Article: "Netflix hints at some good news for customers after big change to pricing"

[comfortably_numb]

Not exactly sure which price increase they're alluding to, although I have noticed a drastic increase in content being added recently.

For the $6.99 ad supported plan I subscribe to, I believe it's well worth it for me.

Netflix leans on 'what's old is new again' strategy

Netflix has indicated it could further embrace its strategy of licensing older content from third-parties and bringing the shows and movies onto its streaming platform.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Bruce]

Not exactly sure which price increase they're alluding to, although I have noticed a drastic increase in content being added recently.

For the $6.99 ad supported plan I subscribe to, I believe it's well worth it for me.

Netflix leans on 'what's old is new again' strategy

Netflix has indicated it could further embrace its strategy of licensing older content from third-parties and bringing the shows and movies onto its streaming platform.

www.foxbusiness.com

The content increase is due to Warner and Universal selling their library content for cheap, since both are desperate for cash.

The content will be on both Peacock/Netflix and HBOMAX/Netflix.

I remember when Netflix was getting big, mostly because all the producers/studios were selling their content to Netflix, then pulled it all, Netflix then shifted to originals, now we are back to selling content to Netflix cheaply since they are not exclusives.

Who wins…..Netflix.

 

[SamCdbs]

The content increase is due to Warner and Universal selling their library content for cheap, since both are desperate for cash.

Both need cash exactly why?

Because they own money bleeding streamers.

Shut em down, protect the consumer, serve your stockholders, and admit you didn't know what you were paid to know.

The content will be on both Peacock/Netflix and HBOMAX/Netflix.

Ahh, so paying twice for the same content.

If only there was a way to insure the customer only paid once.

Like the bundle. Protecting the consumer.

Who wins…..Netflix.

Who loses?

We do.

 

[Bruce]

Both need cash exactly why?

Because they own money bleeding streamers.

And losing 30 Million per sub fees for all their Broadcast/Cable Channels

Shut em down, protect the consumer, serve your stockholders, and admit you didn't know what you were paid to know.

Ahh, so paying twice for the same content.

If only there was a way to insure the customer only paid once.

Like the bundle. Protecting the consumer.

All of the main streaming providers added together in their highest tier is still a lot less then the bundle, with vastly more content and in better quality.

How then does the bundle protect them.

You never answer that.

Hulu/Disney/ESPN+-$25
Peacock-$11
Paramount+ w/Showtime $12
AMC+ $9
HBOMAX $20 or just Discovery+ at $10
Netflix-$23

So $90/100, while a bundle of just Broadcast/Cable Channels is about $120-140 a month and up, add HBO, Showtime and Netflix to that, at least $50 more.

Who loses?

We do.

I am not losing, I have more new content than I can watch, by the way, enjoy the Golden Bachelor on ABC in your bundle.

You never answer me this, what would I gain by giving up my streaming services and getting the bundle from DirecTV?

 

[Juan]

Both need cash exactly why?

Because they own money bleeding streamers.

Shut em down, protect the consumer, serve your stockholders, and admit you didn't know what you were paid to know.

Ahh, so paying twice for the same content.

If only there was a way to insure the customer only paid once.

Like the bundle. Protecting the consumer.

Who loses?

We do.

Hollywood is about to find out that the American Public doesn't have to subscribe..the gravy train looks like it over because there was no pot of gold at the end of the streaming rainbow

I have a feeling a different more profitable model will emerge..like bundling streaming apps with internet service...you pay for an extremely overpriced give connection from Comcast or who ever...they include the aps "for free".( included in the price). it will all be bundled back together again..with a premium "no ad" experience or local sports or local channels on an ap by ap basis at an additional charge...just like cable thars just a thought .but something else will emerge..too much money being lost

 

[AZ.]

Hollywood is about to find out that the American Public doesn't have to subscribe..the gravy train looks like it over because there was no pot of gold at the end of the streaming rainbow

I have a feeling a different more profitable model will emerge..like bundling streaming apps with internet service...you pay for an extremely overpriced give connection from Comcast or who ever...they include the aps "for free".( included in the price). it will all be bundled back together again..with a premium "no ad" experience or local sports or local channels on an ap by ap basis at an additional charge...just like cable thars just a thought .but something else will emerge..too much money being lost

Dosent Hollywood make there big money on motion picture movies? Then sell the DVDs? Then it trickles down to the HBOs of the world?

And they need the cash, because the jacked up the prices to cable and satellite and people are leaving.....And you dont think they will do the same to streaming? Get rid of the middle man the profits will go through the roof! Thats the next step...Not much competition when its only a handful of players.

 

[KAB]

Dosent Hollywood make there big money on motion picture movies? Then sell the DVDs? Then it trickles down to the HBOs of the world?

And they need the cash, because the jacked up the prices to cable and satellite and people are leaving.....And you dont think they will do the same to streaming? Get rid of the middle man the profits will go through the roof! Thats the next step...Not much competition when its only a handful of players.

If a movie or series sucks, like so many do, getting rid of middle men is not going to help much.

 

[Bruce]

Hollywood is about to find out that the American Public doesn't have to subscribe..the gravy train looks like it over because there was no pot of gold at the end of the streaming rainbow

I have a feeling a different more profitable model will emerge..like bundling streaming apps with internet service...you pay for an extremely overpriced give connection from Comcast or who ever...they include the aps "for free".( included in the price). it will all be bundled back together again..with a premium "no ad" experience or local sports or local channels on an ap by ap basis at an additional charge...just like cable thars just a thought .but something else will emerge..too much money being lost

Are you and Sam teaming up again in your efforts to put down streaming, just like when he made you part of his conspiracy to make fun of posters here.

Umm, no, this is just me, and about 5 other posters including Juan, making fun of people who don't know very much about the entertainment industry. If this were an academic exercise, we, and not you, would be the ones teaching.

 

[AZ.]

If a movie or series sucks, like so many do, getting rid of middle men is not going to help much.

Not saying that at all.....Read it again....The majority of a success is from box office....Then DVD sales(and more and more streaming movies for big bucks(Barbie for $25)), then out to the market..

I just feel with so many few companies that own all content, they will just attack streamers just like they did to cable and satellite....Then get it so, you have to go straight to them to watch anything, old or new, movies or tv shows.

 

[Juan]

Dosent Hollywood make there big money on motion picture movies? Then sell the DVDs? Then it trickles down to the HBOs of the world?

And they need the cash, because the jacked up the prices to cable and satellite and people are leaving.....And you dont think they will do the same to streaming? Get rid of the middle man the profits will go through the roof! Thats the next step...Not much competition when its only a handful of players.

No..not since covid...lets say you had 2 jobs..they both paid the same ( movies and cable)..suddenly cable switches to streaming and revenue drops to 20% ir was with cable... it would hurt correct?.. you would have to adjust your lifestyle and find a way to replace the lost income...yes Hollywood is greedy but we won't get good content if profit drops..they will cut shows, lay off people etc etc to adjust to lost revenue

 

[AZ.]

No..not since covid...lets say you had 2 jobs..they both paid the same ( movies and cable)..suddenly cable switches to streaming and revenue drops to 20% ir was with cable... it would hurt correct?.. you would have to adjust your lifestyle and find a way to replace the lost income...yes Hollywood is greedy but we won't get good content if profit drops..they will cut shows, lay off people etc etc to adjust to lost revenue

Barbie made over 1 billion in theaters. Covid is a huge part I agree, but people are getting lax, I assume in a year people will forget? I think greed runs the world, but thats a different discussion!

 

[ncted]

Both need cash exactly why?

Because they own money bleeding streamers.

Shut em down, protect the consumer, serve your stockholders, and admit you didn't know what you were paid to know.

Ahh, so paying twice for the same content.

If only there was a way to insure the customer only paid once.

Like the bundle. Protecting the consumer.

Who loses?

We do.

Because the same reruns weren't ever on 5 or 6 different channels on cable.

Your outdated cable bundle is a steaming pile of doo-doo and has been for quite a while -- not because it was necessarily a bad idea, but because the media and cable company executives, who should have known better, ruined it. Which just goes to show:

With the kind of licensing on streaming, at least the consumer doesn't have to add and drop subscriptions as much just to see a show because it increases the likelihood that it will be on a service they already subscribe to, all without having to pay monthly for local broadcast, sports, or equipment fees, no to mention the 75 extra channels that no one watches.

 

[Bruce]

No..not since covid...lets say you had 2 jobs..they both paid the same ( movies and cable)..suddenly cable switches to streaming and revenue drops to 20% ir was with cable... it would hurt correct?.. you would have to adjust your lifestyle and find a way to replace the lost income...yes Hollywood is greedy but we won't get good content if profit drops..they will cut shows, lay off people etc etc to adjust to lost revenue

Ok, for the last time.

It took DirecTV 6 years to turn a profit, Dish 9 years.

Next year, Disney+, ESPN+ and Paramount+ are due to become profitable .

That means it would take 5 years for D+, 4 years for ESPN+, Paramount+ would of been profitable this year, but they took that on the books loss of shutting down/changing of Showtime, they did that for tax benefits, as all of them are.

How did DirecTV become profitable, raising prices and adding subscribers, how will Disney become profitable, same way.

So some streaming services will become profitable, some will not, I have major doubts about Peacock and AMC.

Streaming services that have already become profitable, Netflix, Hulu, MAX and Discovery+ ( which I expect to be shut down within 2 years).

Now we have cable/sat, multiple cable companies have given up video entirely, some are looking into it, some is just going to provide it via streaming ( Charter).

Profits are shrinking, look at DirecTV, AT&T share (70%) lost another $800 Million in profits in the first 6 month, down to $1.7 Billion. if the rate of loss stays the same ( doubtful since cord cutting is increasing), so based on very easy math, we can say for the year, down $1.6 Billion, which left $3.4 Billion in profits.

So next year, if the rate of them losing subscribers stays the same ( which is about 2 million a year), that mean another $1.6 Billion loss, which leaves $1.8 Billion in profits in 2024, then in 2025, same loss, leaves 200 Million, then unprofitable in 2026.

That is why AT&T is putting up their 70% for sale in summer 2024, while it is still making a profit, so it has some value.

 

[SamCdbs]

All of the main streaming providers added together in their highest tier is still a lot less then the bundle, with vastly more content and in better quality.

Incorrect. You, as most of the agenda driven fan boys do, make up some number for the supposed high cable bill.

The average cable bill, with all the wonderful content, if $116. Not the hundreds and thousands you fan boys claim.

How then does the bundle protect them.

You never answer that.

Answered many time, although it is so self-evident it really does not need to be explained to those without an agenda.

Here we have a perfect example. The SAME material will be on two different streamers, plus real TV. The consumer wants some things only on, say, Max, and some things only on Netflix. And, being normal, also wants some things, like ESPN, only on real TV. However some other content will be on all three. He pays THREE TIMES for the same content.

He is being cheated by Big Media. The bundle protected him. ONE bill. ONE provider. ALL the content, in one place, for a fair price. In fact, due to the magic of the bundle, more content that will exist, as NO ONE THING IS POPULAR ENOUGH TO COVER ITS COSTS (this is why streaming loses money) and thus, when Big Media kills off real TV, will cease to be made.

Big Media, after all, wants to sell you as little as possible, for as much as possible.

Unlike linear TV providers, who protect the consumer.

Hulu/Disney/ESPN+-$25
Peacock-$11
Paramount+ w/Showtime $12
AMC+ $9
HBOMAX $20 or just Discovery+ at $10
Netflix-$23

So $90/100, while a bundle of just Broadcast/Cable Channels is about $120-140 a month and up, add HBO, Showtime and Netflix to that, at least $50 more.

Yeah, a A LOT MORE CONTENT. ESPN, Fox Sports, the actual networks, the wonderful local RSN.

All for just, by your math, (actually its less than that) for just a few pennies more.

The consumer, protected.

I am not losing, I have more new content than I can watch, by the way, enjoy the Golden Bachelor on ABC in your bundle.

Less every day. But I'm glad to pay a few pennies for the Golden Batchelor. Someone else watches it, and is likewise paying a few pennies for stuff I like. A symbiotic relationship. We are protected, and we all get the content we want.

Unlike streaming, where no one thing is popular enough to cover its costs. And will eventually cease to be made. Just reruns, Hallmark style female movies (the cheapest type to make) trashsports, and cheaply acquired foreign content. Or, more or less, what Netflix is today.

You never answer me this, what would I gain by giving up my streaming services and getting the bundle from DirecTV?

Well, since the majority of people still, despite all your incorrect projections, still want and have the bundle, you would get what most people get. The real networks, your local sports teams, ESPN, Fox Sports, Fox News, and almost a hundred other channels of greatness.

But you can save those pennies, and watch Korean anime, or eurosoccer, or cicket, or MAC football, or Star Wars rips offs. Using what most use as a supplement as your only thing.

And telling us about it, daily.

 

[Don in CT]

Both need cash exactly why?

Discovery over paid for Warner, Comcast is losing money as people cut the cord.

 

[Bruce]

Incorrect. You, as most of the agenda driven fan boys do, make up some number for the supposed high cable bill.

The average cable bill, with all the wonderful content, if $116. Not the hundreds and thousands you fan boys claim.

Which is still more then what I posted-$90/100, but my price included HBO, Showtime and Netflix, get rid of those( a better comparison to your price), would then be $62, so still much less.

Are you adding in RSN Fees, Broadcast Channel Fee ( Comcast/Charter), Box Fees or that we can charge you fees.

Here we have a perfect example. The SAME material will be on two different streamers, plus real TV. The consumer wants some things only on, say, Max, and some things only on Netflix. And, being normal, also wants some things, like ESPN, only on real TV. However some other content will be on all three. He pays THREE TIMES for the same content.

That is right, pay for Live and streaming, you do pay for the same content, but with streaming you get that same content plus the exclusives, all in much better video/sound, so the obvious answer is dropping Live TV.

Yeah, a A LOT MORE CONTENT. ESPN, Fox Sports, the actual networks, the wonderful local RSN.

RSN is almost dead , Diamond’s hail mary at the last court hearing was saying they hope to be carried by YTTV and Hulu Live to provide more income.

That has been shot down, neither of them have said they wish to carry the channels at the rate Diamond is asking, if they lower that rate, then Comcast/Charter/DirecTV will want the same.

All for just, by your math, (actually its less than that) for just a few pennies more.

Without HBO, Showtime and Netflix, it is more then $50 more, with them $16 more based on your price.

The consumer, protected.

Ripped off.

Less every day. But I'm glad to pay a few pennies for the Golden Batchelor.

Except that is all you will be getting until the strike is settled, thanks to the longer post production time, I will have new content for all of 2024.

Unlike streaming, where no one thing is popular enough to cover its costs. And will eventually cease to be made. Just reruns, Hallmark style female movies (the cheapest type to make) trashsports, and cheaply acquired foreign content. Or, more or less, what Netflix is today.

Netflix has tons of different content, appeals to many different subscribers, hence why they are still adding subscribers, another 15 Million over the last two quarters.

Well, since the majority of people still, despite all your incorrect projections, still want and have the bundle, you would get what most people get. The real networks, your local sports teams, ESPN, Fox Sports, Fox News, and almost a hundred other channels of greatness.

More like a hundred other channels of reruns.

Add up all the channels that produce new content, including sports, news even dreck like Food Network, you would be under 50 Channels.

But you can save those pennies, and watch Korean anime, or eurosoccer, or cicket, or MAC football, or Star Wars rips offs. Using what most use as a supplement as your only thing.

Star Wars is the only thing from what you mentioned ( which will have 3 new series in 2024 while you watch Women who get drunk while arguing on Bravo).

Show I am looking forward to is the western on Paramount+ Bass Reeves in November, in 4K/Atmos and only streaming.

And telling us about it, daily.

Like the bundle.

 

[Bruce]

Both need cash exactly why?

Discovery over paid for Warner, Comcast is losing money as people cut the cord.

Warner also, CNN, TBS, TNT, all the former Discovery suite of Channels, Food Network for example, etc.

Universal NBC, SyFy, USA, MSNBC, NBC RSNs MSNBC, etc.

All of them have lost up to 30 Million per sub fees.

Warner is $44 Billion in debt.

Comcast $100 Billion in debt.

 

[Juan]

Barbie made over 1 billion in theaters. Covid is a huge part I agree, but people are getting lax, I assume in a year people will forget? I think greed runs the world, but thats a different discussion!

That was one movie

 

[dishdude]

Incorrect. You, as most of the agenda driven fan boys do, make up some number for the supposed high cable bill.

Enjoy your bundle now, because it will be going away...no one under 60 wants it and the consumer is tired of being ripped off.

 

[ncted]

Enjoy your bundle now, because it will be going away...no one under 60 wants it and the consumer is tired of being ripped off.

But how will I get my Hogans Heroes without the bundle?

In other news, I just figured out my airline has been protecting me all these years by charging me fees to check a bag, carry on a bag, select a seat, change my flight, print my boarding pass, sit with my family, etc.