The Business of Hollywood & Streaming

[animaltobacco11 107]

Maybe for a change of pace from #StrikeTok, some interesting business news on the Charter/Disney deal struck at the 11th hour before MNF last night (From NYT):

--

Breaking down the Disney-Charter deal

Hours before “Monday Night Football” was set to air, Disney settled its fight with Charter Communications that would have kept nearly 15 million cable subscribers from seeing the day’s big N.F.L. game (and the injury-shortened debut of Aaron Rodgers as the New York Jets quarterback) live at home.

Analysts and media watchers had wondered how much the fight, in which channels including ESPN were unavailable on the nation’s second-biggest cable provider for more than a week, would weaken Disney. The early verdict: Disney gave up less than expected — but made concessions that could eventually remake the pay-TV business.

Disney will gain more reach for its streaming services, which the company views as a vital part of its future. Charter agreed to offer the ad-supported version of its Disney+ streaming platform to some of its subscribers, paying a wholesale rate for the service instead of getting it for free as the cable provider had demanded. That could help boost subscriber numbers for Disney+, which has lost millions of customers in recent months.

Charter also agreed to provide ESPN+ (largely a companion to its cable-channel sibling) as part of its sports-focused bundle. More important, when Disney finally introduces a direct-to-consumer version of ESPN that includes streaming of big sports events, the broadband provider can also offer that to its consumers.

Charter claimed some victories, too. It will pay more for Disney’s top-tier channels like ESPN, but it will cut its costs by dropping a bunch of others, including Disney Junior and the women-focused Freeform. The analyst Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson estimated that the move would cost Disney some $300 million a year in lost fees.

Disney executives conceded that they lost ground, but achieved something else: “We protected our primary entertainment channels,” Dana Walden, the co-chair of the company’s entertainment division, told The Hollywood Reporter.

The battle may shape other fights over content. Charter had threatened to drop Disney channels altogether if it didn’t get access to Disney’s streaming services, a scorched-earth move that would have deprived the entertainment company of billions in carriage fees. Charter is now getting them — not for free, but still at a reduced rate.

Analysts credited Disney with dodging a worst-case scenario. But while Disney executives argued that the settlement wouldn’t set a precedent for future negotiations with cable companies, media watchers say that’s still what happened.

Expect more battles soon. Charter is set to hold talks with more content providers over the next 18 months.

[Biff Tannen 45211]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:44 PM, Captain Ron said:

Just an FYI for those that don't know who Diller is - he's worked for ABC, 20th Century Fox (where he helped found the Fox Network) and Paramount. He has really strong insight into the industry and knows it well.

For the record he's also the chairman of the board at a company I used to work at and he's sort of an asshole, as many billionaires tend to be.  But he's also partly responsible for the existence of the Indiana Jones franchise, so I give him some slack.

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

On 9/6/2023 at 10:52 AM, Captain Ron said:

The scale at which AI can copy things is far beyond anything a human can do. A person can do a one off here and there, people use AI tools to generated original art, print, jokes, etc "in the style of X" in massive troves. It is vastly different things.

Why would an industry agree not to use technology? Because that's what you collectively bargain.

Part of adapting is regulating properly, there are very good reasons to do it - especially in creative industries. This is funny, but makes a point:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwoIG_ys-Sa/ 

 

A week ago Barry Diller chatted with Kara Swisher and went into a lot of this as well, his AI stuff is a bit weird, but hits some of the right notes. I think he also has some really great points about how Netflix played damn good long game in blowing up the industry and got everyone else to jump in only to lose money. Solid interview.

 

so i was thinking about this the other day after watching that Ted Lasso episode where they 'steal' / hat tip whatever a bunch of famous lines from various TV/movies and even the AI (heh) Practice!? We talking about practice?! press conference.  For that specific Lasso episode, would any of the other works receive anything?  most of the references were exact lines from the original from what i remember.

[henrygandorf 28886]

2 hours ago, gyroprotagonist said:

so i was thinking about this the other day after watching that Ted Lasso episode where they 'steal' / hat tip whatever a bunch of famous lines from various TV/movies and even the AI (heh) Practice!? We talking about practice?! press conference.  For that specific Lasso episode, would any of the other works receive anything?  most of the references were exact lines from the original from what i remember.

no, that's not how residuals work.  suits and billions also have a habit of reciting movie lines verbatim.  so much so that it starts to bother me, and tv/movie quotes are about my favorite thing ever.  if i was a character in a show, i would be allowed to quote movies as part of my personality.  it's just a character quirk and fair use.  it does get annoying when writers have everybody in the show doing it, because that's not realistic to me.

i've heard in the past that some producers reached out if something was going to be used in a somewhat controversial way, just as a heads-up.  it kinda treads over into the product placement territory.  it's hard to pay coca-cola every time you see a can or someone says "i'll have a coke" at a restaurant.  but if a plotline was that specifically drinking cokes was making women pregnant with satanic devil zombie babies, you might want to shoot an email to compliance or clearances and see where you stand.

re: ted lasso, those movies probably got written about and referenced in a good way on social media or article reviews, so it's good for them, much like an older song being used somewhere.

[animaltobacco11 107]

@Queen Bitch How is it going out there on the ground? One thing I've been wondering, does the UAW pending strike get a lot of coverage or attention from yall? I know it's a world apart, completely different industry and model, but maybe it could be encouraging to see unions/strikes taking a stand and really hurting the man. I read that a UAW strike for a mere 10 days would put the entire state of Michigan in a recession and knock the US GDP down 5bn dollars. 10 days!

Anyways, just checking in on you for an update and see if that has any encouragement or shot in the arm for you guys and gals marching daily.

[Queen Bitch 1692]

I won't lie -- frustration, fatigue, and anxiety are really piling up. Folks are getting nervous that this thing will drag into the new year.

Solidarity and our collective resolve, however, sure seem to be intact. 

Case in point: I was in a meeting with guild leadership a couple nights ago when a hack article dropped suggesting an alleged showrunner defector group had tried to set a meeting with the guild to demand an end to the strike, but leadership had allegedly refused to meet with them. (This is basically what ended the '07/'08 strike. Google "the dirty 30" if you want to read more about it.) Leadership calmly explained what actually happened. I'm omitting details here, but I'll copy/paste some nuggets from an article that dropped days later that tracked with everything they told us. And -- as you'll read below -- another emerging foe in this story? Our own fucking agents. Lotta bad actors forcing us to fold and take a shit deal which, sorry, but we're not doing that.

Anywho, the cherry on top of the alleged "showrunner defector group" bullshit? There was a showrunner solidarity picket the very next morning, and several hundred showrunners came out to support. The trades are *salivating* for signs of a rift in our lines, of pitting the most successful writers among the least of us... but it's simply not a thing. Not yet, anyway.

There was also a massive SAG march yesterday from Netflix to Paramount. I didn't have it in me to attend, but the pictures I saw showed a pretty massive turnout. And Fran once again spit fire in her rally speech.

TL;DR: The studios think they can wait both unions out rather than cut a fair deal, that they can pit the 1% writers against the working class writers, but they've made things so bad for ALL writers these past few years that the strike's hardships are justifiable given the otherwise unsustainable status quo. Also, be wary of agents.

https://theankler.com/p/friend-or-foe-agents-wga-and-the

Quote

Case in point: the so-called canceled meeting between WGA leaders and a few top industry showrunners that has sent an information-starved industry, Xanax-ing through a never-ending strike, into an absolute tizzy. How did a proposed meeting between some showrunners and WGA leadership spin so wildly out of control? The answer, according to several sources? Agents. “A couple weeks ago, there was a coordinated campaign through the agencies,” a source who supports the guild and is familiar with its thinking tells The Ankler. “They were getting in the ear of clients saying [the WGA] are being crazy, they are totally unreasonable, you have to have a coup.” News of what WGA members suspected was the agencies’ efforts to sow dissent made its way into a 450-strong showrunners WhatsApp group. The Ankler has learned that dozens of members, including showrunner Robert King (The Good Wife), sounded an alarm telling members to call their agents.  As one person familiar with what happened tells The Ankler, “The message was, ‘they are trying to manipulate us. Call your agents and tell them you're not falling for this bullshit.’”   Both Kenya Barris and Noah Hawley were among the showrunners who did request a meeting, and whose names were being used in frantic phone calls among agents and managers burning through town, often in an effort to leverage other showrunners into joining. Communication viewed by The Ankler reveals that at least one party believed that agents were working on behalf of both showrunners to recruit more showrunners. Both are repped by CAA, who declined to comment, as did WME.

Quote

In recent weeks, the WGA grew aware of Writers Guild members signaling to other members that their agents may not be working in their best interests. “Keep your radar up,” the WGA wrote to its members last week. “When the companies send messages through surrogates or the press about the unreasonableness of your guild leadership, take those messages as part of a bad-faith effort to influence negotiations and not as the objective truth.”   That missive was in part tacit response to the snowballing gossip that the number of showrunners joining a “confrontation” went far beyond just a few members as reporters around town (including those at The Ankler) were called to be told both that the meeting was happening, and later, seemingly erroneously, that the WGA had canceled it. Other names being bandied about, at times as part of recruitment of other showrunners, included Shonda Rhimes, Berlanti and Ryan Murphy. At different points, in the story’s telling, the number of disgruntled showrunners had grown to around 20-30. Rhimes in fact has been a vocal supporter of the WGA on the showrunner WhatsApp chain. A spokesperson for Rhimes tells The Ankler that she was never scheduled to be part of that meeting. Simon Halls, who represents both Murphy and Berlanti, tells The Ankler, “Neither Ryan nor Greg were ever part of any effort to have a showrunner meeting with the WGA” After The Wrap reported on Sept. 11 that the WGA had refused to meet with the showrunners, resulting in Barris losing his temper with guild leadership, guild members told a different story. Internal WGA communication viewed by The Ankler reveals leadership reinforcing the point that Barris and Hawley themselves backed out of the meeting on their own as to not be viewed as sowing discord.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Queen Bitch

[animaltobacco11 107]

3 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

I won't lie -- frustration, fatigue, and anxiety are really piling up. Folks are getting nervous that this thing will drag into the new year.

Solidarity and our collective resolve, however, sure seem to be intact. 

Case in point: I was in a meeting with guild leadership a couple nights ago when a hack article dropped suggesting an alleged showrunner defector group had tried to set a meeting with the guild to demand an end to the strike, but leadership had allegedly refused to meet with them. (This is basically what ended the '07/'08 strike. Google "the dirty 30" if you want to read more about it.) Leadership calmly explained what actually happened. I'm omitting details here, but I'll copy/paste some nuggets from an article that dropped days later that tracked with everything they told us. And -- as you'll read below -- another emerging foe in this story? Our own fucking agents. Lotta bad actors forcing us to fold and take a shit deal which, sorry, but we're not doing that.

Anywho, the cherry on top of the alleged "showrunner defector group" bullshit? There was a showrunner solidarity picket the very next morning, and several hundred showrunners came out to support. The trades are *salivating* for signs of a rift in our lines, of pitting the most successful writers among the least of us... but it's simply not a thing. Not yet, anyway.

There was also a massive SAG march yesterday from Netflix to Paramount. I didn't have it in me to attend, but the pictures I saw showed a pretty massive turnout. And Fran once again spit fire in her rally speech.

TL;DR: The studios think they can wait both unions out rather than cut a fair deal, that they can pit the 1% writers against the working class writers, but they've made things so bad for ALL writers these past few years that the strike's hardships are justifiable given the otherwise unsustainable status quo. Also, be wary of agents.

https://theankler.com/p/friend-or-foe-agents-wga-and-the

 

Sounds like the resolve and grit is there in spades!

You mention worried it will drag into the holidays and beyond-- was there an expectation in the outset of this thing on a timeframe that it would be over? I never heard or saw that.

Also something I think is different from the last strike-- people don't watch terrestrial TV where the affects of writers not working was obvious (e.g. Leno talking about it, or their favorite cheese sitcom not coming back for season 9, etc.). Are you seeing this as out of sight/out of mind, or am I off base and you get the sense John Q. Public is aware and as annoyed as you guys are. Public perception in your corner is a huge part of this, I think.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

50 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

Sounds like the resolve and grit is there in spades!

You mention worried it will drag into the holidays and beyond-- was there an expectation in the outset of this thing on a timeframe that it would be over? I never heard or saw that.

Also something I think is different from the last strike-- people don't watch terrestrial TV where the affects of writers not working was obvious (e.g. Leno talking about it, or their favorite cheese sitcom not coming back for season 9, etc.). Are you seeing this as out of sight/out of mind, or am I off base and you get the sense John Q. Public is aware and as annoyed as you guys are. Public perception in your corner is a huge part of this, I think.

Friend in the industry told me October was his best hope when discussed back in April. He knew it wouldn’t be a quick resolution. Haven’t been able to see what he feels about that now. Still possible though. 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

After nearly a month waiting for a response from the studios, they've agreed to return to the negotiation table next week. Collective bargaining works, but it's brutal when dealing with bratty billionaire toddlers who've never not gotten their way.

Also, go get y'alls contract, UAW. Maybe we just went first and I'm really blowing up our self-importance, but I hope our guild has helped pave the way this year for other unions to demand what's theirs and refuse to back down.

[animaltobacco11 107]

Saw this posted on Linedin. Not sure if it’s true or not (there was no link) but it’s from a reputable account. It’s interesting because Netflix has a reputation for cancelling a ton, but it's not the worst offender by any means. 

Percent of shows cancelled between 2020 and 2023 by streaming service. 

Max                      27%
Disney+               21%
Paramount+       17%
Hulu                     15%
Netflix                  10%
Peacock              10%
Prime Video         9%
Apple TV+            5%

 

[henrygandorf 28886]

one man's opinion, but not all cancellations are built the same.  a show can get cancelled for cost overages, time, reorg of execs, or because the project was badly reviewed/nobody watched. 

when disco bros was formed, a bunch of stuff got scratched and cancelled so their ranking makes sense.  apple+ makes fewer shows, better decisions, casts at a higher level, so their ranking makes sense too.  i hadn't noticed netflix getting a rep for cancelling shows.  other than mindhunter.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5722]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 i hadn't noticed netflix getting a rep for cancelling shows.  other than mindhunter.

Mimdhunter was the second worst after Altered Carbon. I really liked Marco Polo, but I get it

[henrygandorf 28886]

the funny thing about max being first is that hbo basically invented the art of renewing their new shows the day after the pilot aired.  as if to say to the world, "we knew this was good when we ordered it, but the response has been so overwhelmingly positive, that we are renewing it at the earliest possible opportunity".  lol, bullshit pr tricks.  of course hbo stuff used to mostly be quality, so it worked out.

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

Reminds me of this years back when discussed on this board in 18 

 

 

• Now that HBO is owned by AT&T, the network's new corporate boss, John Stankey, wants HBO to develop more shows and movies to compete with other streaming services like Netflix.
• HBO has previously distanced itself from Netflix's model to focus on quality over quantity. HBO CEO Richard Plepler has even said "more is not better."
• But at a recent town hall with Stankey, Plepler seemed to change his tune, and said "we need a lot more to be even better."

https://www.businessinsider.com/hbo-is-trying-to-be-more-like-netflix-under-att-2018-7?amp

Edited September 15, 2023 by ChickenSandwich

[animaltobacco11 107]

More loopholes than Swiss cheese @Queen Bitch

Quote

 

Your thirst for topical punchlines and reusable desk bits is about to be quenched…well, if talk show hosts can come up with them off the tops of their heads. The Drew Barrymore Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, The Jennifer Hudson Show, and The Talk announced this week that they will return to the air despite the ongoing writers and actors strikes—but there’ll be no writers.

They aren’t technically breaking any rules.

Under the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) terms, talk show hosts like Barrymore, Maher, and Hudson are contracted under an agreement known as the Netcode, which is not under negotiation like the deal for actors is. That’s how shows like The View can do, erm, whatever they’re doing right now, even with the SAG strike going on.

But because of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike, the hosts have to riff without a script. During the last writers strike in 2007, Ellen Degeneres caught flak for performing monologue-style introductions she claimed were improvised.

There’s been a cacophony of pushback, especially for Barrymore. Her show’s striking co-head writer spoke out, WGA picketers gathered outside Barrymore’s studio, and the National Book Awards rescinded the invite for her to host their November ceremony.

So, why are they doing it?

In a video posted on her Instagram yesterday, Barrymore defended her decision, saying, “There are other people’s jobs on the line.” Maher shared a similar sentiment on X (formerly Twitter), saying he didn’t want to “see so many below-the-line people suffer.”

Late night hosts who returned to their desks without writers during the 2008 strike, including Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Conan O’Brien, gave similar reasons.

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

I can see strikers don’t like talk shows coming back since that might lessen the pressure on the networks/producers but in barrymores defense, I imagine she was offered a lot of money. 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Bullying works.

[atomheartbevo 89046]

On 9/6/2023 at 3:50 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

It's horribad.

Want to be nostalgic and watch and old movie? It's not on Netflix.

Want to watch something that's a new release? It's not on Netflix. 

So where is their niche? (Besides spamming "new and original content" where 1 out of 20 movies is watchable) 

Their niche appears to be Korean, Chinese, and Thai (and other Asian) dramas/romance/romcoms and as long as they keep running those, my wife and apparently tens of millions of her fellow American women are happy.  So I can’t get rid of Netflix (and ultimately we added services like Viki as well).

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

39 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

and ultimately we added services like Viki as well

You dog. Pics of Viki?

[Queen Bitch 1692]

 

[animetobacco 155]

6 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

That's some bulljunk, lying rationale, but at least he's not going through with it. But we all know the truth, Bill. We know.

['stache 21589]

Can cliff note the difference between this strike and the last one where Stewart, Colbert, and others returned without writers? Without doing much research it seems that the studios are being more aggressive and the grievances are broader.

Edited September 19, 2023 by 'stache

[Queen Bitch 1692]

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can cliff note the difference between this strike and the last one where Stewart, Colbert, and others returned without writers? Without doing much research it seems that the studios are being more aggressive and the grievances are broader.

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

3 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

[henrygandorf 28886]

On 9/17/2023 at 7:39 AM, Queen Bitch said:

Bullying works.

yeah, duh, that's why there are still bullies.

[Chopper 16666]

I don't know the context of "canceled." A more meaningful metric would be number of original shows with more than 1 or 2 seasons.

 

13 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

I interpret this as, "I tried to write it on my own but the producer said it sucked balls so we're continuing to sit on the sidelines while I blame everyone else."

[billfromlaketravis 11291]

CBS made a pretty smart move putting Yellowstone on primetime network television on Sunday night. Their highest rating on a scripted show since May. But it still doesn’t make up the regarded move to sell the streaming rights to Peacock. I think Yellowstone reruns on CBS will be the highest rated show on TV during the strikes, but when the strikes end, all the olds watching CBS will be asking their kids for a Peacock password to find out what happens. 
 

The Town podcast said the Yellowstone editing was a bitch. They had to take out all the nudity and every f-bomb. They couldn’t even show the actors’ mouthing the word fuck. A pretty big challenge, especially in the first season. Apparently Sheridan had to get personally involved. I’m sure he milked CBS for every single dime he could get out of them. 

[Deej 76218]

How much do we have in the wreath fund?

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

Some big changes are coming to the cable industry and the rider on the pale horse known as death seems to be named SPORTS.

With Max now offering sports as of today and the Charter and ESPN stuff, I think something is going to come to a head and dramatically change forever the industry.

[henrygandorf 28886]

16 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

CBS made a pretty smart move putting Yellowstone on primetime network television on Sunday night. Their highest rating on a scripted show since May. But it still doesn’t make up the regarded move to sell the streaming rights to Peacock. I think Yellowstone reruns on CBS will be the highest rated show on TV during the strikes, but when the strikes end, all the olds watching CBS will be asking their kids for a Peacock password to find out what happens. 

i believe they made the deal with peacock before par+ was even a thing, so it wasn't really a controversial decision at the time. 

16 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Town podcast said the Yellowstone editing was a bitch. They had to take out all the nudity and every f-bomb. They couldn’t even show the actors’ mouthing the word fuck. A pretty big challenge, especially in the first season. Apparently Sheridan had to get personally involved. I’m sure he milked CBS for every single dime he could get out of them. 

viacom owns all of it, so i don't think an additional deal had to be made, other than possibly selling his time to get involved to get the show broadcast-ready.

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

@Queen Bitch I saw this summary this morning. Are you and the front lines sharing this optimism?

 The WGA resumes talks with Hollywood studios today. There’s some mild optimism that the two sides might finally get closer to a deal this time as the writers strike approaches its fifth month. One of several major sticking points in negotiations, which have been on pause since mid-August, is the WGA’s demand for streaming residuals based on a TV show’s viewership. With the studios bleeding money and extremely short on new content for the fall, observers think they could soon start making concessions to the striking writers.

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

On 9/19/2023 at 9:55 AM, Chopper said:

I interpret this as, "I tried to write it on my own but the producer said it sucked balls so we're continuing to sit on the sidelines while I blame everyone else."

The problem with that interpretation is that there are three scripted comedic parts of the show: the monologue at the beginning, New Rules at the end, and one other bit in the middle, and when Bill announced that the show was returning, he said those portions of the show would be omitted. So it would just be the interview and the panel discussion. Any comedy in those segments is improvised. So Bill wasn’t trying to write the monologue or the other bits himself. He has been a working stand-up comedian for decades so it’s not like he’s new to writing his own material. But why would he want to take on the task of writing all that new material every week? He’s got more enjoyable things to do with his time. 

[ChickenSandwich 9768]

6 hours ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

With the studios bleeding money and extremely short on new content for the fall, observers think they could soon start making concessions to the striking writers.

Is the “bleeding money” just referring to the current streaming models and their failure? Or is the strike “causing” them to bleed money?  If so, how? 
 

What are the network shows not returning this fall that will be missed (most popular)?

Edited September 20, 2023 by ChickenSandwich

[henrygandorf 28886]

6 hours ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

@Queen Bitch I saw this summary this morning. Are you and the front lines sharing this optimism?

 The WGA resumes talks with Hollywood studios today. There’s some mild optimism that the two sides might finally get closer to a deal this time as the writers strike approaches its fifth month. One of several major sticking points in negotiations, which have been on pause since mid-August, is the WGA’s demand for streaming residuals based on a TV show’s viewership. With the studios bleeding money and extremely short on new content for the fall, observers think they could soon start making concessions to the striking writers.

i know i've said it a dozen times, but this is where the rubber meets the road.  the streamers are scared to fucking death to release these numbers.  i still hold confident in my theory as to why.

[cactusflinthead 27232]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i know i've said it a dozen times, but this is where the rubber meets the road.  the streamers are scared to fucking death to release these numbers.  i still hold confident in my theory as to why.

I'm sure it's buried in here somewhere but I could use a refresher.

[henrygandorf 28886]

17 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'm sure it's buried in here somewhere but I could use a refresher.

when the strike first started, the streamers insinuated that they would never be transparent and release their streaming numbers because they were so good that the writers/actors would want a share so big that it would break them.

my theory, and i'm sure i did not invent it, is that they won't share the numbers because they're so bad that if released, their stock price would plummet.

the asterisk is that there really isn't a uniform way to measure the viewings, so it could/would likely be manipulated.  what counts as a view for a show or a season?  someone watching 10 seconds?  10 minutes?  one episode?  do they measure views for the pilot vs the finale? 

and does when they watch count?  broadcast network has relied on ratings for decades that really only count first-run views (this is why dvr recording was so controversial at first).  these numbers were/are important because that's how they know how much to charge advertisers.  but with streaming, there are no advertisers (for the most part), so it's hard to determine.  do you need to watch it opening weekend?  the first month?  3 months?  3 years?  shows don't have reruns and streaming originals usually don't go away, but should views be counted years later? 

there are too many variables, so my opinion is that when we finally do get some sort of numbers, they will be vague and hard to trust.  that's why streamers like netflix are hard to trust.  of course when i first started saying this, their stock was 100 points higher than it is now.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by henrygandorf

[cactusflinthead 27232]

20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the asterisk

It all seems so arbitrary. There are very few things I watch live. My daughter even less so. I still get ads on Hulu and Peacock. It's like they are trying to force a measurement of views that no longer applies. 

I haven't seen one episode of Rez Dogs because this is the last season and I want to see the whole thing uninterrupted. Does that fuck with Hulu? Sterlin and team get no credit for views later? 

It all seems fishy. 

Stay hard. No scabs 

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Is the “bleeding money” just referring to the current streaming models and their failure? Or is the strike “causing” them to bleed money?  If so, how? 
 

What are the network shows not returning this fall that will be missed (most popular)?

The former.

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

53 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

the asterisk is that there really isn't a uniform way to measure the viewings, so it could/would likely be manipulated.  what counts as a view for a show or a season?  someone watching 10 seconds?  10 minutes?  one episode?  do they measure views for the pilot vs the finale? 

 

 

 

Maybe it's the benefit of reading it for the third time, but the above makes a lot more sense to me now.

I'm reminded of something I read about spotify recently. Is it feasible that streamers use benchmarks and best practices from music streamers, instead of reinventing the wheel? Especially considering that music streamers aren't paying that much per listen?

I was reading this morning about how streaming/spotify has basically fundamentally changed music production and what and how songs get made. Namely about what counts as a "listen" (30 seconds) and what gets you paid via advertising. Could this be similar to the streaming model they want?

Quote

 If the 8-minute-long masterpiece “Stairway to Heaven” debuted on Spotify today, it’d be lost in a sea of techno remixes and Christmas covers.

That’s because now it pays for songs to be short.

Music streaming services pay artists by the number of plays, and a play only counts if a user listens for 30 seconds. The algorithms also tend to recommend songs that are listened to all the way through. In response, artists are making their songs shorter and including the hook in the first 30 seconds. According to music blogger Michael Tauberg, the average length of hit songs has dropped by more than 30 seconds since 2000.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by KCMasterpieceof

[henrygandorf 28886]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

What are the network shows not returning this fall that will be missed (most popular)?

we watch abbott and ghosts.  not sure what hour-long shows people are excited/mad about.  the landscape has changed quite a bit from must-see tv.  abc should just try to have a monday and tuesday and wednesday night football game.

[henrygandorf 28886]

3 minutes ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

I'm reminded of something I read about spotify recently. Is it feasible that streamers use benchmarks and best practices from music streamers, instead of reinventing the wheel? Especially considering that music streamers aren't paying that much per listen?

I was reading this morning about how streaming/spotify has basically fundamentally changed music production and what and how songs get made. Namely about what counts as a "listen" (30 seconds) and what gets you paid via advertising. Could this be similar to the streaming model they want?

at some point they were working on a model that was more of an analog to twitch or similar gaming streaming sites.  i think it only takes a few seconds to count, which i'm sure would be quite the double-edged sword for streamers like netflix.

also in response to a few posts ago, i have no idea what numbers get released for the ad-supported versions of hulu/disney/peacock/etc or how reliable they are.  since certain shows aired on tv previously, you'd think there would be a correlation.  at its peak, the office ads were at the top of the rate sheet, so you would think the ads run during the office streaming would also be higher than most, but again, i have no idea.  

[Biff Tannen 45211]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

my theory, and i'm sure i did not invent it, is that they won't share the numbers because they're so bad that if released, their stock price would plummet.

the asterisk is that there really isn't a uniform way to measure the viewings, so it could/would likely be manipulated.  what counts as a view for a show or a season?  someone watching 10 seconds?  10 minutes?  one episode?  do they measure views for the pilot vs the finale? 

and does when they watch count?  broadcast network has relied on ratings for decades that really only count first-run views (this is why dvr recording was so controversial at first).  these numbers were/are important because that's how they know how much to charge advertisers.  but with streaming, there are no advertisers (for the most part), so it's hard to determine.  do you need to watch it opening weekend?  the first month?  3 months?  3 years?  shows don't have reruns and streaming originals usually don't go away, but should views be counted years later? 

The thing that pisses me off about this is that it is so easily quantifiable.  They have these numbers.  This isn't hard data to get or monitor.  YET they (and other tech companies) insist, or are too inept, to actually get this data and/or make it readily available.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Biff Tannen

[henrygandorf 28886]

here's an interesting article from 2019, just to get a glimpse of how long the obfuscation has been going on...

https://www.looper.com/164533/the-real-reason-netflix-wont-share-viewer-numbers/#:~:text=As far as the company,watched around the entire world.

Quote

The Real Reason Netflix Won't Share Viewer Numbers

BY JENNIFER ARBUES/AUG. 30, 2019 7:42 PM EST
When Netflix launched in 1997, no one could have predicted that it would someday evolve into the entertainment juggernaut it is today. What started as a simple DVD rent-by-mail service has turned into one of the largest entertainment platforms in the world, one that's known for some of the highest quality programming in the television industry. Netflix shows have racked up dozens of awards, and the company is at a point now where it's courting some of the biggest names in Hollywood.

Skip Ad

But how do we actually know that Netflix programming is successful? For years, the company has been notoriously vague about its viewership data. And although companies have tried to figure out Netflix's numbers, the entertainment titan has been adamant that their estimations are wrong. Finally, in April 2019, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said (via Broadcasting Cable) that the company would start to be more forthcoming with its data. Don't assume this means Netflix is going to start releasing everything to the public, though: there are plenty of reasons why the company still wants to keep its information under wraps.

Netflix says ratings systems are inaccurate

In 2017, the data collection service Nielsen launched Nielsen Subscription Video On Demand Content Ratings, which was aimed at measuring audience data for services like Netflix. Like Nielsen, the company Symphony Advanced Media threw its hat in the ratings ring, confident that it could accurately track streaming viewership. But according to Ted Sarandos, services like these are wildly inaccurate.

Back in 2016, NBC, having used data from Symphony, claimed to have been able to measure viewership for specific Netflix series, including Jessica Jones, Narcos, and Master of None. At the Television Critics Association press tour (via Variety), Sarandos refuted the claim, saying it "doesn't reflect any sense of reality of anything that we keep track of." He called the focus on instant ratings data "remarkably negative in terms of its effect on shows," and essentially said that it was of little importance whether or not something was watched within a day or two. What's most important, according to Sarandos, is that people are watching.

Netflix just works differently than live TV

When NBC claimed that it had measured Netflix's viewership, it tried to prove that it was better at getting viewers than the online platform — or at least, that's how NBC tried to paint it. According to Vox (which NBCUniversal invests in), NBC was taking into account Netflix's "Live+35 viewership," which is the number of viewers who watch a show within the first 35 days of airing. For a company like NBC, where live television makes up the bulk of its business, the Live+35 numbers are extremely important.

But Netflix isn't working by the same set of rules. Netflix's model works on the assumption that whatever a viewer wants to watch, whenever they want to watch it, Netflix will have it available for them. It's how subscription models operate: you pay a flat fee to have your stuff available to you at any time, even months after launch. Because Netflix has already gotten your money, it doesn't really matter to the company how exactly you choose to use its product.  

Netflix doesn't sell advertising

There's another big thing about traditional rating systems: the reason companies like NBC rely so heavily on Live+ numbers is that the farther away from live a TV show gets, the less likely it is to pull in ad revenue. For NBC and other big networks, ad revenue is what keeps them in business.

Netflix doesn't use ads, and according to the company (via Variety), it has no plans to do so in the future. But in September 2018, Netflix subscribers started to wonder about the future of their streaming service when the company ran a limited test that threw short (skippable) promos for other shows in between episodes that were being binged. According to a survey conducted by Hub Entertainment Research, 23% of Netflix users said they'd cancel their service if ads became a thing. Only 14% of subscribers said they'd for sure keep it, should Netflix head down the commercial route.

But according to Netflix's long-term view investor statement, the company has no desire to ever go that route, even eschewing the lower price with ads model that companies like Hulu have adopted. "We don't offer pay-per-view or free ad-supported content," the company said. "Those are fine business models that other firms do well. We are about flat-fee unlimited viewing commercial-free."

Netflix doesn't own some of its biggest hits

Take a look at a show like Orange Is the New Black, a huge hit for the streaming service: it's highly regarded by critics, and it's been a huge contender during awards season, having racked up over 130 nominations throughout its seven-year run. But Netflix doesn't actually own Orange Is the New Black. Instead, it licenses it from a studio.

Typically, licensing fees are negotiated for a few seasons at a time. It's a flat rate per season, so whatever production costs are incurred, they're paid for by the studio — not Netflix. If something goes over budget, Netflix has already paid to use it. Likewise, if a show is immensely successful (like, say Orange Is the New Black), Netflix doesn't have to worry about paying more for that, either. 

So by keeping viewership numbers private, Netflix actually has an edge in licensing negotiations between studios. Because if a studio doesn't know how popular a series is, it's harder to push for more money.

Licensed content is still doing better than Netflix originals

Netflix has made some serious strides in producing original content; in 2018, the company even went as far as to purchase ABQ Studios in New Mexico, with the goal of putting over $1 billion into productions over the next decade. But as it stands right now, the streaming platform's biggest draw comes from the content it doesn't own. 

According to Variety, at the end of 2018, only 37% of the content streamed was a Netflix original. That other 63%? People really love The Office, it seems. But having seen what Netflix can do in terms of streaming, now other companies want in on the game. AT&T's WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal are both slated to launch streaming services by 2020. And at the end of 2019, Disney will launch Disney+, its own subscription video on demand service. Everything these companies own — and they own a lot — is going to be brought into their own platforms. What that means for Netflix is that it's going to have to figure out a way to bring in other content. 

Losing the content that actually keeps viewers invested is a huge blow for the company. By withholding or refuting viewership numbers, particularly those related to licensed content, Netflix is able to maintain a more powerful position in the streaming wars.

Netflix is losing subscribers

Netflix would have you believe that its original content will be able to sustain the huge losses it's going to face in the next couple of years. According to MarketWatch, in 2018, the company spent $13 billion on content, with 85% of that going toward originals. With content costs expected to increase over the following year, MarketWatch predicts that Netflix will be spending upwards of $17.5 billion in 2019. 

This would be all fine and good, except for the fact that Netflix's subscriber count isn't growing at the same rate. In its July 2019 letter to shareholders, the company said that paid membership grew by 2.7 million, which is far below the 5 million expected for the quarter. Still, it's predicting a 7 million member increase over the next couple of months.

So what does this mean for viewership? Currently, it means that Netflix is losing it, and the company seems to think its focus on original programming will save it. But, as we already know, Netflix viewers prefer licensed content to originals — perhaps by keeping specific numbers under wraps, the company can appear in a better light to its investors.

Netflix may have a flawed business model

Netflix's decision to throw money at originals, on the assumption that its subscriber rate is going to continue to grow at the pace it did a couple of years ago, seems a little flawed. For one thing, Netflix originals are not what its subscribers are watching. As much as the company would like to believe that the people who watch Netflix for Friends or The Office will switch over to some of the platform's own content when they're gone, there's no guarantee it will go down that way.

Still, Netflix is betting it will. It's also betting that half of the entire world's population will be signing up for the service. According to a study done by New Constructs, that's exactly what Netflix would need to be able to stay in business — that, or it will have to continue to raise its prices. The last time Netflix increased its rates, it lost subscribers. Right now, it seems like Netflix is just throwing out projections based on what the company wants to happen, instead of what really can happen. And because it doesn't take specific ratings into account when it comes to investors, it can basically say whatever it wants about all those people who watch licensed content.

Netflix is losing its footing in the streaming game

The world of streaming is getting a lot more crowded, and as the market space fills, Netflix's hold on it will dwindle. As companies like Disney, AT&T, and Comcast continue to focus on launching exclusive content platforms, Netflix will have to put more energy into its own originals. 

Netflix needs to maintain a foothold in order to survive. When it comes to losing close to 20% of its entire content library (which CNBC says it will), it needs to look like that content doesn't matter. Viewership statistics won't help Netflix, because they point to the fact that what's being viewed isn't company-owned. What's important for Netflix, especially in its current position, is subscriber count. And the only way to maintain that is to create better original programming.

For its part, Netflix doesn't seem to be worried; its CEO, Reed Hastings, thinks there's plenty of viewing hours to go around: "There's a billion hours of television content being consumed today [in the U.S.] ... Disney, they have great content. We're excited for their launch, and maybe they grow over a couple years to 50 million hours a day, but that's out of the billion."

Netflix works on a global scale

When Netflix said in early 2019 (via Vox) that 40 million of its accounts had watched both You and Sex Education, it seemed completely unbelievable at first. That's because there are only about 329 million people in the United States, so if 40 million of them had tuned into one of those shows, like the company said there had, it would be the equivalent of about 12% of the American population. It's a little unrealistic. 

But Netflix doesn't mean 40 million accounts in America — when Netflix talks viewership, it counts the entire world. As far as the company is concerned, a system like Nielsen's (which measures domestic ratings) isn't built for what Netflix does. Netflix views itself as a global company, so ratings would have to take into account what's being watched around the entire world. By the way, that also means the numbers that the company is throwing out there are out of about 6 billion people, not just 329 million (Netflix does not operate in China).

Taking all of that into consideration, Netflix's domestic ratings aren't any better than any of the big networks. But by talking about its viewership on a global scale, the company is able to make its numbers at least seem much better than network competition.

Netflix picks and chooses which numbers to share

Did you watch Netflix's Adam Sandler/Jennifer Aniston led comedy Murder Mystery? If the answer is no, you're in the minority. At least, according to Netflix you are. The popular account Netflix Is A Joke tweeted out a statistic that revealed nearly 31 million accounts watched the movie in its first three days (Variety confirmed with a Netflix spokesperson that the data was accurate). The news means that Murder Mystery is the biggest film to ever open on the streaming platform. 

According to CNBC, however, Netflix counts something as viewed if it's only been 70% watched. So, in spite of the 31 million people who got at least 70% of the way through Murder Mystery over that weekend, as far as total hours watched worldwide goes, the film didn't actually do as well as Netflix makes it seem. But when Netflix throws out numbers that sound bigger than they really are, the company appears as though it's doing much better than it probably is. It looks like a heavy hitter in the industry.

Netflix wants to lure in big name talent
Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images
With Netflix in control of the numbers that are released to the public, it's easy to make the company seem more desirable to outside talent. After all, if Netflix original programming is bringing in 31 million viewers over its opening weekend, who wouldn't want to work for the company?

Both 2018 and 2019 have been big for Netflix and Hollywood talent. According to IndieWire, Netflix picked up some big contracts in 2018, including American Horror Story's Ryan Murphy, who signed a five-year deal worth $300 million. Likewise, Shonda Rhimes (Grey's Anatomy) signed on with the streaming service for $150 million. In 2019, The Hollywood Reporter broke news that David Benioff and Dan Weiss (the duo behind Game of Thrones) had closed a $200 million multiyear deal that would include both film and TV projects. 

Netflix is courting some of the biggest names out there, and in order to do so, it needs to put itself in the best possible light — which means releasing the "right" numbers to the public.

It's easy for Netflix to lie about viewership

When it comes right down to it, Netflix is in a position where, really, it can throw out whatever viewership numbers it wants, because streaming is still such a new way to watch TV. And, because Netflix isn't looking at live numbers or just American accounts, any viewership number it reports to have is going to seem large compared to the typical Nielsen ratings regular networks live and die by. 

So it's easy for Netflix to say (via CNN Business) something like, "Sex Education ... is on pace to be watched by over 40 million accounts over its first month," because there's no evidence to prove otherwise. That doesn't mean that people aren't calling the company out for its exaggerated estimates, though. New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik tweeted in January 2019, "Sooooo we're just taking Netflix's self-reported numbers as fact now, cool, cool," while The Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Fienberg tweeted, "It's official: Netflix tweeting utterly BS ratings — guessing on the first month ratings of a show that's been out for 12 days — is actually worse than no Netflix ratings."

Netflix doesn't actually look into viewership statistics

All of this boils down to one thing, and it's a big thing: with Netflix in a position to discredit any traditional means of measuring its audience, there is no one out there keeping the company — and its reported statistics — in check. Netflix reports that 31 million people watch a movie, but how does anyone know for sure?

CNN Business notes that what Netflix lacks is "nuance and third party verification." According to the publication, big TV networks conduct their own in-house research on viewers, but outside companies like Nielsen keep those numbers in check. Netflix has no outside company looking over their statistics, and why would they want one? The streaming service's biggest concern is on subscriber rates, not who that subscriber is or what kind of household they come from (things that Nielsen also gathers information on). 

But once a third party company cracks the code on how to collect Netflix viewership data (which is inevitable), what hold will Netflix have over the streaming game?

Read More: https://www.looper.com/164533/the-real-reason-netflix-wont-share-viewer-numbers/

by all accounts, they have the numbers, they just refuse to be transparent about them.

[henrygandorf 28886]

rumblings on twitter that the deal is in place and strike will end tomorrow.  

[Chopper 16666]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He has been a working stand-up comedian for decades so it’s not like he’s new to writing his own material.

Maybe not new to writing his own material but he hasn't written his own material for many years. That's per Greg Fitzsimmons who was a writer on his show years ago. Do you buy the reason Mahr gave for deciding against taping new episodes after being so adamant about it just a few days earlier? I think it would have been an embarrassing failure and someone was able to make the point to him, or perhaps make the decision for him.

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

rumblings on twitter that the deal is in place and strike will end tomorrow.  

Huzzah! Hopefully this is the case and we can celebrate our very own Queen!

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Cautious optimism indeed exists on the lines. The guild and the studios released a joint statement yesterday that talks would resume today, which was a pretty big shift. They agreed to something publicly -- we'll take it!

Most folks, myself included, have a hard time with the CNBC article stating "the deal will be made today" because it continues by saying "and if it doesn't end TODAY, the strike will continue until the end of the year." (Read: more baseless threats to scare us into taking a shit deal.) So yeah, it reads like something the studios planted. (That being said, why CNBC? They never leak there. Strange.)

We're also still pretty far apart on several issues, so two days of negotiations to get on the same page sounds like a stretch... but this has never really been about money for the studios. So who knows? 

Either way, I'll be on the lines later this morning, and then lunch is on Drew Carey. (For those unfamiliar, Drew is the patron saint of the strike, covering meals at two local restaurants. Yes, a lot of us go basically every day.)

 

[CooterBrown 17760]

I don't think the streamers' valuation is really affected by whether anyone actually watches any content.  All that matters is consumers are paying the subscription fee and the subscription base continues to grow.

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13317]

15 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

also in response to a few posts ago, i have no idea what numbers get released for the ad-supported versions of hulu/disney/peacock/etc or how reliable they are.  since certain shows aired on tv previously, you'd think there would be a correlation.  at its peak, the office ads were at the top of the rate sheet, so you would think the ads run during the office streaming would also be higher than most, but again, i have no idea.  

It's very possible they don't release view counts as well but I could be wrong. If you're an advertiser, you're not as worried if 1.5m watched an episode of the The Bear on Hulu. You care that 10,000 people in your area and targeted demographics watched your ad. That's what Hulu tells them and that's what they pay for.

I hope the WGA strike ends soon. I can't imagine that it's going well for the union. I don't understand why some WGA members or supporters are still creating content and having it streamed. I get that they are not breaking the official rules, but they're getting paid while their fellow union members are not. If the strike isn't settled soon, others will start going to back to work. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Eskimohorn 5571]

This is an example of why we created antitrust legislation century ago. The streaming model is sometimes rigged to make revenue sharing difficult. The actual value of shows are hidden or impossible to calculate. And because the streaming services produce the content, they are both buyer and seller.

Streaming also may not be profitable but it’s perceived as valuable by stock holders and venture capitalists. And they will be perceived as even more valuable if they can decrease their talent costs.