-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
LA Times: Streaming services facing "churn" issue (people cancel after finishing what they wanted to see)
- Thread starter Hamster Plugin
- Start date
I don't think this analogy makes any sense unless Netflix pays the company per view or something.
Given that this was the industry model three years ago, I don't see how it doesn't make sense.
Wait. What thread did you mean to post this in? I support you fam. Starhawk IS better. It just never got a fair shake.
It was the industry's model before everyone had their own service. What you're saying is more akin to Target paying through the nose for their own line of exclusives, then selling them at Walmart and everywhere else. It makes sense if Target doesn't have their own line of competing stores. I get that your example was Apple but that's more of a boutique thing, not everyone has easy access to their stores, and they provide an additional service for customers.
lol there's a PS3 thread in the gaming side I guess I fatfingered
PS3 ENTHUSIASTS ASSEMBLE! Let's list all of the Must-own/play PS3 content
Armored Core 4Answer. I never did get gud at it, but damn if it wasn't the closest I ever felt to being an ace gundam or veritech fighter pilot
www.resetera.com
This is true, and time will probably bear this out. However if you have your own service and you want it to be successful, you need to have your own exclusives (or be at a bargain price compared to your competitors) or you won't have a service for long.
And if everyone says fuck it and just pirates again, you won't have a service either.
So after making entertainment products litterally worthless, they also are now trying to hide the fact that they can't retain audiences. These models are so toxic for the creators, and will eventually make the entire industry worthless as it is not sustainable. As a musician, I can't see how this is going to end well. Not sure about the film industry and these contracts pan out.
Given that the problem is that people don't sign up again, I don't see how that would help...
They'll bank on people suffering from FOMO and being spoiled to sub for the shows run. Obviously that won't impact everyone, but it's easily the best card to counter the "wait till it's all up for a one month sub" option.
That works for a ton of things, though, that need to see/experience something while it's "new" even though the solo experience is the same later on when it's much cheaper. First run movies in a theater, videogames at launch, videogame systems at launch, comic books, etc.
Pretty much. The goal is to have 2-3 new shows premiering every couple months.
This is why big budget movies on a streaming service doesn't make financial sense - if you have $200 million to spend on new content, you're going to spend it on multiple shows that span 6-8 weeks to keep subscribers, not a single 2 hour movie.
No shit, why would anyone pay for something they don't use? For me, it doesn't matter if there are 3 or 20 different services. Even when Netflix was the only Streaming service I would cancel if there was nothing to watch.
The idea is it would keep them from cancelling in the first place.
OK, I must be missing something. If someone cancels their subscription because they've watched everything they wanted, and the problem is that they don't subscribe back... how is making them unable to resubscribe a deterrent? :D
you're a bad person who's hurting the economy and American workers. You need at least 10 subscriptions to do your part. 20 if you're a a real patriot!
With Netflix going Cashflow positive for the first time this year i can't see how many streaming services would be able to compete. Maybe Disney and Apple(if they open the check book).
Netflix is gonna steamroll the industry even harder now that they aren't dependent on outside funding anymore.
Netflix is gonna steamroll the industry even harder now that they aren't dependent on outside funding anymore.
I have the opposite problem in that I subscribe to stuff and then keep them long after I stop watching. I bought Peacock specifically for SNL re-runs, AP Bio, and some others and have barely watched any of it. I have ROH Honor Club, Impact Plus, Netflix, Hulu, Disney, and CBS, I believe, along with Sling. I only watch SNL on Hulu, at least new episodes anyways. My wife won't let me cancel Netflix or Hulu, even though she doesn't use Hulu much, and I don't use either much. All I watch is a few things on Sling, and lately, wrestling on Impact Plus. I have a problem.
The churn issue is a byproduct of too many of these stupid services. Consolidation would lead to more content per platform, which would improve retention. But of course, no one is going to do that, because everyone wants a piece of the pie.
Competition is good for the consumer, but the current situation is absurd. It really should shrink back down to 2-3 services.
Competition is good for the consumer, but the current situation is absurd. It really should shrink back down to 2-3 services.
This is how I treat them. Everything I want to watch is spread out over several services and I'm certainly not going to keep them all on the off chance simmering else grabs me.
I have a feeling that only Netflix is capable of a constant flow of new content
My mon watches every day, and I go back from time to time
I have Amazon prime but only because is very cheap. I also have HBO Go, but this one I asked a friend to pay with me
My mon watches every day, and I go back from time to time
I have Amazon prime but only because is very cheap. I also have HBO Go, but this one I asked a friend to pay with me
Same here. The only service I don't cancel is Prime Video, and that's only because it's bundled with something I constantly use.
Sure, but that is on Netflix (and the other services) to figure out, not me as a consumer. As long as Netflix has (more than) enough content for me as a viewer, I don't care how it gets there. I will subscribe to whatever services provide me the content I want, so they will need to continue to invest in themselves in order to keep subscribers. Over time, some will sign up and binge and others will simply stay subscribed. But as long as there is (new) content coming regularly there should be enough viewers to maintain it.
I didn't say it was on you as a consumer; I'm saying it's a problem that Netflix could face. My only point that is consumer facing is about how Netflix misleads their users to think they own more content than they do by labeling stuff as Netflix Original even though it's just licensed content and that they don't really own it.
I don't really think it's misleading unless people are that naive that they think Netflix is producing all the content themselves. Until the content shows up on other services it is still a Netflix Original, whether they own the rights or are just licensing it fox x number of years or months.
As for it being a long-term problem, it's possible, but I think Netflix has positioned themselves well enough to have a healthy stream of new (or at least exclusive) content. Outside of Disney, I don't really see that many companies willing to pull their content exclusively into their own offerings, particularly if the churn is a real problem they fear.
Currently paying $51.70 a month for seven different services:
Amazon Prime Video (Essentially free since we get Prime for other reasons) - hardly ever watch anything on it
Apple TV+ (free until July) — we never watch it
Peacock - Currently paying about ~8.25 a month after promo (need it for Premiere League soccer)
Netflix 19.56 a month - It's Netflix
Hbo Max - 13.05 a month - (HBO and DC content)
Cbs All Access 10.84 a month (Champions League Soccer)
Disney+ - subbed for three years so effectively free at this point (Marvel, Lucas content)
That still about $70 cheaper than what I used to pay monthly for DirecTV.
Amazon Prime Video (Essentially free since we get Prime for other reasons) - hardly ever watch anything on it
Apple TV+ (free until July) — we never watch it
Peacock - Currently paying about ~8.25 a month after promo (need it for Premiere League soccer)
Netflix 19.56 a month - It's Netflix
Hbo Max - 13.05 a month - (HBO and DC content)
Cbs All Access 10.84 a month (Champions League Soccer)
Disney+ - subbed for three years so effectively free at this point (Marvel, Lucas content)
That still about $70 cheaper than what I used to pay monthly for DirecTV.
I think it is because the Netflix Original tagging distinguishes it and a lot of people think Netflix outright owns the content when they don't. There is a lot of content that people don't realize is licensed as a result. That's the definition of misleading.
Everyone is pulling their content now hence all these services. Companies are letting their streaming rights expire so they can reclaim their content. If Netflix isn't producing and owning enough of their own content and companies start restricting what they license out, that's a problem for Netflix. When you own your own content, you have complete control over it. Netflix is giving the illusion that they do when they don't on a lot of stuff. If this shift of movies from theatrical releases actually happens, that's just going to highlight Netflix's deficiency even more. This has always been a problem that Netflix has faced and they've acknowledge it as such. They need to control their own destiny by owning their own content so that they don't rely on the other content providers who now have their own services. I'm not saying they don't own anything, but I think the Netflix Original tag is certainly fooling enough people to think they own more than they really do.
There may be some new show that drops and becomes a hit that they have to miss out on because they're banned from signing up again. I think it'd be a stupid thing to try, personally, but I was just throwing out the notion because it's what AMC and other theater chains did for their subscription services.
I dunno. It's why I put "problem" in quotes. I don't know that there IS a fix for this.
You're not wrong, the content is great. But why would I continue pay for the service when I'm done with what interests me? I can always just start paying again when there's more things I'm ready to watch. It's shockingly convenient.
I think the business model lends itself well to people coming and going. Obviously holding onto customers is something they consider an issue, so they'll have to change something to keep people around if that's an objective.
They cannot simple let stream rights run, for many of the older shows, the have to pay royalties to the actors, etc. They need to pay a fair market price for the show even if they produced the show originally.
Nobody said they weren't valuating their content at market value in order to pay their contract obligations. That doesn't change the fact that content providers are letting contracts expire without renewing them in order to be able to now use that content to fill out their service. That is definitely happening.