I really don't understand why streaming business are so surprised. They are providing television for rent and users are renting it plain and simple.They seem to think they are entitled to lengthy subscriptions from users when in reality they aren't providing a service that's even stable or worth it.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
303 points (94.4% liked)
News
23051 readers
3122 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Netflix model was only ever really sustainable as long as there was only one or two providers. As long as there was only Netflix people were quite happy to just stay with the subscription because all of the content was on one convenient platform.
If I want to watch popular shows and how I have to subscribe to five or six services. Why would I do that if they are all still going to be there in a couple of months.
The Netflix model was only ever really sustainable as long as there was only one or two providers
The netflix model of streaming for cash was sustainable. The practice of gouging to where people will churn, that's more widespread and an expected result.
The moment that I wasn't allowed to do with my 6 accounts what I want to do, it was done for me.
if they are all still going to be there in a couple of months.
That's the beauty of Netflix. They won't.
They usually keep new shows at least for a year. And I suppose after that there's no possible way of watching that content ever again, it's lost into oblivion and certainly not available to download from a large number of locations.
Oh well
Users: Fine if you want me to pay a monthly fee I'll only pay 3 months of the year.
Streaming services: Shook
I would be happy to keep subscribing for a reasonable price. But I'm starting to trim the fat as they continue to price gouge.
You're probably being ~~theoretical~~ rhetorical, but they're definitely not surprised. Any actual confusion as to why an article like this can be cleared up when you consider the author isn't really talking to us. Try reading it as if it's a business brief, talking about us as a 'problem' that must be addressed. That 'problem' is we users are getting more value from the current model than was calculated by corporate.
Soon there will be another article (also addressing the room as if we're not part of the discussion) detailing how corporate managed to "fix" it, and the revenue increases it brings. The other companies will follow suit to thunderous applause
Just the fact that the author here is using the word "impulsive" in conjunction with canceling services tells me that this is just guilt based propaganda trying to put a negative spin on this. No thanks, you can fuck off.
Americans new habit: Being poor.
Millennials new impulse buy: food and rent.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The subtle corporate dick sucking of using "impulsive" against the cancellation of the thing and not the impulsive purchase of the thing.
The NY times can go fuck itself.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It just makes economic sense.
The data suggests a sharp shift in consumer behavior — far from the cable era, when viewers largely stuck with a single provider, as well as the early days of the so-called streaming wars, when people kept adding services without culling or jumping around.
Yeah, turns out when the monopolies are eliminated, people get more competition and a better deal on the consumer end. It's why I'll never understand people who say streaming services became as bad as cable.
One option for slowing the churn, executives think, is to bring back some element of the cable bundle by selling streaming services together. Executives believe consumers would be less inclined to cancel a package that offered services from multiple companies.
No, I'm less likely to cancel a service that's worth what you charge for it. Be happy you got one month out of me, and if you want more, offer me more value. Putting serialized shows out week by week doesn't do it for me either, because I'm just going to wait until the season is done to start watching it anyway.
Price sensitivity is also a factor. Americans with a streaming subscription are spending an average of $61 a month for four services, an increase from $48 a year ago, according to a new study by Deloitte. The increase was due to higher prices, not additional services. Nearly half the people surveyed said they would cancel their favorite streaming service if monthly prices went up another $5, the study said.
Mystery solved.
Yeah, turns out when the monopolies are eliminated, people get more competition and a better deal on the consumer end. It's why I'll never understand people who say streaming services became as bad as cable.
I'd argue that streaming is in such a bad place right now because each streaming service has a monopoly on their own content. Sure, you could argue that studios "compete" with each other on the content they produce, but I'd argue that cable companies were a different layer of the stack entirely. Cable companies all offered the same channels and the same content, and in areas where they did overlap, competition to offer the best delivery of those channels was great. What made cable bad was that there was little incentive for companies to geographically compete. In the era of streaming, companies have little incentive to allow their content to compete across platforms.
If you ask me, every streaming platform should be broken up from their production parents, so that streaming companies can compete on what they offer, and how they deliver it. There is no incentive for the platforms themselves to compete with each other. It's all about how hard the services can enshittify before people stop watching the content they have a monopoly on.
This is why Uncle Sam made it illegal for movie studios to own their own movie theaters 100 years ago.
Movie theaters are a great analogy to what streaming services should be
load more comments
(2 replies)
The data suggests a sharp shift in consumer behavior — far from the cable era, when viewers largely stuck with a single provider,
What a stupidly obsequious statement. You didn't change providers because you couldn't. It wasn't until satellite TV took off in the late 90s that people started having options for more than one subscription TV provider.
And now these financial geniuses are talking about bundling, when the whole reason this "problem" exists in the first place is because all of them yanked their content off Netflix to start their own streaming channels in the belief that they could be as profitable and as successful. Maybe they should try listening to what consumers want?
I prefer the weekly release schedule of shows. It's something to look forward to and something to talk about week to week. A lot of people don't want to hear spoilers either. Releasing all at once leads to that.
I do think there are those who would subscribe instantly instead of waiting for all shows to be released. Not everybody, but enough of them to stay for two to three months instead of just one and done.
Viewers didn't stick with a single provider in the cable era.
They were stuck with a single provider.
This is exactly what I came to mention. It’s not like you had a choice. The cable mafia only allowed one provider per area.
And you couldn't even pick and choose what channels you wanted. Basic cable meant you had to pay to subsidize 100+ channels you were never going to watch. I've been cable free for almost 10 years and it was awesome until all the networks started taking their balls and going home by starting their own streaming services. That left less and less content that I actually wanted to see on any single service. The last straw was when they all jacked their prices way up and added commercials.
So I was thinking about subbing to Netflix again to watch something, and they had already deleted my account (it’s been about a year). So I went to my email to just try and verify that I was trying to login using the correct email address.
While doing this I found a statement from 2018. The price of Premium Netflix then was $13. Now it’s $23 I think. And they cracked down on password sharing so the service isn’t even as good, really.
Every one of these services has raised prices over and over, boiling us frogs in the pot, so it’s no wonder everyone now just subs for a month or two then bounces. It’s smart. The companies here are the stupid ones, chasing the all-mighty “line-go-up” quarterly statement MBA shit when they could have had loyal customers for years and years. I think I had a Netflix account for at least a decade or more (back when it was just mailing DVDs) until they started jumping the price by a few bucks every six months. It’s just not worth it to keep services around waiting for a show or two to come back.
load more comments
(11 replies)
In three years, this went from a very niche behavior to an absolute mainstream part of the market
It’s because of the fracturing of the marketplace. For a while there were only a few major Film/TV streaming services. Netflix and Hulu, then HBO and Amazon, and a handful of niche or genre platforms.
Then around the pandemic time, every network and their mother decided to pull their licensing to start their own streaming platform or several. The platforms all cost as much or more as before, but you need more of them to watch the different IP you are interested in.
What the studios don’t realize (or won’t publicly admit) is that instead of replacing cable TV, they have effectively recreated the video rental industry.
One service, everything on it, no ads, no "leaving soon", 4K Blu-ray quality visuals and audio.
It doesn't matter how much you pay right now, this service does not exist outside of piracy. I will pay up to £30 a month for this. The ball in in your court.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is a good thing. No matter how they try to paint it. I only stuck with some when interest and content waned because I was grandfathered in. When Netflix etc. took that away it made dumping them an easy decision. Not an “impulsive” one. There’s no point in being loyal to these companies. Especially when they pulled this shit after previously they claimed we were locked in on that pricing and started forcing ads. Greedy bastards.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Americans are getting increasingly impulsive about hitting the cancellation button on their streaming services
GOOD.
Laughing in Plex server
Plex is deep in the enshitification process. I'd consider spinning up Jellyfin alongside it so you switch relatively painlessly when you decide that Plex's bullshit has gone too far.
Even if you never reach that point, it'll be useful to have a media server that won't lock you out if you ever lose your Internet connection for an extended period of time
No reason they can't run alongside each other, in case your concerned about resources or storage.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's the only practical option. Unless we get cable like packages (which I wouldn't be surprised to see soon), nobody wants to pay for some 10+ subscriptions for 1-2 shows on each platform. But if you cycle a couple subscriptions every few months, it's the same (cheaper) cost year round, but you get all the content you want.
Having described it, I think that's probably why we're seeing more and more shows returning back to weekly releases - that model keeps the subscribers on the hook for longer. We can always just wait till it's done, of course, but there's a number of factors that can pressure viewers into remaining subscribed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Not a chance that's gonna last. The next step is you must buy 3,6, or 12 months at a time. We already have streaming services doing channels and ad breaks. Cableless TV will be the circle completing.
Cancelled all services a couple months ago that offer an ad+sub tier. I'm ok with ads for free or sub, but mix them and that kind of greediness like cable TV i can't abide. It's given me more time for other hobbies I'd rather be doing anyways.
I've been waiting for the services to start requiring a year commitment or something equally dumb to prevent this behavior. I subscribe under two conditions : There is something I want to watch, and all the episodes are available. Once I've finished the content I subbed for, what is my incentive to stick around, exactly?
Unfortunately for streamers they can only churn out a season of my favorite shows every 2-3 years, and I'm not really about paying for availability to content that doesn't interest me. Especially while those rates have doubled and tripled.
[Streaming services raising prices, producing garbage, canceling good shows, losing access to shows, straight-up deleting entire shows for a tax write off.]
"Why have consumers suddenly changed in only three years??? Inexplicable!"
That's too much effort. Easier to just not watch anything at all.
Netflix bungled this. They could have said “starting on January 1, 2022, no new accounts will be able to share passwords between households.”
No one would cancel. Some would probably go to a cheaper tier but would keep their accounts active forever. Plus, people who share accounts don’t cancel because their family members might be watching. Netflix’s churn rate would have embarrassed HBO and Disney.
But no, they are chasing shortsighted, anti-customer gains and now are reaping what they sowed.
Cancel all services
Get Stremio + Torrentio + Debrid
Enjoy life
Well, the true economics of the subject considering the entire market are than a 1 month VPN subscription is cheaper than the cheapest subscription of a single one of these services.
It would be interesting to see the graph of VPN # of active subscriptions next to streaming service # of active subscriptions for the last 2 years.
During the writer's strike, I watched an interview with an industry insider and member of the WGA. He mentioned that it's been well known to the industry that people are subscribing for one month to binge watch and then unsubscribe. I was a little surprised to hear this was already such a common practice and the industry was, in part, renegotiating contracts with this in mind. Personally, I've been doing a version of this since Netflix first started online streaming.
I don't currently have any streaming service plans in large part because they keep increasing the prices. These services are fine for the prices they used to be but they keep raising prices. Perhaps the content is better but it's not like my life is impacted by a slightly better tv show or movie - an hour of content is an hour of content. If you want to make better stuff, create another service or offer a higher subscription tier. I'm voting with my wallet and I'm not allowing social pressures to dictate where I get my entertainment. Let's not lose sight that this is entertainment we're talking about.
The other issues I have with them, incidentally, are poor content and poor user experiences. I cancelled my Netflix subscription because they implemented auto-playing trailers. I've stopped using Apple TV entirely because they too have implemented auto-playing trailers.
At this point, getting up to change the channel with a rotary knob might be a better experience than most of these streaming platforms. In fact, I've been watching a lot of Pluto and Tubi lately. They have ads but they're relatively minimal and they're placed in appropriate places in the program.
🏴☠️
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›