DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Juan]

There's going to be yet more consolidation among the major studios with global general entertainment streaming services. In the end, there will probably only be five:

• Netflix
• Amazon Prime Video
• Disney+
• Universal+ (i.e. a future combination of HBO Max, Peacock and Discovery+)
• Apple TV+

In addition, there will be some smaller US-only services dedicated to sports or other entertainment. Paramount will probably end up like Sony Pictures, supplying content to the "Big 5" above, but not operating its own streaming service.

Netflix is sinking..Amazon prime isn't really a streaming service..but if you think disney will be the big surprise loser

 

[Bruce]

Netflix is sinking..Amazon prime isn't really a streaming service..but if you think disney will be the big surprise loser

Loser?

 

[Juan]

Loser?

Yup..its called greed

 

[NashGuy]

Netflix is sinking..Amazon prime isn't really a streaming service..but if you think disney will be the big surprise loser

Netflix's period of rapid growth is probably over. But they only had a small dip in total subs the first quarter of this year and have since returned to growth. So no, they're not sinking. They've entered a new era as a more mature market leader and they'll have to fight harder for future growth in subs and profits. A cheaper ad-supporter tier should help a lot.

Prime Video certainly benefits from being part of the larger Prime subscription. I'm sure that there are lots of Prime subscribers who rarely or never use Prime Video. But I'm also sure that it's an important factor for many folks in keeping them on the hook for that Prime fee every year. I predicted a few years ago that by the mid-20s, Prime Video would surpass Netflix in terms of total number of global subs to be the world's biggest streamer (at least if you're counting everyone who's paying for Prime Video, regardless of whether they actually use it). Still think that's true.

Disney isn't going to be a loser. If they had stayed as they were 15 years ago, after having only acquired ABC/ESPN and then Pixar, they would have had difficulty being a world-beating streamer going up against Netflix and Amazon. But then they snatched up Marvel, Lucasfilm (Star Wars), and then the big one, 20th Century Fox. They've got so much valuable IP, and such a broad content library, and relationships with so much creative talent, that they're assured to succeed long-term. It's the rest of old Hollywood whose fate is so uncertain.

 

[Juan]

Netflix's period of rapid growth is probably over. But they only had a small dip in total subs the first quarter of this year and have since returned to growth. So no, they're not sinking. They've entered a new era as a more mature market leader and they'll have to fight harder for future growth in subs and profits. A cheaper ad-supporter tier should help a lot.

Prime Video certainly benefits from being part of the larger Prime subscription. I'm sure that there are lots of Prime subscribers who rarely or never use Prime Video. But I'm also sure that it's an important factor for many folks in keeping them on the hook for that Prime fee every year. I predicted a few years ago that by the mid-20s, Prime Video would surpass Netflix in terms of total number of global subs to be the world's biggest streamer (at least if you're counting everyone who's paying for Prime Video, regardless of whether they actually use it). Still think that's true.

Disney isn't going to be a loser. If they had stayed as they were 15 years ago, after having only acquired ABC/ESPN and then Pixar, they would have had difficulty being a world-beating streamer going up against Netflix and Amazon. But then they snatched up Marvel, Lucasfilm (Star Wars), and then the big one, 20th Century Fox. They've got so much valuable IP, and such a broad content library, and relationships with so much creative talent, that they're assured to succeed long-term. It's the rest of old Hollywood whose fate is so uncertain.

Small dip turning into down pour when they stop account sharing

You don't need to be a financial wizard to realize that with a YTD loss of almost 70 percent, Netflix is in trouble. One can blame all the noise from the sell-off in growth stocks, the Fed’s rate hikes, rising inflation, and pessimism towards stay-at-home stocks for the crash. These factors are leading to the sell-off in Netflix but the company has other challenges too.

Netflix also said that around 100 million people globally watch its content through shared passwords.

Netflix Is in Trouble and Losing Subscribers, Not Going Out of Business

Many are wondering if Netflix going out of business after the crash in its stock. Is Netflix in trouble? The company lost subscribers in the first quarter.

marketrealist.com

 

[Bruce]

Netflix's period of rapid growth is probably over. But they only had a small dip in total subs the first quarter of this year and have since returned to growth. So no, they're not sinking. They've entered a new era as a more mature market leader and they'll have to fight harder for future growth in subs and profits. A cheaper ad-supporter tier should help a lot.

If they can get people to quit mooching off of others and get about 25% of those who password share, that would be a big increase for them.

I have a friend from College that used to word for them ( just retired), she told me no one at Netflix could agree on what to do about password sharing.

Prime Video certainly benefits from being part of the larger Prime subscription. I'm sure that there are lots of Prime subscribers who rarely or never use Prime Video. But I'm also sure that it's an important factor for many folks in keeping them on the hook for that Prime fee every year. I predicted a few years ago that by the mid-20s, Prime Video would surpass Netflix in terms of total number of global subs to be the world's biggest streamer (at least if you're counting everyone who's paying for Prime Video, regardless of whether they actually use it). Still think that's true.

I have Prime for the Shipping, but they have great TV Shows, if they separated the two ( Prime shipping and Prime Video ), I could see myself paying the same price as Apple TV for Prime Video, I hope they don’t of course.

Disney isn't going to be a loser. If they had stayed as they were 15 years ago, after having only acquired ABC/ESPN and then Pixar, they would have had difficulty being a world-beating streamer going up against Netflix and Amazon. But then they snatched up Marvel, Lucasfilm (Star Wars), and then the big one, 20th Century Fox. They've got so much valuable IP, and such a broad content library, and relationships with so much creative talent, that they're assured to succeed long-term. It's the rest of old Hollywood whose fate is so uncertain.

There is no way for Disney+ to fail with the catalog and IP they have.

The only thing they will cause Disney (as a company) problems is ESPN, with 30 million per sub fees gone, 2 million ( and increasing) more every quarter, plus they have committed a lot of money towards Sports Right’s fees, in 3 years (at least another 24 million per sub fees gone) they will be hurting.

 

[NashGuy]

If they can get people to quit mooching off of others and get about 25% of those who password share, that would be a big increase for them.

I have a friend from College that used to word for them ( just retired), she told me no one at Netflix could agree on what to do about password sharing.

The only thing they will cause Disney (as a company) problems is ESPN, with 30 million per sub fees gone, 2 million ( and increasing) more every quarter, plus they have committed a lot of money towards Sports Right’s fees, in 3 years (at least another 24 million per sub fees gone) they will be hurting.

They're already testing out a plan in certain LatAm countries where they charge you an add-on fee in order to share your account with someone who can then watch Netflix on a TV in a location different from where the account holder lives. (Mooching that's limited to watching on mobile devices is still allowed.) It will likely result in some amount of additional revenue. I think the plan is to roll it out to most markets, including the US, early next year. Of course, they'll have the cheaper ad-supported plan(s) available here by then too, which will also help them.

As for ESPN, I know Disney had been contemplating spinning it off but they've now shut the door on that. Given its declining outlook, perhaps no one will pay them more than what it'll be worth to them going forward. What I don't get is Disney continuing to bid for more or renewed sports rights deals. Seems to me they should be trying to reduce those costs to be more in line with expected future ESPN revenues. If they're going to keep ESPN, the more logical move to me would be to concentrate it on just college sports (which is arguably already its strongest area). Whittle down the portfolio of pro sports rights and just include that stuff -- Monday Night Football, Grand Slam tennis, some national NBA and MLB games -- in Disney+, as Peacock and Paramount+ are already doing with sports.

 

[SamCdbs]

Disney is clearly going to be a loser when the collapse of streaming hits.

First there is Disney+. If you have a kid between 4 and 12, a great service. If you don’t, then it is irrelevant to you.

Then there is HULU, Which is one of only two streamers ever to make a cent. But, and there is always a but, the material is going away.

But the big one is ESPN+. ESPN+ was supposed to be a supplement. The company has so many rights, particularly to college games where it generally buys “everything” so it can toss up student productions of things like I-AA football, mid-major basketball or non-revenue sports. But that really didn’t sell, so they have to go and get supplemental PGA rights, ultra niche sports like cricket, and out of market NHL. Still loses money.

Because most people would rather watch Alabama - Arkansas next weekend (on actual TV) than Arkansas State - Troy State (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch college football (on real TV) than women’s college softball (on ESPN+). Most people would really rather watch baseball (on real TV) than cricket (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch their home team (on real TV) than out of market games (ESPN+). Really that simple.

But more than that, most people don’t like spots in the first place. Which is why they don’t have linear TV.

 

[Yespage]

Small dip turning into down pour when they stop account sharing

You don't need to be a financial wizard to realize that with a YTD loss of almost 70 percent, Netflix is in trouble. One can blame all the noise from the sell-off in growth stocks, the Fed’s rate hikes, rising inflation, and pessimism towards stay-at-home stocks for the crash. These factors are leading to the sell-off in Netflix but the company has other challenges too.

Netflix also said that around 100 million people globally watch its content through shared passwords.

Netflix Is in Trouble and Losing Subscribers, Not Going Out of Business

Many are wondering if Netflix going out of business after the crash in its stock. Is Netflix in trouble? The company lost subscribers in the first quarter.

marketrealist.com

Password sharing isn't Netflix's problem. It is content. There were the one all, be all for streaming, and then the content creators decided to create their own streaming platforms. That is what is hurting Netflix, they need to create their own content, which costs a lot more money than streaming someone else's content. So they need to adapt from a streaming network to a content development network. That takes time and a considerable amount of money. Much more than that lost to password sharing.

 

[Juan]

Password sharing isn't Netflix's problem. It is content. There were the one all, be all for streaming, and then the content creators decided to create their own streaming platforms. That is what is hurting Netflix, they need to create their own content, which costs a lot more money than streaming someone else's content. So they need to adapt from a streaming network to a content development network. That takes time and a considerable amount of money. Much more than that lost to password sharing.

That too but its popular because it very cheap with password sharing..almost cult like

 

[Yespage]

Disney is clearly going to be a loser when the collapse of streaming hits.

First there is Disney+. If you have a kid between 4 and 12, a great service. If you don’t, then it is irrelevant to you.

Then there is HULU, Which is one of only two streamers ever to make a cent. But, and there is always a but, the material is going away.

But the big one is ESPN+. ESPN+ was supposed to be a supplement. The company has so many rights, particularly to college games where it generally buys “everything” so it can toss up student productions of things like I-AA football, mid-major basketball or non-revenue sports. But that really didn’t sell, so they have to go and get supplemental PGA rights, ultra niche sports like cricket, and out of market NHL. Still loses money.

I'd say the cricket costs are much more for India broadcasting rights than the US. Disney paid $3 billion for the India broadcasting rights for the IPL in India. IPL rights for the rest of the world were "only" $135 million (that'd be one MNF game!). Likewise, Disney has the rights to West Indies, but I can't imagine they paid much for that. I can't even find out what it was, and most likely, again, this was more about local distribution rights than to quench the "thirst" of Cricket fans in the US... all 5,983 of them.

FYI, the 2024 T20 World Cup is in the US. Not very relevant, but true. But it'd be something to see some of these guys in person.

Because most people would rather watch Alabama - Arkansas next weekend (on actual TV) than Arkansas State - Troy State (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch college football (on real TV) than women’s college softball (on ESPN+). Most people would really rather watch baseball (on real TV) than cricket (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch their home team (on real TV) than out of market games (ESPN+). Really that simple.

Yes for the college football. The domestic cricket rights are a drop in the bucket however. Disney is mostly paying for those rights where they are the biggest deal, India, being the Indian Premier League and all.

 

[SamCdbs]

I will bow to your superior knowledge of TV in India. I was speaking of the USA only. Unless otherwise noted, pretty much every post I make will be about the USA TV business only.

The point that there are 5983 or so cricket fans is the relevant one. ESPN+ is the home of niche sports, be they things popular with immigrants from the other side of the world, or fans of mid major and small colleges.

Most sports people want the major events, found on linear TV. Most people who are streaming only don’t want any sports at all.

 

[NashGuy]

Disney is clearly going to be a loser when the collapse of streaming hits.

First there is Disney+. If you have a kid between 4 and 12, a great service. If you don’t, then it is irrelevant to you.

Then there is HULU, Which is one of only two streamers ever to make a cent. But, and there is always a but, the material is going away.

But the big one is ESPN+. ESPN+ was supposed to be a supplement. The company has so many rights, particularly to college games where it generally buys “everything” so it can toss up student productions of things like I-AA football, mid-major basketball or non-revenue sports. But that really didn’t sell, so they have to go and get supplemental PGA rights, ultra niche sports like cricket, and out of market NHL. Still loses money.

Because most people would rather watch Alabama - Arkansas next weekend (on actual TV) than Arkansas State - Troy State (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch college football (on real TV) than women’s college softball (on ESPN+). Most people would really rather watch baseball (on real TV) than cricket (on ESPN+). Most people would rather watch their home team (on real TV) than out of market games (ESPN+). Really that simple.

But more than that, most people don’t like spots in the first place. Which is why they don’t have linear TV.

Disney+ doesn't have a broad enough catalog of content to be a full-fledged Netflix competitor on its own. But it isn't just for kids. There are a lot of adults (not me) who enjoy its Marvel and Star Wars content. Disney CEO Chapek said earlier this year that nearly half of Disney+ subscribers are adults without kids.

Disney+ Has a Plan to Target Adults (Not Just Families) - TheStreet

Disney's streaming service will have more "general entertainment" titles soon.

www.thestreet.com

But it's certainly true that Disney+ needs to broaden out its reach to adults. Which is why, once Disney buys out Comcast's remaining 1/3 stake in Hulu in '23 or '24, they'll shut down Hulu as a standalone service and just make it the adult general entertainment hub inside of Disney+ (which, of course, will see its price increase). Starting this fall, they'll sell the new ad-supported version of Disney+ and the ad-supported version of Hulu together for just $10/mo (or $8/mo for each separately), a price point designed to compete with the ad-supported version of HBO Max as well as Netflix's entry-level plan. Hulu has now lost next-day access to shows from NBC and Bravo, plus a fair amount of back seasons of NBCUniversal shows -- all that has now become exclusive to Peacock. But once Hulu is just a sub-section of Disney+, it won't need as much content as it did as a standalone service.

ESPN is another story. As I've said, its most profitable days are behind it. By 2025, though, I do believe we'll see them bring the whole thing direct to consumers in the form of one or two standalone streaming services. ESPN+ will cease to exist at that point; its niche content will just get absorbed into the new ESPN app(s).

 

[SamCdbs]

The problem with the idea that DTC ESPN, or other sports channels, is that the math just doesn’t add up.

If you could actually get real ESPN outside a linear package, why would you want a linear package? Thus offering it DTC means, except for the occasional old person, leaving cable, DBS and linear streaming.

When you do the math of how much $$ ESPN needs to pay for all of those sports rights, the cost of DTC ESPN needs to be about 4 to 5 times more than they charge cable, et al. Add in Fox and the other sports ventures, and the local RSN, and a sports fan is looking at $100/month or more, just for sports

A la carte is anti-consumer.

 

[Juan]

Disney+ doesn't have a broad enough catalog of content to be a full-fledged Netflix competitor on its own. But it isn't just for kids. There are a lot of adults (not me) who enjoy its Marvel and Star Wars content. Disney CEO Chapek said earlier this year that nearly half of Disney+ subscribers are adults without kids.

Disney+ Has a Plan to Target Adults (Not Just Families) - TheStreet

Disney's streaming service will have more "general entertainment" titles soon.

www.thestreet.com

But it's certainly true that Disney+ needs to broaden out its reach to adults. Which is why, once Disney buys out Comcast's remaining 1/3 stake in Hulu in '23 or '24, they'll shut down Hulu as a standalone service and just make it the adult general entertainment hub inside of Disney+ (which, of course, will see its price increase). Starting this fall, they'll sell the new ad-supported version of Disney+ and the ad-supported version of Hulu together for just $10/mo (or $8/mo for each separately), a price point designed to compete with the ad-supported version of HBO Max as well as Netflix's entry-level plan. Hulu has now lost next-day access to shows from NBC and Bravo, plus a fair amount of back seasons of NBCUniversal shows -- all that has now become exclusive to Peacock. But once Hulu is just a sub-section of Disney+, it won't need as much content as it did as a standalone service.

ESPN is another story. As I've said, its most profitable days are behind it. By 2025, though, I do believe we'll see them bring the whole thing direct to consumers in the form of one or two standalone streaming services. ESPN+ will cease to exist at that point; its niche content will just get absorbed into the new ESPN app(s).

Netflix doesn't really have that much compelling content...its a bunch of cheap old movies with second rate original programming

 

[Bruce]

A la carte is anti-consumer.

It is only anti-consumer for the sports fans that want to maintain the status quo and have everyone pay for sports channels that the majority will never watch, that way for the minority that do watch them, can keep the prices down.

A la carte is pro consumer for me who has no desire to pay for a RSN that I will never watch.

Yet I am able to choose and get packages/services that has my hometown teams, MLB.tv for the Tigers, ESPN+ for the Red Wings.

If those options become more expensive then I wish to pay, then I will drop them.

Which makes A la carte extremely pro consumer.

Feel the same about Traditional Providers, even YTTV, hate paying for a bunch of channels I will never watch, only need CNBC, CNN and BTN, every thing else I can get from streaming services.

 

[meStevo]

The pillars aren't going anywhere... Prime, Netflix and yeah, D+. Expansion and contraction will continue below their level (like Hulu folding into D+).

I enjoy the Amazon approach of adding channels, that's how I typically add Paramount+ when we do sub to it. Nice going to a single place and toggling on and off the content we want to subscribe to rather than manage all the disparate services.

 

[Bruce]

Netflix doesn't really have that much compelling content...its a bunch of cheap old movies with second rate original programming

Everyone is different, they have plenty of new movies on, both from Netflix and they have new movies from Sony ( right after PPV) now, just watched The Gray Man, the Russo Brothers made it after the last two Avengers movies.

Or The Sandman TV Series, which has about 30 million people watching it.

Also a great series.

 

[Bruce]

The pillars aren't going anywhere... Prime, Netflix and yeah, D+. Expansion and contraction will continue below their level (like Hulu folding into D+).

I enjoy the Amazon approach of adding channels, that's how I typically add Paramount+ when we do sub to it. Nice going to a single place and toggling on and off the content we want to subscribe to rather than manage all the disparate services.

The problem getting it with Amazon is you do not get the programming in 4K, I have read that at this site and AVS.

 

[Juan]

Everyone is different, they have plenty of new movies on, both from Netflix and they have new movies from Sony ( right after PPV) now, just watched The Gray Man, the Russo Brothers made it after the last two Avengers movies.

Or The Sandman TV Series, which has about 30 million people watching it.

Also a great series.

They have stuff but they lost alot..they are a cheap alternative because they encouraged password sharing