the only ones I NEED for day one seeing are on D+ and Netflix...........after that its just a cycle of whenever someone has enough for me to watch.
Peacock Lost $1.7 Billion in 2021, More Than Double Year Prior; Comcast to Up Streamer’s Content Spending to $3 Billion This Year
- Thread starter Shard Shinjuku
- Start date
- News
I know it's small potatoes in drawing subscribers, but symbolically speaking the fact that Jurassic Park animated spinoff series is on Netflix and not Peacock kind of speaks for itself.
Peacock was too late to the party. There are already too many streaming services to compete against an NBC only streaming service. Also the name is completely stupid. I don't think I have heard anybody take it seriously.
Stop wasting your money and make a partnership with one of the other major streamers. I'm not paying for peacock when I am alredy paying for Netflix, Amazon, hulu, Disney, Paramount, apple, and HBO. There is just no way unless it can surpass the others in quality, and, it likely can't.
Stop wasting your money and make a partnership with one of the other major streamers. I'm not paying for peacock when I am alredy paying for Netflix, Amazon, hulu, Disney, Paramount, apple, and HBO. There is just no way unless it can surpass the others in quality, and, it likely can't.
I would like someone who knows way more about sports/media than I do to do more research on this, but I am curious if deciding to dump the NHL and just use Soccer as their big live sports push backfired a bit. European Soccer does great in the prime 18-49 demographic but not great in overall viewership. For TV, this is fine- ad rates are determined more on your 18-49 demo than your overall viewership, so a show that does 2 million viewers but only 200K are 18-49 is a "worse" show than a show that does 600K viewers but 400K of them are 18-49. But streaming services are not like TV- it's more about paid subs and overall usership, not about key demographics. So I doubt that they are getting value for the money they are paying for the premier league when viewed in the context of "making Peacock successful"
I get free sub through Amex, watch the Office occasionally and some Premier League games (they only show half). Will drop it when its no longer free.
Peacock and Paramount are too late and too similar. I subbed to one of the two and could not for the life of you say which it was because it didn't have originals and I'm not going to binge a random 90s sitcom at this point in my life.
To put this into perspective from 2021 in terms of subscriber additions here are the major players:
HBO Max currently at a little over 73.5 million +13 million from December 2020 (includes HBO Cable subscribers as well as HBO Max)
Paramount+ currently at 47 million +17 million from December 2020 (First 9 months of the year as hasn't reported earnings, also includes all ViacomBCS streaming services i.e. Showtime, Noggin, BET+ etc.)
Netflix is at just shy of 222 million subscribers and grew +18 million from December 2020.
Disney+ is at 118 million and grew 24 million from December 2020 (first 9 months as they haven't reported their most recent earnings yet) If you want to include ESPN+ (17 million and up 5 million) and Hulu (44 million and up 4 million) they grew by 33 million in the first 9 months of 2021.
Peacock isn't anywhere close to the companies above, Amazon doesn't regularly report numbers but last time they did they had 175 million subscribers who had used Prime Video in the last 12 months and Apple TV+ has never reported numbers.
I think given international expansion Disney will also win 2022 as they have a big 42 market expansion planned this Summer. HBO Max not having day and date movies will be interesting to see the impact there but I imagine it grows around the same 10-15 million this year, Netflix and Paramount+ may very well be around that number as well.
Good. Lose more money and go back to shilling your shit content on other platforms.
Read the fucking room.
Read the fucking room.
We only signed up for Peacock to watch the last Olympics...and then they didn't show the Olympics on it. Not in a comprehensible way anyway.
All their big shows and I'm watching The Mentalist. I love the variety of programming they have.
They'd be wise to let us watch more content ad-supported. A bunch of programs have maybe 1 episode you can watch without paying a fee and then you need to sub. The system as it stands sucks. They should change it to free with the most ad breaks, $5 with fewer, $10 with none. Right now I just don't watch any shows that require me to sub. I pay for enough stuff now -- I love soccer but it isn't enough to get me to pay more than the $85 a month or whatever our Hulu Live now costs.
I only sub to Peacock for a month here and there when my Premier League team's matches aren't on an actual broadcast channel, but even when I have access, I rarely see anything that I truly want to watch outside of soccer/football. These numbers aren't all that surprising.
Too late, and too low on the streaming priority list. Comcast will continue to burn money on Peacock, but it's days are numbered regardless
This is pretty cool breakdown.
Yea, content wise, it's hard to argue HBO Max doesn't have the strongest out of the major streaming services.
Thank you, a few minutes to put together so glad you like it.
Man I can't wait for streaming service saturation in video games in 10 years
my guess is some services like peacock that are smaller eventually strike deals to fold into others like Disney plus, etc
my guess is some services like peacock that are smaller eventually strike deals to fold into others like Disney plus, etc
I saw a trailer for Bel-Air and it looked really nice. Not sure I would subscribe to Peacock for it, but I would binge-watch on a trial membership.
Paramount has been around for many years now under a different name. It's also got actually legitimately good and popular shows. It's name shouldn't be uttered in the same breath as Peacock. It's better both for users and investors.
I think Paramount can succeed. It's doing the right thing. Peacock cannot.
This right here. Every streaming service has some good to great shows it's a matter of time and money at this point in the consumer end
So… they would have been more profitable licensing their content and doing nothing instead of building another streaming service?
I get if for "free" with my internet but the box/remote for it sucks. Only time I use it if want something on in the background, so I'll put Parks N' Rec on.
I literally was planning to let my one year sub expire next week. The service just isn't worth it.
I also cancelled Disney+ and ESPN+ last week. Additionally I cancelled Netflix last year. Too much choice is a bad thing. Going forward HBO, Hulu (my wife's fav show is on there) and amazon prime (more for delivery) are my mainstays. Everything else I'll just sub for a month then cancel once I've watched what interests me.
It was a really informative post. Nice job!
I also cancelled Disney+ and ESPN+ last week. Additionally I cancelled Netflix last year. Too much choice is a bad thing. Going forward HBO, Hulu (my wife's fav show is on there) and amazon prime (more for delivery) are my mainstays. Everything else I'll just sub for a month then cancel once I've watched what interests me.
It was a really informative post. Nice job!
They still do license some of their content. They also realize they need to have a DTC service to mitigate losses attributable to cutting the cord in the future.
Unlike Sony, NBCUniversal is of scale that they're not just stalling until someone acquired them with an "arms dealer" strategy.
It isn't a big loss by streaming service standards. Indeed, one of Peacock's big issues is that they're not losing enough, because they're not investing in content as much as everyone else is. Disney, HBO, Paramount and historically Netflix are burning WAY more than a billion and a half cash a year. Even Apple are burning about that much.
Comcast has to be seen to be part of streaming to satisfy Wall Street but at the same time they don't want to cannibalise their dwindling but still very profitable cable business. As such this 'half in, half out' approach means that they aren't serious about competing in the 'streaming wars'. Post Olympics and having the EPL in their corner with the WWE is probably what got them to 9 million but where will the growth come from?
As I've said before I don't know where Comcast goes from here with NBC-U, while it is still doing well now where will it be in five/ten years time? If it has dwindled to a point where it is just a minnow against the likes of Netflix, Disney and WB/Discovery then they have little to no leverage when it comes to a possible merger with another player. Then they'll have to sell themselves for parts or accept a much lower deal.
While Universal doesn't have the big ticket IP that WB and Disney has they could still have exclusive Fast&Furious, Illumination and Jurassic Park series on Peacock if they wanted to but would they really want to risk their 'AAA' IP on what is still a much smaller streaming platform when it could get a global debut on the likes of Netflix etc? And while they have the Pay 1 window for their films in the US it is a shared window with Amazon so even that feels like they're pulling their punches with their own content, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Unless they finally 'cash out' of Hulu and place all that content onto Peacock (the worry then being that all their NBC etc content won't be as visible on Peacock as Hulu and thus could decline in popularity etc) it feels like Comcast aren't convinced by Peacock themselves.
Yellowstone is actually streaming exclusively on Peacock in the US rather than Paramount + .
As I've said before I don't know where Comcast goes from here with NBC-U, while it is still doing well now where will it be in five/ten years time? If it has dwindled to a point where it is just a minnow against the likes of Netflix, Disney and WB/Discovery then they have little to no leverage when it comes to a possible merger with another player. Then they'll have to sell themselves for parts or accept a much lower deal.
While Universal doesn't have the big ticket IP that WB and Disney has they could still have exclusive Fast&Furious, Illumination and Jurassic Park series on Peacock if they wanted to but would they really want to risk their 'AAA' IP on what is still a much smaller streaming platform when it could get a global debut on the likes of Netflix etc? And while they have the Pay 1 window for their films in the US it is a shared window with Amazon so even that feels like they're pulling their punches with their own content, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Unless they finally 'cash out' of Hulu and place all that content onto Peacock (the worry then being that all their NBC etc content won't be as visible on Peacock as Hulu and thus could decline in popularity etc) it feels like Comcast aren't convinced by Peacock themselves.
Yellowstone is actually streaming exclusively on Peacock in the US rather than Paramount + .
Man, you almost need a map to keep track of what shows are on what services.
Especially with Viacom stuff given that South Park is on HBO Max (hence the need for the 'TV movies' on P+ to fill the void) and the live action Airbender series on Netflix which is why Paramount are doubling down on a slate of animated projects again for P+.
I currently pay for Prime and Netflix, get HBO Max via ATT, and share my family's Disney+ account. I'm maxed out on streaming services. There's just nothing interesting enough to get me into the other streaming services.
Also worth noting that a free, ad supported version of Peacock launched on Sky (which Comcast also owns) in Europe (certainly the UK) which makes me wonder how that figured into their sub figures/finanicals...
Off the top of my head I think it's 2025. Though in saying that i wouldn't be surprised of Viacom is sold off before then, likely to Warner Bros Discovery given the very narrow field of plausible buyers.
Off the top of my head I think it's 2025. Though in saying that i wouldn't be surprised of Viacom is sold off before then, likely to Warner Bros Discovery given the very narrow field of plausible buyers.
I doubt much, there's very little content on UK Peacock that Sky didn't have the rights to anyway. Content spend must be in the single digit millions pa.
