Streaming remain most popular destination for TV

[Bruce]

Six months in a row, streaming has over taken Cable for viewers eyes, that is now a trend that will continue to get worse as they put less and less content on the cable channels.

Year to year also shows the switchover to streaming is accelerating.

Cable TV-
Dec 2021-37.3
Dec 2022-30.9 a loss of 6.4

Streaming
Dec 2021-27.7
Dec 2022-38.1 a gain of 10.4

By the way, these are Nielsen’s numbers, not some blogger.

As I have written before, the next two years is make it or break it for Traditional Providers and Cable Channels, but it seems they wish to continue on as usual, keep raising prices ( both in the monthly bill and then the per sub fees), do not become innovative, just be the same as the last 10 years.

By the way, 10 years ago is when they started losing subscribers.

Lastly, why did they ( Sat/cable) think it was a good idea to include streaming services on their boxes, all that seems to be doing is showing subscribers they no longer need them, the same content plus all the streaming shows are available as a much less expensive price on the apps.

Streaming services remain most popular destination for TV viewing in December | Nielsen

Despite the surge in television usage during the Thanksgiving holiday, total TV viewing managed to increase slightly in December (0.3%), amplified by two of the top 10 viewing days of the year.

www.nielsen.com

 

[KAB]

Problem is, will the streamers make enough money to stay in existence,

 

[Bruce]

Problem is, will the streamers make enough money to stay in existence,

Of course some will.

Some will merge, some will start selling content instead, some will go out of business, some will make it.

People have funny memories, it took many years for both DirecTV and Dish to start making a profit, now that profit is getting less and less every quarter

Amazon and Netflix both were losing money for years, now look at them.

Ones that will make it-
Disney (Hulu, ESPN+, Disney+) in some form, I expect ESPN+ to become ESPN ( at around $15 a month) to start making up per subs they have lost, also it might need to pick up the slack when the RSNs collapse.
Netflix
Amazon
Apple

Mergers with someone
Warner/Discovery ( I really believe Comcast will buy them nest year)
Peacock

Maybe Merger
Paramount+ ( they have become the little engine that could, constantly gaining about 7 million subs every quarter, along with owning Pluto TV, they could make it on their own, if Comcast does not get Warner, maybe they make a play for Viacom).

No way in hell that they make it-
AMC ( they will start selling content again and shut AMC+ down).
Bally/RSNs- they just cannot get enough subscribers

 

[Jimbo]

And this is News How ???

Of course Streaming numbers are better than Cable/Sat TV.
At this point it will continue to until the Streaming aspect moves on to another option.

Oh, there WILL be other options, eventually.

Another Thread spouting how great Streaming is ... wonderful, we have about 10 already.

 

[Josephinelcajon]

I have kept my Dish and added a lot more streaming over the last year. I now have all the major streaming services. Many reasons but 2 major ones are no commercials and great picture quality! From there is extra content and some content only on streaming. I am growing slightly disappointed in some not having enough new content. And price increase in some are too high such as Netflix. Which brings up another problem with them they seem to be using more and more non-English content with English audio over the original.

 

[Bruce]

And this is News How ???

Because just 7 months ago cable was ahead, now streaming has overtaken it and for 6 month in a row with big numbers.

Also, this is not some bloggers news story, this came from Nielson, who does the ratings for everyone.

If they notice it, that means all the heads of who produce content and runs all the channels also notice it, which will help influence their future plans.

Of course Streaming numbers are better than Cable/Sat TV.

Yes it is, glad you agree.

At this point it will continue to until the Streaming aspect moves on to another option.

Oh, there WILL be other options, eventually.

Holograms.

Actually they keep pushing those Oculus type headsets, trying to make that the next big thing, instead of just watching, you can be part of the content.

Do not think it will work.

Another Thread spouting how great Streaming is ... wonderful, we have about 10 already.

At least it is in the proper forum.

 

[Ronnie-]

And this is News How ???

Of course Streaming numbers are better than Cable/Sat TV.
At this point it will continue to until the Streaming aspect moves on to another option.

Oh, there WILL be other options, eventually.

Another Thread spouting how great Streaming is ... wonderful, we have about 10 already.

It is in the streaming forum, nothing wrong with it at all.

I would suggest, if a thread in the proper forum does not interest a member, they can pass it by.

 

[Jimbo]

Because just 7 months ago cable was ahead, now streaming has overtaken it and for 6 month in a row with big numbers.

Also, this is not some bloggers news story, this came from Nielson, who does the ratings for everyone.

If they notice it, that means all the heads of who produce content and runs all the channels also notice it, which will help influence their future plans.

Yes it is, glad you agree.

Holograms.

Actually they keep pushing those Oculus type headsets, trying to make that the next big thing, instead of just watching, you can be part of the content.

Do not think it will work.

At least it is in the proper forum.

This thread is All OBVIOUS news ...
Like I said, its not News at all ...

Are you going to post Yeah, Hurrah every time something happens that adds to your hopes of a Streaming every where world ?

You make it sound like YOU had something to do with it.

When is the Bruce Streaming Service scheduled to start ????

 

[Jimbo]

It is in the streaming forum, nothing wrong with it at all.

I would suggest, if a thread in the proper forum does not interest a member, they can pass it by.

I agree .
To a certain degree ....

We had the same thing happening in the Tesla Forum, oh wait, the Tesla Threads ....

Then those discussing Tesla go smart and posted thier info in one of the many threads already in existence

 

[SamCdbs]

If you read the actual article, and don't have an agenda (and understand the first thing about the TV business), you see that Nielsen breaks out "over the air" (the broadcast networks, no matter how received) and "cable" (the linear channels that people pay for, again no matter who they are paying), which is over 55% of all viewing. Streaming is a poor second at 38% and "other" is mostly playing video games.

And? Most people use streaming just like they used HBO back 20 years ago. A supplement. Nothing on linear TV, watch Peacock. Just like it was nothing on NBC, watch HBO, back then.

No real significant business trend to see here. Yes, are there people who are getting by with just streaming, saving those pennies? Sure. You show em. But linear television continues to rule the roost (especially when you consider that 90% of the material on streaming is gleaned from linear channels, and would not exist in the first place without it). The contention, which the OP has made, that local TV stations are going out of business within the decade, is not supported by these strong numbers.

But lets deal with the fantastic idea that if on just stomps ones feet and holds ones breath long enough Disney is just going to sell you ESPN a la carte, and for the discount price of $15. The math is just off. A la carte ESPN needs something upwards of $40 to 60 to just break even. Basic math. You see, its not what you want to pay, it is how much they have to make to make money. And that simply is not $15/month.

Still waiting on exactly what, especially considering how stuck in neutral the streams seem to be, streaming need to do to become profitable.

 

[navychop]

Maybe wait until ATSC 3 kills the golden goose?

 

[Bruce]

If you read the actual article, and don't have an agenda (and understand the first thing about the TV business), you see that Nielsen breaks out "over the air" (the broadcast networks, no matter how received) and "cable" (the linear channels that people pay for, again no matter who they are paying), which is over 55% of all viewing

And shrinking.

Those two added together one year ago 64.3 now 55.6 so a loss of 8.7
Steaming 27.7 to a 38.1 a gain of 10.4, so streaming gained more then what Broadcast/Cable lost, a trend to be sure
At this rate, streaming will overtake both easily by the end of 2025

. Streaming is a poor second at 38% and "other" is mostly playing video games.

Well since over 60 million households ( out of 129 million) do not have cable or any other Live TV Service, you can properly add broadcast to streaming because of OTA, your so called luxury TV is even a worse second at 30.9

And? Most people use streaming just like they used HBO back 20 years ago. A supplement. Nothing on linear TV, watch Peacock. Just like it was nothing on NBC, watch HBO, back then.

Streaming first for a lot of people, considering only 55 Million Households get Live TV via Cable/Satellite, that leaves 74 Million that do not and maybe stream ( at least 13 million get live TV via Streaming).
Welcome to the future.

News reports say the number one show this weekend was That 90’s Show….on Netflix.

No real significant business trend to see here. Yes, are there people who are getting by with just streaming, saving those pennies?

Saving those pennies and putting them into my investment account was the smartest thing we ever did, how is your retirement fund going, will you be able to retire in your early 50’s.

Only you can criticize someone for saving, yet only pay $65 for your DirecTV that you share with your landlord.

The contention, which the OP has made, that local TV stations are going out of business within the decade, is not supported by these strong numbers.

Really, if you ever start posting links instead of just your opinion, we might believe you

But lets deal with the fantastic idea that if on just stomps ones feet and holds ones breath long enough Disney is just going to sell you ESPN a la carte, and for the discount price of $15. The math is just off. A la carte ESPN needs something upwards of $40 to 60 to just break even. Basic math. You see, its not what you want to pay, it is how much they have to make to make money. And that simply is not $15/month.

That price was if it was no longer offered on Traditional Providers.

ESPN has already lost over 30 million subscribers that no longer pay per sub fees, how many more millions that they will lose before they offer a streaming version also, I say 10 million.

They already lost the Big Ten Contract because they could not compete with Fox, Peacock (NBC) and Paramount (CBS) because of money.

Still waiting on exactly what, especially considering how stuck in neutral the streams seem to be, streaming need to do to become profitable.

Disney+, Peacock and Paramount+ are expected to be Profitable in 2024, Netflix already is ( took a few years) Amazon and Apple treat streaming as a included benefit with their other services.

Warner/Discovery and AMC see above.

How many years did it take DirecTV to be profitable, you never answer that.

How many years before they no longer are.

Analysts are predicting a 3.5-4 million subscriber loss this year, 500,000 per quarter is what they normally lose, the rest this year because of Sunday Ticket leaving.

If so, they have maybe 3 years before they are no longer profitable.

 

[Radioguy41]

Of course some will.

Some will merge, some will start selling content instead, some will go out of business, some will make it.

People have funny memories, it took many years for both DirecTV and Dish to start making a profit, now that profit is getting less and less every quarter

Amazon and Netflix both were losing money for years, now look at them.

Ones that will make it-
Disney (Hulu, ESPN+, Disney+) in some form, I expect ESPN+ to become ESPN ( at around $15 a month) to start making up per subs they have lost, also it might need to pick up the slack when the RSNs collapse.
Netflix
Amazon
Apple

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with that assessment.

Disney has added more subs and still lost $1.2B. At some point they have to stop the bleeding, it's gone on far too long, especially with ESPN.

Netflix is bleeding subs and as more and more content creators are launching their own streaming services and bringing that content back in house Netflix has less and less to offer. Netflix is still approx $14B in debt from all the borrowing. At some point the lenders are going to want their money back, it's been going on for almost 10 years. They might make it but it's no slam dunk.

Amazon is the closest to a slam dunk.

Apple TV may or may not make it depending on whether subs lose interest in their flaky content and how much they are willing to spend to buy outside content. Frankly I think they were smart not to jump into that Sunday Ticket quicksand. That money's better spent on solid content.

 

[Bruce]

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with that assessment.

Disney has added more subs and still lost $1.2B. At some point they have to stop the bleeding, it's gone on far too long, especially with ESPN.

Disney is who said they will be profitable in 2024.

Netflix is bleeding subs and as more and more content creators are launching their own streaming services and bringing that content back in house Netflix has less and less to offer.

From another thread-
For all of those predicting the end of Netflix since they had a slight loss in Q1 & 2, another gain, this time +7.66 Million

-200,000 in Q1 2022
-970,000 in Q2 2022
+2.4 Million in Q3 2022
+7.66 Million in Q4 2022

so a gain of 8.89 Million for 2022.

Amazon is the closest to a slam dunk.

Apple TV may or may not make it depending on whether subs lose interest in their flaky content and how much they are willing to spend to buy outside content. Frankly I think they were smart not to jump into that Sunday Ticket quicksand. That money's better spent on solid content.

Sunday Ticket being a good or a bad idea cannot be proved yet, Amazon did want it but outbid by Google, Apple dropped out.

 

[Juan]

Disney+ profitability in 2024 tough to achieve

For Disney Plus profitability in 2024 the company must keep subs through price increases and the addition of ads. Can the company do it?

nscreenmedia.com

 

[Bruce]

Disney+ profitability in 2024 tough to achieve

For Disney Plus profitability in 2024 the company must keep subs through price increases and the addition of ads. Can the company do it?

nscreenmedia.com

That link is 3 months old and even quotes Bob Chapek as CEO and he has been canned since then.

Plans have changed, stuff I have been reading in my insider investment newsletters I get, selling off Hulu ( where they are losing the most money), changing ESPN+ to ESPN ( and raising the price) or selling it off, but Disney does not believe they will get a good enough offer for it based on current trends ( cord cutting).

Lastly, raise the price on Disney+, but not until the end of the year or early next year.

They really want to get rid of Hulu, Comcast is rumored to be interested in buying Disney’s share ( I always thought Disney would be buying Comcast’s share) but at a reduced price.

 

[Juan]

That link is 3 months old and even quotes Bob Chapek as CEO and he has been canned since then.

Plans have changed, stuff I have been reading in my insider investment newsletters I get, selling off Hulu ( where they are losing the most money), changing ESPN+ to ESPN ( and raising the price) or selling it off, but Disney does not believe they will get a good enough offer for it based on current trends ( cord cutting).

Lastly, raise the price on Disney+, but not until the end of the year or early next year.

They really want to get rid of Hulu, Comcast is rumored to be interested in buying Disney’s share ( I always thought Disney would be buying Comcast’s share) but at a reduced price.

Bob Chapek got fired..because of poor streaming performance

 

[ncted]

But lets deal with the fantastic idea that if on just stomps ones feet and holds ones breath long enough Disney is just going to sell you ESPN a la carte, and for the discount price of $15. The math is just off. A la carte ESPN needs something upwards of $40 to 60 to just break even. Basic math. You see, its not what you want to pay, it is how much they have to make to make money. And that simply is not $15/month.

How is this possible? ESPN isn't getting $40-60 per month from cable and satellite subs. Heck, I am only paying $65 per month for YTTV in total. It doesn't cost that much more for ESPN to deliver content via streaming than to a cable company for distribution. Where is the gap? This has always bothered me. Would someone please explain? Seriously.

 

[Bruce]

How is this possible? ESPN isn't getting $40-60 per month from cable and satellite subs. Heck, I am only paying $65 per month for YTTV in total. It doesn't cost that much more for ESPN to deliver content via streaming than to a cable company for distribution. Where is the gap? This has always bothered me. Would someone please explain? Seriously.

As I have explained to him multiple times, that price point was if ESPN only existed as a Netflix type service, no longer on Traditional Providers.

My price point of $15 was to exists alongside being on Traditional Live TV Providers.

This would be for the 32 Million that have canceled their Live TV over the last 10 years and the number is increasing.

That way ESPN can start making up the per sub fee lost, does that mean all 32 Million will subscribe, of course not, but millions would and I doubt ESPN is allergic to money.

By the way, if those 32 million never left Paid Live TV, at $9 per sub fee for both ESPN 1 and 2, that is $288 Million a month or $3.456 Billion a year.

Plus, this has been going on for years, so losses are a lot more.

This is why the sell ESPN talk has been growing louder from investors and bankers.

 

[SamCdbs]

How is this possible? ESPN isn't getting $40-60 per month from cable and satellite subs. Heck, I am only paying $65 per month for YTTV in total. It doesn't cost that much more for ESPN to deliver content via streaming than to a cable company for distribution. Where is the gap? This has always bothered me. Would someone please explain? Seriously.

Because "everybody" is paying for ESPN, whether they want it or not. About $8 a month. But, here is the rub, MOST people don't like sports, at least don't like them enough to pay Disney, given the choice. Streaming (non-linear streaming only, saving those pennies by doing without, thatle show em) allows people to opt out. If Disney were ever foolish enough to sell ESPN a la carte, ONLY people who want ESPN will have to pay for ESPN (and, selling it a la carte voids every deal Disney has with every provider, so we go from "everyone" paying $8 to NO ONE paying $8).

Just look at the actual ratings ESPN gets. The highest rated thing it has in the NFL. About a 6 rating. Meaning 94% didn't watch. Leaving that out the top ratings it gets are rarely above a 3.

So there you go. There is the "gap" as you call it. Under bundled linear television (be it delivered by cable or satellite or streaming) "everyone" pays a fairly small amount, and the consumer is protected. I pay for things you like, you pay for things I like, all across the nation. And thus there is a vast amount of content. Under "a la carte" you have to pay the full price for what you want. And the experts have run the numbers and, for ESPN, its is conservatively $40/month. For "all" the sports channels, including your local RSN, it is closer to $100. That is what the experts understand has to be paid for ESPN to cover the costs, which is to say what it is paying the leagues, and thus the players.

THAT, the cost of producing the material, and not some number pulled out of one's *** which the only math behind it is "that is what I would like to pay" is what MUST be paid for ESPN to be profitable.

Which is why ESPN is mega-profitable, staying in the bundled system, and Disney streaming, like most all streaming, is bleeding money.

The idea that is one just holds one breath long enough "they" will just have to sell you material that costs $30 or 40 a month to make per person who actually wants it, for $15 or some other unscientific number, is voodoo economics.