It didn't take streaming long to come full circle

[O.Red]

I don't even think multiple streaming services is an inherently bad thing. You don't HAVE to use all of them

What these services need to realize is they need to have better curation than they currently do. You're gonna need better brand recognition than "LOOK AT ALL THIS SHYT WE HAVE"

Ironically Tubi is doing a great job being known as the hood movies streamer. They also have a great collection of obscure, trashy, horror movies.

Hulu has all the women shows, AND sports.

Peacock has WWE but that damn near doesn't count because wtf else is Peacock known for? What is Paramount+ known for?

 

[melraH]

I got most services for free due to deals with my internet/cell provider

HBO Max, espn, Hulu, Disney+


For everything else there is usenet and debrid. I Pay exactly around 8 dollars a month and I got all bases covered. Only thing I pay extra for is NBA League pass and I get that for 5 Dollars a month.

so in total I pay 16 a month during NBA season. 8 a month the rest of the year and I dont miss a thing.

 

[winb83]

you're wrong...and a prime example is music - it didn't collapse, it adapted, streaming is putting money back into record labels' pockets.

TV and content wont collapse, people will do a variety of what we do now juggle subscriptions, password share, pirate, etc. people will not pay cable prices again, there's like maybe 5-8 shows that command (near) real time viewing (stranger things, house of the dragon, rings of power, etc), thus there is no urgency to need to spend $100 for multiple subscriptions at once nor buy annual plans. most shows people are happy to watch on their own time, therefore there is no need to keep hells subs

your premises are stuck on completely outdated ideas of content consumption, the only thing you're predicting correctly that multiple people have is consolidation and price increases. the low subscribership all these platforms have shows people have no plans to spend a ton on content all at once

The market leader in music streaming Spotify has never been profitable. Musicians aren't happy with the cut they get from that unprofitable company either. In this case only the labels and customers are happy with the current conditions. YouTube Music and Apple Music are loss leaders for their companies. Music streaming has the same problem. They can't be profitable at the prices they're currently at. Somebody had to become a loser for us to get where we are and that was mainly the artist.

Companies were willing to subsidize streaming when money was cheap and free. Now they're scrambling to come up with solutions to get themselves to profitability and that involves ending password sharing and raising prices. The business will evolve to get that money out of customers. Cable didn't start out as expensive and toxic as it got in it's later days. It grew to that and streaming will grow to that too. You honestly think these companies will just accept all this revenue and profit loss from the transition to streaming from cable and just shrug and let it happen?

It's like the mobile industry. In the early days it was contracts with night and weekend minutes, then text message limits. It shifted to data as users changed their habits. Now the contracts are gone and they just use people's phones to lock them in long term cutting out the subsidized upfront prices people had. People still paying these cell phone companies that $70 or so a month they were back in the day.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

The market leader in music streaming Spotify has never been profitable. Musicians aren't happy with the cut they get from that unprofitable company either. In this case only the labels and customers are happy with the current conditions. YouTube Music and Apple Music are loss leaders for their companies. Music streaming has the same problem. They can't be profitable at the prices they're currently at. Somebody had to become a loser for us to get where we are and that was mainly the artist.

Companies were willing to subsidize streaming when money was cheap and free. Now they're scrambling to come up with solutions to get themselves to profitability and that involves ending password sharing and raising prices. The business will evolve to get that money out of customers. Cable didn't start out as expensive and toxic as it got in it's later days. It grew to that and streaming will grow to that too. You honestly think these companies will just accept all this revenue and profit loss from the transition to streaming from cable and just shrug and let it happen?

It's like the mobile industry. In the early days it was contracts with night and weekend minutes, then text message limits. It shifted to data as users changed their habits. Now the contracts are gone and they just use people's phones to lock them in long term cutting out the subsidized upfront prices people had. People still paying these cell phone companies that $70 or so a month they were back in the day.

musicians need to take it up with labels, they negotiated the payouts with the streamers...and musicians may be worse off than when album sales were a thing but better off than they'd be if streaming didn't come along to at least recapture some of the lost revenue that would've been gone forever had pirating kept at the pace it was going from 2000-2010.

and you can't force profitability where people don't see value. sure the business objective is to turn a profit, but if consumers don't care about your product like that, you won't. raising prices yet having a smaller subscriber base isn't going to make you any more profitable than lower prices with more subscribers.

and a cell phone is a necessity, so is internet...they are utilities at this point, those aren't comparable comparisons. streaming is not a necessity, at best you pay for a month, cancel and get something new, at worst, you get it for free. absolutely nothing will stop content from getting to the internet.

like i said, you keep looking at this from a business perspective, we all know what the studios want, but you seem to not understand where consumers are. we're not moving backward and getting new consumers into their ecosystem will become even harder with younger generations who prefer to watch random shyt on youtube and clips on social media and don't have the same affinity for a ton of scripted content - they will not be bullied into multiple subscriptions.

what content do you think people are so captive to that they need to have $60-80 worth of subscriptions? comfort viewing is a thing because people log into these apps and cant find shyt to watch, outside of each platform's flagship shows, these platforms are not sticky enough to subscribe to year round

 

[humminbird]

I don't even think multiple streaming services is an inherently bad thing. You don't HAVE to use all of them

What these services need to realize is they need to have better curation than they currently do. You're gonna need better brand recognition than "LOOK AT ALL THIS SHYT WE HAVE"

Ironically Tubi is doing a great job being known as the hood movies streamer. They also have a great collection of obscure, trashy, horror movies.

Hulu has all the women shows, AND sports.

Peacock has WWE but that damn near doesn't count because wtf else is Peacock known for? What is Paramount+ known for?

I keep saying this
I'll still take this over cable any day
I can turn off the services as I choose

 

[CHICAGO]

you're wrong...and a prime example is music - it didn't collapse, it adapted, streaming is putting money back into record labels' pockets.

TV and content wont collapse, people will do a variety of what we do now juggle subscriptions, password share, pirate, etc. people will not pay cable prices again, there's like maybe 5-8 shows that command (near) real time viewing (stranger things, house of the dragon, rings of power, etc), thus there is no urgency to need to spend $100 for multiple subscriptions at once nor buy annual plans. most shows people are happy to watch on their own time, therefore there is no need to keep hella subs

your premises are stuck on completely outdated ideas of content consumption, the only thing you're predicting correctly that multiple people have is consolidation and price increases. the low subscribership all these platforms have shows people have no plans to spend a ton on content all at once

LMAO

IT DOESNT COST ANY SIGNIFICANT
MONEY TO MAKE A SONG.

ITS COSTS MILLIONS UPON
MILLIONS TO CREATE THESE SHOWS
AND MOVIES.

MUSIC INDUSTRY WAS MAKING
10000% PROFIT BEFOREHAND.


​

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

LMAO

IT DOESNT COST ANY SIGNIFICANT
MONEY TO MAKE A SONG.

ITS COSTS MILLIONS UPON
MILLIONS TO CREATE THESE SHOWS
AND MOVIES.

MUSIC INDUSTRY WAS MAKING
10000% PROFIT BEFOREHAND.


​

artists absolutely had millions dumped into projects back in the day - marketing, videos, paying songwriters and producers, payola, stylists etc. the cost has gone down now and that's good since revenue has gone down, but as to what the industry was making before, that was like before 02 - revenue declined for over a decade straight until streaming really started picking up in 2014. so sure, music aint making what it was in 1999, but it sure as hell is making more than what it was in 2009 and what it would be making without streaming.

and not all shows and movies on these platforms have huge budgets, the ones that do, usually have the ROI to justify it. that's literally the whole point i'm making, there aren't enough sticky shows for customers to stick with platforms year round...streamers need to scale back content, raise prices, and consolidate - but with that, anyone with any pulse on consumers knows that will trigger more people to rotate subscriptions vs just subscribing to everything on an ongoing basis

 

[CHICAGO]

artists absolutely had millions dumped into projects back in the day - marketing, videos, paying songwriters and producers, payola, stylists etc. the cost has gone down now and that's good since revenue has gone down, but as to what the industry was making before, that was like before 02 - revenue declined for over a decade straight until streaming really started picking up in 2014. so sure, music aint making what it was in 1999, but it sure as hell is making more than what it was in 2009 and what it would be making without streaming.

and not all shows and movies on these platforms have huge budgets, the ones that do, usually have the ROI to justify it. that's literally the whole point i'm making, there aren't enough sticky shows for customers to stick with platforms year round...streamers need to scale back content, raise prices, and consolidate - but with that, anyone with any pulse on consumers knows that will trigger more people to rotate subscriptions vs just subscribing to everything on an ongoing basis

LMAO

ALL OF THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM
THE ARTISTS BUDGET.

THEY DIDNT SEE A DIME
OF THEIR RECORD SALE MONEY
UNTIL THAT WAS RECOUPED.

LABELS ALWAYS HAD THE GAME RIGGED FOR RIDICULOUS PROFITS.

IF ACTORS DIDNT GET PAID
UNTIL THE MOVIE/AD BUDGET WAS RECOUPED YOU WOULD HAVE A COMPARISON.


​

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

LMAO

ALL OF THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM
THE ARTISTS BUDGET.

THEY DIDNT SEE A DIME
OF THEIR RECORD SALE MONEY
UNTIL THAT WAS RECOUPED.

LABELS ALWAYS HAD THE GAME RIGGED FOR RIDICULOUS PROFITS.

IF ACTORS DIDNT GET PAID
UNTIL THE MOVIE/AD BUDGET WAS RECOUPED YOU WOULD HAVE A COMPARISON.


​

the artists budget is the money the label fronts, just like a production budget is what a studio fronts (actor salaries are part of that)...it doesn't matter when the artist gets paid, we're not discussing their payment, we're discussing how much revenue to the industry as a whole made. the music industry is making more now than it would without streaming

 

[CHICAGO]

the artists budget is the money the label fronts, just like a production budget is what a studio fronts (actor salaries are part of that)...it doesn't matter when the artist gets paid, we're not discussing their payment, we're discussing how much revenue to the industry as a whole made. the music industry is making more now than it would without streaming

THE MUSIC ARTIST PAYS THE
LABEL BACK FOR THE BUDGET....
ACTORS DONT PAY A THING BACK.

WHICH MEANS THE MUSIC LABEL
ISNT TAKING A L
WHILE THE FILM INDUSTRY DOES.


​

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

THE MUSIC ARTIST PAYS THE
LABEL BACK FOR THE BUDGET....
ACTORS DONT PAY A THING BACK.

WHICH MEANS THE MUSIC LABEL
ISNT TAKING A L
WHILE THE FILM INDUSTRY DOES.


​

if the project doesn't generate enough money, the label doesn't [fully] recoup and def doesn't make a profit. at the end of the day, top line revenue needs to cover costs in both cases

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

But gamepass will save gaming

@Rekkapryde @Khalil's_Black_Excellence @Fatboi1

 

[CHICAGO]

if the project doesn't generate enough money, the label doesn't [fully] recoup and def doesn't make a profit. at the end of the day, top line revenue needs to cover costs in both cases

LOSING 50-100K (RARE)
ON AN ALBUM
THAT DIDNT RECOUP IS NOT THE
SAME AS LOSING 100 MILLION
ON A FILM PROJECT.



​

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

LOSING 50-100K ON AN ALBUM
THAT DIDNT RECOUP IS NOT THE
SAME AS LOSING 100 MILLION
ON A FILM PROJECT.



​

labels have more projects than studios and studios may do 1-2 100M films/yr and those fail at a lower rate than their smaller budget flicks. finally, the revenue a studio brings in is much greater than what a label brings in, 20th century is seeing $2B from Avatar alone, what record label is seeing $2B from one album?

at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the cost and spend was. if a label spends $10M on all it's artists projects and only makes $8M back, they're down the same 20% that a studio who spends $100M for all its films but only makes $80M back is...-20% is showing up on both their balance sheets.

 

[CHICAGO]

labels have more projects than studios and studios may do 1-2 100M films/yr and those fail at a lower rate than their smaller budget flicks. finally, the revenue a studio brings in is much greater than what a label brings in, 20th century is seeing $2B from Avatar alone, what record label is seeing $2B from one album?

at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the cost and spend was. if a label spends $10M on all it's artists projects and only makes $8M back, they're down the same 20% that a studio who spends $100M for all its films but only makes $80M back is...-20% is showing up on both their balance sheets.

RECORD COMPANIES WERENT TAKING LS PERIOD.

"Record companies have a 5% success rate. That means that 5% of all records released by major labels go gold or platinum. How do record companies get away with a 95% failure rate that would be totally unacceptable in any other business? Record companies keep almost all the profits. Recording artists get paid a tiny fraction of the money earned by their music. That allows record executives to be incredibly sloppy in running their companies and still create enormous amounts of cash for the corporations that own them.


The royalty rates granted in every recording contract are very low to start with and then companies charge back every conceivable cost to an artist's royalty account. Artists pay for recording costs, video production costs, tour support, radio promotion, sales and marketing costs, packaging costs and any other cost the record company can subtract from their royalties. Record companies also reduce royalties by "forgetting" to report sales figure, miscalculating royalties and by preventing artists from auditing record company books"

YOU CANT COMPARE THE
CROOKED MUSIC INDUSTRY
TO THE FILM INDUSTRY.


​