guess makes sense because it's tech) in that there is a general pullback from headier and spend-crazy days:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/writers-strike-2023-talks-guilds-1235283219/

[hayden_horn 11362]

i told yall for years that you were gonna get a la carte and you were going to pay the same if you were lucky but probably more.

why?

math.

my argument at the time was simply "because tom brady needs to get paid."

(while i'm patting myself on the back, i also once made the bold statement that people would stop stealing music once songs were available for $0.99 with guaranteed quality. that wasn't the only reason people stopped stealing music, but it was a big fucking contributor)

there is no way to completely upend an industry from the distribution side but radically redesign the cost structure from top to bottom. at the end of the day the is a number on the other side of the = sign you need to reach.  content creators need $x. ask @henrygandorf. he's not taking a paycut (well, he probably is, but he probably doesn't want to) because you watch content on a premium paramount plus subscription as opposed to the paramount network on a hulu subscription or through a triple play bundle on spectrum cable. it still costs him the same amount of work to produce that content. 

he doesn't care. he's got the same bills to pay as yesterday. tom brady doesn't care. lorne michaels doesn't care. 

so the math simply doesn't work without subsidy of some kind. you have to reach that $x. someone's paying. we're paying. that's how it's going to work. because we fucking need and love our content. 

also, if you want a tubi or freevee experience, they are out there, and they suck. you can also probably still download sketchy mp3s if you really wanted to do so. 

but you get what you pay for. there's a reason hbo was able to pull off that amazing episode of last of us this week. because i (and millions of others) pay for it. you want to pay $5/mo for content, that content is going to be hot garbage.

[hobbes2702 13028]

Maybe it’s just me but Netflix is pretty high on the chopping block when I decide to cut down on services. Their original content has largely become shitty, half made movies and tv. 
 

I dunno if that’s even what this thread is about because only two of the posts aren’t TL:DR

[Herpa Derpa 6122]

44 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Maybe it’s just me but Netflix is pretty high on the chopping block when I decide to cut down on services. Their original content has largely become shitty, half made movies and tv. 

This is where I'm at these days. Been a Netflix subscriber since I could only get one DVD in the mail at a time. It was an amazing service in the early-mid days. Then they shifted all attention to original programming, the old guard took back their IP and started competing, and now it's just a deluge of shit I don't want. The Hulu/Disney+/ESPN bundle is my core and Netflix is way down on the supplemental provider list. Making it a hassle to watch on the phone/tablet/laptop/TV and make me sign into all 4 every month so they're not blocked is not gonna keep me around. First time it happens will be the end.  At least I'll always have the copy of the '99 Cotton Bowl that was "lost" to my collection.

[henrygandorf 29189]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

he doesn't care. he's got the same bills to pay as yesterday. tom brady doesn't care. lorne michaels doesn't care. 

this is a completely accurate grouping for my current standing in the industry.  i have no notes.

we're actually shopping a reality competition show right now so the looming strike is not a bad thing.

[Massive Horn 41]

I still subscribe to Directv because I live in the country. Internet sucks. Order everything and my kids mooch off that. We have Netflix, Disney bundle, paramount +, and probably some other shit I forgot. I watch none of it. I just saw the first acted movie (non-documentary) I've seen in three years. Might watch one or two acted shows a year. For the most part, I watch documentaries and sports, read, listen to music and drink. I keep the subscriptions going to keep my family busy and the fuck away from me. I'm assuming I'm in the minority of their subscribers but these greedy bastards might need to properly value their products/services. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

13 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

this is a completely accurate grouping for my current standing in the industry.  i have no notes.

we're actually shopping a reality competition show right now so the looming strike is not a bad thing.

For those wondering about this comment:

Quote

 

A potential writers strike would be incredibly harmful for many in Hollywood, but there’s one sector of the entertainment industry that is quietly optimistic that it could lead to a boom for them: the unscripted television makers.

As history has shown, there’s also precedent for an uptick — from the 1988 strike that led to the creation of Fox’s Cops and the 2007-08 strike, which bolstered unscripted shows such as The Amazing Race and Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

 

https://deadline.com/2023/01/as-writers-strike-looms-reality-producers-optimistic-unscripted-boom-1235241575/

The last writers strike unleashed upon the the world a deluge of Trash TV: Keeping Up with the Kardashians which later spawned things like Real Housewives of XYZ.

American population to the Studios: "Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all the Writers demand and Strike threat brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that America cannot survive another iteration and huge wave of unscripted Trash TV to further demoralize the populace and speed up our cultural decay."

Edited February 3, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[HamsterHookah 112]

SNL with a funny send up of how the convoluted streaming channels have diluted the "mindshare" of the common non-cinephile: 

 

[HamsterHookah 112]

This article was really interesting, an interview, and touched on some implications for content creators with streamers and potential union/strike demands: https://slate.com/culture/2023/02/hbo-max-showtime-warner-bros-canceled-shows.html

Quote

 

The ones I would say that could benefit here are the streaming services that are not attached to legacy media companies, like Amazon and Apple. They don’t even have to make money on content—they have other businesses that fund the whole party. So what we’ve seen over the past year or so, and I suspect that will continue this year, is Apple and Amazon are going to bulk up. They’re going to go to these stars and say, Listen, come over here. We’ll pay you your fee. We’ll do your full-freight project, and you won’t have to deal with the nonsense that you’re dealing with all these other legacy companies. That’s what I suspect the pitch is, and it’s working. We’re seeing one after another, Apple and Amazon landing these big projects.

But I will say HBO is still HBO. It’s not going to lose projects just because they’re going through a tough time financially right now. I still think that it’s the marquee place for talent, and Netflix is the same. Netflix will still shell out for stuff that they care about. It’s just the madness of the past five years, where these companies were outbidding each other and it was a great time to be a creator—that’s over.

 

 

[henrygandorf 29189]

there was an article several years ago about how the most watched shows on netflix were not netflix shows (the office, the west wing, mad men, friends, whatever).  they did not like this, and made about the worst decisions back to back in order to fix it.  in short, they gave a bunch of showrunners enormous deals and said, "make us shows to replace these shows" because that's super easy to do.

we had a conversation or two here when this was happening and i said netflix was fucking it up and would tank.  i also said they would eventually let their deals lapse, which they did, and their library is fuck all.  i pointed to hulu - who has deals with all the broadcast networks to air stuff the next day - solving the cord-cutting issue for many, and also has a huge library of completed shows, so it became the place to go to stream old network content that didn't live anywhere else.  hulu already knew they couldn't exist on their original material, and their partnerships with disney/fox/abc notably made it a no-brainer transition.

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

like the article said, the studios that are tied in with other monster business interests (apple, disney, amazon) will be fine.  others like nbc-universal, warners, viacom will have enough of a library to survive, but will eventually merge in one way or another.  i just don't see a path for netflix, and i'm happy to have that argument here again, since i won it handily last time.

[HamsterHookah 112]

37 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there was an article several years ago about how the most watched shows on netflix were not netflix shows (the office, the west wing, mad men, friends, whatever).  they did not like this, and made about the worst decisions back to back in order to fix it.  in short, they gave a bunch of showrunners enormous deals and said, "make us shows to replace these shows" because that's super easy to do.

we had a conversation or two here when this was happening and i said netflix was fucking it up and would tank.  i also said they would eventually let their deals lapse, which they did, and their library is fuck all.  i pointed to hulu - who has deals with all the broadcast networks to air stuff the next day - solving the cord-cutting issue for many, and also has a huge library of completed shows, so it became the place to go to stream old network content that didn't live anywhere else.  hulu already knew they couldn't exist on their original material, and their partnerships with disney/fox/abc notably made it a no-brainer transition.

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

like the article said, the studios that are tied in with other monster business interests (apple, disney, amazon) will be fine.  others like nbc-universal, warners, viacom will have enough of a library to survive, but will eventually merge in one way or another.  i just don't see a path for netflix, and i'm happy to have that argument here again, since i won it handily last time.

Won't be around in 3 years is a pretty strong prediction (or being a foreign language heavy concept). From what I have read, the whole international thing doesn’t really work very well and even Netflix has said Squid Games was an aberration and actually, people want to watch content in their own region.

I think the new CEO (as of two weeks ago or so) is a wild card on what Netflix does, but they are in a healthy position financially again (EBITDA) after a year or so of not looking great, that I think 3 years is wrong.

 

[LCHorn 2612]

Just out of curiosity @henrygandorf, but are you not in conversation with Netflix about your show?  It seems like they’ve looked at their content demands, budget restrictions, and made a big switch to reality tv production.  Plus if you hit on an idea it’s easy to translate it to other markets (“El Piso Es Lava!”).  
 

Anyway, I used to share your opinion that content is king but now I think it’s contextual.  Content didn’t help Crackle, YouTube TV (even with Google power behind it), and AMC and their assorted platforms are struggle bus (and if I was having this conversation 5 years ago I would have made the bet that niche content platforms like Sundance and Shudder would triumph or become “channels” in a larger ecosystem than AMC Networks, a la cable).

TLDR; I don’t think Netflix is going down, even if they did give Ryan Murphy and Shonda Rhimes all the money.  Here’s a prediction-I bet they buy Peloton before the year is out or someone else does and they create programming to compete with it (in case they don’t want in the hardware business)-also, credit where it’s due, I first heard this proposed by Derek Thompson on his Ringer podcast.  

[henrygandorf 29189]

39 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Won't be around in 3 years is a pretty strong prediction (or being a foreign language heavy concept). From what I have read, the whole international thing doesn’t really work very well and even Netflix has said Squid Games was an aberration and actually, people want to watch content in their own region.

I think the new CEO (as of two weeks ago or so) is a wild card on what Netflix does, but they are in a healthy position financially again (EBITDA) after a year or so of not looking great, that I think 3 years is wrong.

it's a shitty business model.  they have a high price and not enough content people care about.  also the "all episodes drop at once" will end up fucking them, because people binge shows over a weekend and then have to wait 12-18 months for s2.  they forget all about it by then.  ultimately they'll stay in "business" because of the joe francis monthly subscription laziness credit card model, but they are on a downward trajectory and i see no signs of righting the ship.  this year is all about their big movies with big hollywood stars, so they've already semi-pivoted.  if it doesn't work (it won't), 3 years might be generous.

7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Just out of curiosity @henrygandorf, but are you not in conversation with Netflix about your show?  It seems like they’ve looked at their content demands, budget restrictions, and made a big switch to reality tv production.  Plus if you hit on an idea it’s easy to translate it to other markets (“El Piso Es Lava!”).  

yes, we are.

but you also have to understand how networks and studios work.  netflix is looking for finished shit, or shit that can be finished by writing a check.  they don't have internal people that are also going to come in and produce and get dirty with the creatives.  that's just not what they do.  it would be great to sell our show to them, because they wouldn't be in our lives.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

 

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

The media industry is in the middle of change. There's little doubt legacy cable TV will continue to bleed millions of subscribers each year as streaming takes over as the primary way the world watches television.

Still, the details of what's about to happen to a transitioning industry are unclear. CNBC spoke with more than a dozen leaders who have been among the most influential decision-makers and thinkers in the TV industry over the past two decades to get a sense of what they think will happen in the next three years.

CNBC asked the same set of questions to each interviewee. The following is a sampling of their answers.

In three years, will legacy TV effectively die?
...
In three years, which major streaming services will definitely exist?
...
Will there be a cable-like bundle of several major streaming services?
...
Which companies will dominate as the main hub of streaming?
...
What happens to cable entertainment networks? Will they be sold? Shut down? Or will it look the same?
...
What's one thing that will become a TV standard that doesn't exist today?
...

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/07/future-of-tv-predictions.html

[HamsterHookah 112]

It’s been mentioned in other threads that activist investors are having a moment in 2023, but as it pertains to streaming and Disney+ this is interesting:” from NYT:

“He [Iger, Disney CEO] must also rethink streaming. The flagship Disney+ service will refocus on profitability instead of subscriber growth, and spend less on content. Iger suggested that Disney may end up selling its majority stake in Hulu instead of buying out Comcast’s stake in the platform.

And Iger still has a thorn in his side: Ike Perlmutter, the chairman of Marvel and a top Disney shareholder who urged the board to make Peltz a director. (Yesterday, Iger said he had prevented Perlmutter from firing Kevin Feige, the man behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in 2015.)

That’s a lot for Iger to fix, in what he has pledged will be only a two-year term as C.E.O. (He said on CNBC that the board is already working to find his successor — obviously hoping to avoid a repeat of Bob Chapek’s disastrous tenure.) “That’s what my contract says,” he told CNBC about his intention not to stick around. “That was the agreement with the board.”

[HamsterHookah 112]

Reading an interesting interview (paywalled so I will paste here):

One thing that I think people forget about is Disney’s contractually obligated to buy Hulu as soon as next year, I think at a $27 billion valuation — that valuation was set at a more optimistic time for streaming is I think is a fair way to put it. On one hand, aspects of Hulu feel very successful. I think the ad-supported tier everyone is pointing to and saying, “Look, Netflix, this is why you need to be doing ads”. Hulu is actually making more on its ad-supported tiers than on the others because it’s such an attractive proposition for advertisers. On the other hand, what does Hulu stand for again? I’m preaching to the choir here, but the space is begging for some consolidation. I’m still not sure why Peacock exists, I’m still not sure why Paramount Plus exists. The Hulu original concept seems like is what ought to exist. You mentioned it’s just a tab internationally, should it be just a tab in the US? Should Disney actually try to reverse a transaction and sell it to Comcast? What do you see as the output here?

Yeah, I think we’re at an interesting point where I agree with everything that you’ve said and that leads you to say it’s pretty hard to make the argument that Disney should spend $9 billion to buy out the remaining third that they don’t currently own. If the best way to drive value through the catalog is through the platform they already own rather than the platform they’d be buying to own wholly.

Let’s also go back to early 2020. In early 2020, Iger said the plan was for Hulu to launch around the world and then later the company came to a conclusion that actually if we do that, then Comcast owns a third of that. Why don’t we just do the exact same thing but through Star, a brand they don’t participate in. And by the way, Star internationally is usually folded into Disney Plus, but in some markets it is a standalone service including live sports and so we see actual examples of launching a Hulu-like service abroad without calling it Hulu and thereby cutting Comcast out of there — this is one of the reasons why Comcast is understandably salty. But the result of that is it’s thus hard to imagine why buying the remaining third out is worth $9 billion. But then if you’re Comcast given the streaming turndown, you’re looking at the market value or the equity value of Warner Bros Discovery being $35 billion, how do you justify spending $18, $19 billion for the two-thirds of Hulu that they don’t own? And so I think you’re at a weird spot where both entities understandably see value there, but they don’t want to pay what they would ask the other party to.

What about ESPN? Because I think there are multiple moving pieces here, which is very fascinating. ESPN had so much value to Disney when it was the anchor of the bundle-within-the-bundle, and given that the price of ESPN was not just the carriage fees that ESPN charged, but the carriage fees that every other single Disney channel could charge, and they would raise prices on all of them.

Another interesting point is that it feels like we’re at peak affiliate revenue, because last quarter linear TV had six points of growth from contractual rate increases, and that growth has been outpacing cord cutting for a long time, but cord cutting was now up to five points of decline. So there is one point of increase in the linear TV bundle, and it feels like that’s about to tip over.

So, how does ESPN fit in? Iger said two things that were interesting. One, he’s like, “We need to be more disciplined in our spending.” He said this in the context of the NBA, and I think ESPN has shown to be more disciplined, particularly by passing on the Big 10 Football rights. At the same time, he’s like, “Yeah, it’s going to be over-the-top at some point, not yet, we need to have better pricing power”, which seems to auger towards we need to have everything. They did put ESPN in its own division, which makes it a lot easier to spin out even if he’s wants to say we’re not doing it yet, but are they just in a, “We’re not sure what to do with this property” mode right now?

It certainly looks that way. I would say that when Iger came back in November, he first and foremost needed to reset the strategy internally to change the things that he thinks Chapek was doing wrong or to reflect the changes in the environment that are different than when he passed the baton, but he was also building himself some breathing room.

I think that when you take a look at the announcements from last week, it’s actually a remarkable example of building breathing room, especially under activist assault. He does all of these things, he says, “We’re not going to spin off ESPN, but we’re going to separate its financials.” “We aren’t sure about general entertainment, but we’re not making a commitment to Hulu.” “We’re going to place control back in the hands of creatives and yet we’re going to reinstate the dividend and pull out billions of dollars in additional cash flow.” “We’re not sure when streaming is going to become the quality business investors focus on, but we’re going to renew our focus on linear.” It’s clear that he’s trying to tell the Street — and then he of course used the aforementioned phrase — “Everything’s on the table”, and so I do think that he is broadcasting to the Street, “Give me a little bit of time, I’m going to figure out the best arrangement for the pieces”. There’s no way to read that other than to say, “If it makes sense to spin or sell ESPN, I will do it”

Edited February 16, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

...
The price increases will take effect when Paramount+ and Showtime combine later this year. CFO Naveen Chopra said Thursday the Paramount+ premium tier, which will include Showtime, will increase to $11.99 from $9.99, while its lower-priced tier, without Showtime content, will increase by $1 to $5.99.

The price increases and combination with Showtime will take place in the third quarter.
...

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/paramount-plans-streaming-price-increases.html

[Brothahorn 10087]

We have Paramount + through Walmart +. I'll cancel Walmart if they go up to make me pay for Paramount.

[HamsterHookah 112]

On 2/6/2023 at 3:37 PM, henrygandorf said:

there was an article several years ago about how the most watched shows on netflix were not netflix shows (the office, the west wing, mad men, friends, whatever).  they did not like this, and made about the worst decisions back to back in order to fix it.  in short, they gave a bunch of showrunners enormous deals and said, "make us shows to replace these shows" because that's super easy to do.

we had a conversation or two here when this was happening and i said netflix was fucking it up and would tank.  i also said they would eventually let their deals lapse, which they did, and their library is fuck all.  i pointed to hulu - who has deals with all the broadcast networks to air stuff the next day - solving the cord-cutting issue for many, and also has a huge library of completed shows, so it became the place to go to stream old network content that didn't live anywhere else.  hulu already knew they couldn't exist on their original material, and their partnerships with disney/fox/abc notably made it a no-brainer transition.

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

like the article said, the studios that are tied in with other monster business interests (apple, disney, amazon) will be fine.  others like nbc-universal, warners, viacom will have enough of a library to survive, but will eventually merge in one way or another.  i just don't see a path for netflix, and i'm happy to have that argument here again, since i won it handily last time.

"If we go to December 2012, this is when you have the Sarandos’ quote of “Our goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us”. I think you reasonably could’ve assumed that for the next several years, Netflix obviously knew most of their competitors were going to take their content back and they were going to stop licensing. But I think they were surprised that all of them — essentially save for Sony which didn’t have its own direct-to-consumer platform — did so. When you go to early 2020, you have Paramount, Warner and NBCUniversal all say, “We’re done selling to third parties.” A year earlier, you have Iger say, “Disney/Fox are done selling to third parties.” That same month, you have Lionsgate Starz say, “That going forward we’re going to contain all of our franchises”.

Now, as you and I talk in February 2023, every single one of those parties, with the exception of Disney/Fox have said, that they’re going to start licensing to third parties once again and there are reports that Iger is looking to do that for Disney/Fox. So you do have the best-case scenario where I’m not saying you’re going to get the best stuff, I’m not saying you’re going to get it in the volumes you hoped for, and I’m certainly not saying you’re going to get it in the volumes you did midway through the last decade, but every single one of those companies are willing to sell again.

[henrygandorf 29189]

27 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Now, as you and I talk in February 2023, every single one of those parties, with the exception of Disney/Fox have said, that they’re going to start licensing to third parties once again and there are reports that Iger is looking to do that for Disney/Fox. So you do have the best-case scenario where I’m not saying you’re going to get the best stuff, I’m not saying you’re going to get it in the volumes you hoped for, and I’m certainly not saying you’re going to get it in the volumes you did midway through the last decade, but every single one of those companies are willing to sell again.

i'm not exactly sure what you're saying in response to what i said earlier, at least in regards to netflix.

my contention was never that these shows were reverting because they had no offers on the table.  i believe that netflix let the deals expire because they thought they had an adequate plan to replace them and keep the eyeballs.  i think they were incorrect.  whether they turn around and admit their mistake and start buying up catalogs again is anyone's guess, but i would not bet on it.

i had a long and interesting conversation with a colleague at nbcu about some internal decisions that involved theatrical releases, television runs, and how peacock will be one of the rotating entities that would control content.  it was unorthodox to say the least, and even he was confused by it.

the idea of these shows going back on the market also creates even more drama with the agencies, their relationship with studios/streaming/creators, and their obsession with packaging.  usually when these negotiations take place, somebody ends up getting screwed.  and it's usually not the agencies.

[HamsterHookah 112]

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not exactly sure what you're saying in response to what i said earlier, at least in regards to netflix.

my contention was never that these shows were reverting because they had no offers on the table.  i believe that netflix let the deals expire because they thought they had an adequate plan to replace them and keep the eyeballs.  i think they were incorrect.  whether they turn around and admit their mistake and start buying up catalogs again is anyone's guess, but i would not bet on it.

i had a long and interesting conversation with a colleague at nbcu about some internal decisions that involved theatrical releases, television runs, and how peacock will be one of the rotating entities that would control content.  it was unorthodox to say the least, and even he was confused by it.

the idea of these shows going back on the market also creates even more drama with the agencies, their relationship with studios/streaming/creators, and their obsession with packaging.  usually when these negotiations take place, somebody ends up getting screwed.  and it's usually not the agencies.

Yea, what I meant to convey was that all this studios and content/IP owners stopped selling to Netflix (your original point on why NFLX won't exist in 3 years is because their content sucks and have no sticky content like the Friends, Seinfeld, etc. etc.) and they all stopped selling to Netflix at the same time.

It appears as of today, there has been an about-face and these studios are now looking at the market and their own P&L and saying "are we really a general content delivery? what do we want to be? We can sell some of our tier-2 IP again because a) pay-TV is dead/dying and so they aren't going to put it on their cable channels and b) to your friend at peacocks point: "For Peacock, NBCUniversal basically said, “Every high-quality show that we have in development for our broadcast network or our cable networks like USA isn’t even going to start there.” FX in 2019 announced that they were going to double their original programming hours. Then in 2020, Disney said, “Actually FX on Hulu is going to get half of that, it’s never going to show up on FX”. And by the way, everything that does appear on FX is going to be on Hulu twelve hours later with or without ads. There’s kind of no turning that around."

This can only help Netflix, whether slightly or more materially, to survive the 3 year mark you mentioned, but generally overall, I think.

Edited February 16, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[henrygandorf 29189]

26 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Yea, what I meant to convey was that all this studios and content/IP owners stopped selling to Netflix (your original point on why NFLX won't exist in 3 years is because their content sucks and have no sticky content like the Friends, Seinfeld, etc. etc.) and they all stopped selling to Netflix at the same time.

It appears as of today, there has been an about-face and these studios are now looking at the market and their own P&L and saying "are we really a general content delivery? what do we want to be? We can sell some of our tier-2 IP again because a) pay-TV is dead/dying and so they aren't going to put it on their cable channels and b) to your friend at peacocks point: "For Peacock, NBCUniversal basically said, “Every high-quality show that we have in development for our broadcast network or our cable networks like USA isn’t even going to start there.” FX in 2019 announced that they were going to double their original programming hours. Then in 2020, Disney said, “Actually FX on Hulu is going to get half of that, it’s never going to show up on FX”. And by the way, everything that does appear on FX is going to be on Hulu twelve hours later with or without ads. There’s kind of no turning that around."

This can only help Netflix, whether slightly or more materially, to survive the 3 year mark you mentioned, but generally overall, I think.

not to quibble, but i never actually said they would stop selling to netflix.  i said that netflix would let those deals expire and not pay the exorbitant prices associated with reacquisition/carrying these shows.  i thought they were blindly ignorant about how difficult it was to produce these shows and thought they could replace them by throwing money at the problem.

the side-issue is that most of these catalogs (to my knowledge) don't have exclusivity built into their streaming rights.  this is to say if netflix went full fuck-it and said they wanted to buy the office back, it would still continue to live on peacock as well.  same for west wing or friends on disco bros and so forth.  which is all to say that anyone who was keeping netflix because they couldn't live without the office, would be able to find it elsewhere and cheaper.  there was a very long stretch when this was not the case. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

19 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

not to quibble, but i never actually said they would stop selling to netflix.  i said that netflix would let those deals expire and not pay the exorbitant prices associated with reacquisition/carrying these shows.  i thought they were blindly ignorant about how difficult it was to produce these shows and thought they could replace them by throwing money at the problem.

the side-issue is that most of these catalogs (to my knowledge) don't have exclusivity built into their streaming rights.  this is to say if netflix went full fuck-it and said they wanted to buy the office back, it would still continue to live on peacock as well.  same for west wing or friends on disco bros and so forth.  which is all to say that anyone who was keeping netflix because they couldn't live without the office, would be able to find it elsewhere and cheaper.  there was a very long stretch when this was not the case. 

Gotcha-- I still think there are too many unknown and constantly changing variables to all this before we can really know what the settled landscape in 3 to 5 years will look like. Still a lot of immaturity and iteration in this space.

That said, this is *something* from the latest earnings reports:

Quote

Following the major integration of Showtime into Paramount+ two weeks ago, Paramount reported its quarterly earnings this morning, announcing that Paramount+ gained 9.9 million subscribers in Q4 to bring the total to 56 million subs, up from 46 million in the previous quarter. This means Paramount+ has more customers than Hulu, which recently reported 48 million subs. The company also confirmed it would raise prices across its service due to its combination with Showtime.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/paramount-earnings-q4-2022/

[henrygandorf 29189]

netflix officially pulls the plug on one of their best original shows.  too expensive. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Nooooooooooooooo

[Chopper 17228]

I didn't realize Mindhunter wasn't 'officially' dead but the last ep was almost 4 years ago so it would've been a shock to see a S3.

On 2/6/2023 at 2:37 PM, henrygandorf said:

once shows started reverting to their original creators (mostly peacock and warners), what many predicted would happen, happened.  at the end of the day, they can't all survive, and this is a really bad time for netflix to be (1) losing shows and (2) getting serious about restricting password sharing.  it's idiotic, and my guess is they're basically gone in 3 years, or will exist on their current model, which is to buy everything not nailed down, and end up with 50%+ of their content being foreign language, because that's their one built-in advantage, they are active all over the world.

 

I don't have a problem with password share crackdown but the 'you've gotta log in from your home' every 30 days or get your account locked is  v. problematic if you have 2 homes or travel a lot. Very fucked policy unless they offer a reasonable work around.

On 2/16/2023 at 11:17 AM, Brothahorn said:

We have Paramount + through Walmart +. I'll cancel Walmart if they go up to make me pay for Paramount.

Same. But Paramount+ basic is a beatdown. Watching Tulsa King took enormous patience to get through the commercials and it would take another show of that caliber to get me to watch something there again. I doubt that that's going to happen. I hate-watched a couple seasons of yellowstone before it was exclusive to paramount and they can get fucked with that show and any spinoffs or prequel.

On 2/17/2023 at 9:06 AM, HamsterHookah said:

Gotcha-- I still think there are too many unknown and constantly changing variables to all this before we can really know what the settled landscape in 3 to 5 years will look like. Still a lot of immaturity and iteration in this space.

That said, this is *something* from the latest earnings reports:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/16/paramount-earnings-q4-2022/

Didn't Paramount+ get a huge boost from the fifa soccer tournament? How many of those viewers will they maintain year round?

About 75% of my viewing is on either Britbox or Acorn. Very little tv produced in hollywood compares favorably to the average detective or drama produced in the UK, Australia or NZ. Now that I've finished watching Fauda there's nothing really on netflix I care about. As soon as my wife finishes a show she's currently watching I'll probably cancel for at least a couple of months just to help send them a message, and maybe get a 'please return' offer. 

Between paramount, mgm+, sundance+, peacock, disney, apple+, hulu, hbomax, pbs passport...there's far too many fiefdoms. Difficult to see where more than 2 or 3 of those survive independently. We're already seeing some consolidation with mgm+ & starz, showtime & paramount, and hbomax & discovery. That's just tip of the iceberg of the consolidation to come because imo they're trying to charge more money for additions that nobody wanted or asked for.

In the meantime I'll probably just hop around with a sub for one or the other. And this is where I think the weak spot of the one a week business model is...am I going to subscribe to apple+ or some other streamer when there's one episode to watch per week of the show I'm subscribing for? That's a hard No. I'll wait 'til they're all online or almost all online, and then subscribe, hopefully at a time when there's at least one or two other quality shows on that streamer that I haven't yet seen. For example, Ted Lasso is fine but it's hardly 'must see' such that I need to watch each ep as soon as it come out. It can wait until there's other shows I'm interested in. Most of the streaming services need much deeper catalogs. Netflix has the deep catalog but they've really fallen off with the quality of their new shows. Also I have zero interest in cartoons or reality. One thing in netflix's favor is if they decide to license the older shows they do own; that's where their 'total ownership' could be advantageous.

I don't watch cartoons, or espn outside of college football, or US legacy network tv, and especially not reality tv. FX's quality decline makes Hulu far less desirable, esp at the outrageous price they want for commercial free viewing. But if I did care about cartoons or reality tv, etc, I'm certain my valuation of these networks would change. But, for example, the next time apple+ will see me is for a month or two about the time that Slow Horses next season has nearly fully dropped. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Chopper
typo

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

After last year’s messy mega-merger, executives at Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. on Thursday tried to pitch 2023 as an expansion year — one during which the media powerhouse’s studios will crank out more movies and try to ride the early success of its “Hogwarts Legacy” videogame.

Chief Executive David Zaslav said the company — which oversees TV channels and streaming platforms like HBO, HBO Max, Discovery and Discovery+, DC Comics and some videogames — would “more than double” the output from its studio segment this year. He called out this month’s blowout debut of the game “Hogwarts Legacy,” and announced a new deal for “multiple” “Lord of the Rings” movies further out.

Chief Financial Officer Gunnar Wiedenfels, during Warner Bros. Discovery’s WBD, +2.01% earnings call on Thursday, said this year would be “pivotal” for the company’s studio business.
...
Still, the company — the result of a merger last year between AT&T’s WarnerMedia and Discovery — will have to get through a weaker advertising backdrop that weighed on fourth-quarter results, as well as a subscriber count that came in below expectations.
...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warner-bros-discovery-stock-falls-as-fourth-quarter-results-miss-expectations-42400a1d?rss=1&siteid=rss

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warner-bros-discovery-stock-falls-as-fourth-quarter-results-miss-expectations-42400a1d?rss=1&siteid=rss

Thanks for this. By all accounts David Zaslav has absolutely been the man for this messy, difficult job as the link outlined. He's been killing it.

[Don Johnson 4752]

Related/unrelated

https://theathletic.com/4239583/2023/02/22/college-football-streaming-tv-deals/

 

Quote

 

Streaming won’t save college football as we know it because it’s not saving TV

 

---

When a headline about a potential broadcaster for your games draws a negative reaction, you’re not in a good place.

The Pac-12 is nearing dire straits right now. There’s no other way to put it. The New York Post’s report Tuesday that Apple TV+ is a potential landing spot for Pac-12 sports landed like a lead balloon among fans, and for understandable reasons.It doesn’t mean the league is about to fall apart or that it can’t still secure a good enough TV deal for the short-term future. It will probably be OK. But the Pac-12 may be the canary in the coal mine for college conferences outside what is becoming the Power 2 of the Big Ten and SEC.

Streaming won’t be the answer to saving college football as we know it. We know this because streaming isn’t saving TV.

 

You can’t completely blame Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff. He needs to find some other interested bidders to gain some sort of leverage in negotiations with ESPN after he inherited an incredibly difficult situation from former commissioner Larry Scott. Fox, a current Pac-12 media partner, has expressed little interest in the league with USC and UCLA on their way out. NBC and CBS also appear set when it comes to college football. The Big 12’s decision to renegotiate early with ESPN and Fox and take a larger-but-under-market deal for the sake of security was a smart move to outflank the Pac-12 that also highlighted how far it, too, is from the Big Ten and SEC.

GO DEEPER

What we're hearing on Pac-12 expansion, SMU, the Big 12 and more

The Pac-12 needs leverage, but Amazon and Apple aren’t that. A move to heavy streaming would dramatically decrease game viewership and threaten to speed the conference into irrelevancy. In a sport based around recruiting and donors, people need to find your games easily. ESPN knows this. It’s why Conference USA rushed back to ESPN as part of its new TV deal and away from streaming places like Stadium. Even if Amazon and Apple, which have been more prudent with streaming spending than other places, overpay for the sake of content on a potential sports-only app, it’s an incredible risk for a conference. This isn’t Major League Soccer.

For years, forecasters predicted the sports TV money bubble was about to pop. They said there would be a limit to how far broadcasters would pay for live sports as cable subscribers went down. “TV Sports a Spectacular Bubble” read a Forbes headline in 2013. But as cable subscribers began to slump, it became clear that live sports were the only thing saving television from dropping even further, increasing their value. The NFL had 75 of the 100 most-watched broadcasts in 2021, so the NFL has continued to get more and more money from the networks. The Big Ten and SEC, with their large audiences, are about to take another financial jump up with their new TV deals. The 12-team College Football Playoff will be another boost, with Fox expressing interest in joining ESPN as a potential broadcaster.

Amazon is paying more than $1 billion per year for Thursday Night Football because it’s the NFL. It made a play for the Big Ten because it was the Big Ten. Even Apple, the most valuable company in the world, reportedly let the NFL take Sunday Ticket to YouTube TV in part because Apple didn’t want to increase its price for customers.

If you’re not the NFL, Big Ten, SEC, NBA, CFP,  World Series or the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, your negotiating leverage may begin to fade as the biggest leagues take up more.

 

Take it from returning Disney CEO Bob Iger, who on a recent earnings call expressed a desire to keep NBA rights but said: “ESPN has been selective in the rights that they bought. I’ve had long conversations about this with (ESPN president) Jimmy Pitaro. And we’ve got some decisions that we have to make coming up — not anything particularly large, but on a few things, and we’re simply going to have to get more selective.”

ESPN used to own college football. Now it lost the Big Ten and does not see the Pac-12 as such a priority as to overpay. Iger also said that while ESPN+ has grown nicely, he does not want to commit to an all-streaming ESPN or spin the company off unless it makes financial sense.

 

And that’s the dirty not-so-secret about streaming: It’s not actually working. The boom is over.

Disney’s direct-to-consumer business — which includes Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu — lost more than $4 billion in 2022. The financial losses continue to climb even as subscribers grow. It’s a big reason Disney stock is down 31 percent over the past year. NBCUniversal’s Peacock lost around $2.5 billion for the year, and CBS’ Paramount Plus also lost around $1.8 billion. These companies planned to lose lots of money and aimed for profitability by 2024 or 2025, but there is little sign of that yet. Dramatic cuts have come across the board.

Fox’s decision not to jump into the standalone streaming game and instead focus on the biggest live sports like the NFL, college football and the World Cup, has proven to be a more successful strategy thus far. It has increased its market share in college football, and despite the loss of cable subscribers, this year’s Super Bowl on Fox was the third-most-watched game ever and the highest in six years. As Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks put it on a Sports Business Journal podcast, speeding up into streaming also speeds up the decline of linear TV, your actual money-maker.

What does it say when Netflix, the rare profitable streaming success, has opted against jumping into sports bidding wars, even after a recent decrease in subscribers? It has instead focused on sports documentaries and made smaller runs at sports like Formula 1 racing or the World Surfing League, showing no interest in major sports.

“We’re not in the business of live sports rights. We’re not in the business of renting,” Netflix vice president of nonfiction series Brandon Riegg told the New York Times.

While more games than ever are available to watch — a certain positive for fans — all of this doesn’t even touch on how cumbersome it is to watch live sports on streaming. Broadcast delays lag behind social media and betting sites. Some can’t pause or rewind. Switching between games can be a hassle and an even more frustrating process if you have to switch to another app.

On a busy college football Saturday, will casual fans who use one screen flip back and forth to Prime Video or Apple TV+ for one Pac-12 game if their favorite team isn’t involved? If conferences move into different streaming apps, the sport will be even more fractured.

ADVERTISEMENT

“No one streaming sports service can fulfill what a sports fan needs,” Shanks said.

The Pac-12 may still come out of this OK. It might sign a good enough deal with ESPN and a streamer and provide schools with money similar to the Big 12. Linear TV for sports is still in a good place. But the next round of college media deals in six or seven years is the moment when industry leaders believe major change will truly come. I dread the future of conference realignment, but if you’re not in the Power 2, it’s impossible to predict where you’ll be as the top conferences take an even larger market share.

GO DEEPER

Vannini: It's the end of college football as we know it (and I don't feel fine)

Live sports, particularly football, have kept linear TV alive, but there is no sign that streaming will save college football in the form we currently know it.

Season 3 of Ted Lasso should be good, though.

 

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13507]

A problem with Disney, especially with their ESPN content, is that they're still too locked in with the cable companies. 

You can buy their ESPN+ streaming service but that doesn't include their traditional ESPN channels. You get decent options with Plus but they refuse to open up their basic channels to streamers.  I understand why they must do this, as the cable providers are paying them millions to keep that content from streamers.

On top of it, I've found the ESPN streaming apps to be shit. I've used them where the app tells me that I don't have access to a game that I absolutely should have access. On the 2nd thru 8th attempt, ESPN finally lets me view it. 

[Don Johnson 4752]

11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A problem with Disney, especially with their ESPN content, is that they're still too locked in with the cable companies. 

You can buy their ESPN+ streaming service but that doesn't include their traditional ESPN channels. You get decent options with Plus but they refuse to open up their basic channels to streamers.  I understand why they must do this, as the cable providers are paying them millions to keep that content from streamers.

On top of it, I've found the ESPN streaming apps to be shit. I've used them where the app tells me that I don't have access to a game that I absolutely should have access. On the 2nd thru 8th attempt, ESPN finally lets me view it. 

Yeah, it's terrible about having to "re-authenticate."  Usually if you log out and log back in, it works.  But that's a pain in the ass to do.

[YChang 3441]

5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

On top of it, I've found the ESPN streaming apps to be shit. I've used them where the app tells me that I don't have access to a game that I absolutely should have access. On the 2nd thru 8th attempt, ESPN finally lets me view it. 

Nothing like the thrill of mashing that log in button multiple times when you're trying to catch the waning moment of a close game...

[henrygandorf 29189]

when you search for something on roku and it finds where it's located, you can click on it and it will take you not only to that app, but to the actual landing page for that show.  this means that the roku has that capability.  for the last couple of years i was hoping they would've cracked the "last channel" barrier that could take you from a show on one streaming network directly to a show on another, but apparently we're not there yet.

it shouldn't be that difficult, but will be a pain in the ass if not solved while live sports continues to migrate to streaming platforms.

[HamsterHookah 112]

Also speaking of Regional Sports Networks or RSN's, I read the other day that Bally's was about to go bankrupt. Or at the very least couldn't make their interest payments on their debt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/sports/diamond-sports-debt-interest.html

Quote

 

A Missed $140 Million Payment Sends Sports TV Negotiations Into Overdrive

The owners of the regional television channels branded as Bally Sports have nearly $9 billion in debt and owe hefty rights fees to M.L.B., N.B.A. and N.H.L. teams. Now, they’re all on the clock to find a solution.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Fuck ESPN. I pay for ESPN + and I still can’t watch some college football games on their channels because they blow dick

[Chopper 17228]

4 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

Also speaking of Regional Sports Networks or RSN's, I read the other day that Bally's was about to go bankrupt. Or at the very least couldn't make their interest payments on their debt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/sports/diamond-sports-debt-interest.html

 

Did you know that if you're a nyt subscriber you can click the 'gift this article' link found just underneath the subhead and generate a free view for anyone who wants to read it? You get 10 of those per month to share where and with who you want.

The owners of the regional television channels branded as Bally Sports have nearly $9 billion in debt and owe hefty rights fees to M.L.B., N.B.A. and N.H.L. teams. Now, they’re all on the clock to find a solution.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Chopper

[HamsterHookah 112]

8 hours ago, Chopper said:

Did you know that if you're a nyt subscriber you can click the 'gift this article' link found just underneath the subhead and generate a free view for anyone who wants to read it? You get 10 of those per month to share where and with who you want.

The owners of the regional television channels branded as Bally Sports have nearly $9 billion in debt and owe hefty rights fees to M.L.B., N.B.A. and N.H.L. teams. Now, they’re all on the clock to find a solution.

Good to know! But I’m not a subscriber :(

[Chopper 17228]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

Good to know! But I’m not a subscriber

I wouldn't be but the wife likes their food recipes and travel section. Anyway from the sound of that article it seems like there's going to be some fairly major spin-off effects.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Chopper

[Nice Guy Eddie 13507]

On 2/24/2023 at 5:29 PM, HamsterHookah said:

Also speaking of Regional Sports Networks or RSN's, I read the other day that Bally's was about to go bankrupt. Or at the very least couldn't make their interest payments on their debt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/sports/diamond-sports-debt-interest.html

 

Maybe I'm wrong but most of these regional sports networks seem to fail. The local sports teams always demand too much in fees, and the teams find someone to pay them. Then the network fails, someone else steps up, and the cycle is repeated. I can only imagine how much investor money has been burnt in this model.

I'm not an expert in the landscape but the YES network for Yankees is the best model to emulate. Of course it helps that the Yankees own 1/4 of it. 

Not to mention that the streaming of live sports is still living in the past that requires cable subscriptions. There are many people that would pay for streaming live sports but the networks refuse to take the money due to cable provider contracts.

[HamsterHookah 112]

Warner Bros. Discovery. is suing Paramount Global, MTV, and South Park Digital Studios for $200m+, alleging they conspired to use “South Park” content to bolster Paramount+, despite HBO’s exclusive streaming rights.

[Chopper 17228]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:14 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not to mention that the streaming of live sports is still living in the past that requires cable subscriptions. There are many people that would pay for streaming live sports but the networks refuse to take the money due to cable provider contracts.

I wonder for much longer espn has their existing obligations to the cable/sat providers. They're really trying to walk a tightrope with making their product the most attractive it can be on cable, but also having content for espn+.  With the speed at which the RSN model is disintegrating, along with paid subscribers to cable and satellite, I wonder if the exiting contracts might see something shake loose along with negotiations over a 9th SEC conference game, or whether they're too locked in for the short-term for anything signficant to change (like a hulu tie-in, or better SEC content to espn+ only).