this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
255 points (98.5% liked)

News

23597 readers
4241 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.

Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Comcast and Paramount—US entertainment conglomerates that have been growing ever larger for decades—are facing pressure to shrink or sell legacy businesses, scale back production and slash costs following billions in losses from their digital platforms.

“TV advertising is falling far short, cord-cutting is continuing to accelerate, sports costs are going up and the movie business is not performing,” he said. “Everything is going wrong that can go wrong. The only thing [the companies] know how to do to survive is try to merge and cut costs.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nobody 100 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Netflix was one place you could go to get a massive amount of quality content. Now, that content is divided among a dozen apps, each one perpetually raising prices and trying to include advertising.

Negotiate a bundle that recreates the old Netflix experience, price it reasonably, and promise absolutely no ads ever in writing. I’d sign up for that service and keep my subscription perpetually. Like we all did with Netflix.

[–] echo64 21 points 11 months ago (5 children)

That "reasonable" pricing needs to cover all of the development of tv and (most of) movies that we have today. This was the entire problem with the Netflix model.

The netflix experience of old only worked because media companies licensed shows and movies to it like they do to broadcasters in other companies. Paramount in 2011 is as happy to license Frasier to Netflix as they are to the BBC.

This only works when the media companies are making enough money via their main business, as such that licensing is just extra profit.

Netflix ate their lunch and devalued the entire ecosystem. Netflix sold the lie that tv can be made on 10 bucks a month instead of 100 like cable was. The economics of that just don't work, however. So now we have an industry where the bottom has fallen out entirely.

Maybe you'll be okay with a 100/month netflix subscription. I doubt most would. But that's what it would need to be to be the one subscription you have like it used to be. There's no cable audience to fall back on now.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yep, so they're all going to continue to merge until there's 1-3 mega streamers, then they'll all add advertising, and we'll have come full circle.

Then there will be some new service which streams content directly to your brain and we'll begin again and continue until we have advertisements in our dreams.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Futurama did this already. I'm fine with just Hypnotoad.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Movies still make most of their money at the cinema. They can't survive without that. I can accept movies and TV moving to the Super Netflix after six months or so.

TV is kind of harder, especially for the really high budget stuff.

They need to have it like music, where you have multiple services but they all have the same content. Maybe some are cheap and cheerful 1080p stereo, and some are more expensive full fat 4K HDR Dolby TrueHD. But everything needs to be on it and stay on it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think Netflix has actually shown that it can be done a lot cheaper. They've pivoted to producing way more original content than just about anyone else, and it's still profitable. They just aren't paying for big names or marketing for most in house productions.

If anything, Netflix has shown us that movie stars are obsolete. Casting a "Ryan Reynolds type" saves $100M on production, so you can just do it 20 times and if a few of those productions are hits you'll make most money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Non-American here, 100/month for cable means channels have no ads? Is 100/month a normal price?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Oh I wish. Aside from premium services like HBO, "cable TV" in the US is still full of ads. It's just not "broadcast tv" (the original OTA channels)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rakonat 63 points 11 months ago

It's almost like you assholes shouldn't have cut up all your content into exclusive services, denying your 'competitors' the right to by rights to stream them and kick you back a % of the profit and you definitely shouldn't have jacked up your rates as your libraries shrunk dramatically, leading to a situation worse than where cable was 20 years.

Oh, and the moment you dared suggest I pay you a premium and still watch ads, you lost my subscription.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The only thing [the companies] know how to do to survive is try to merge and cut costs.>

I mean, you could put out some quality programming...naaahhhhhhh

[–] MrFappy 47 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Netflix does that, but then they cancel the shows before they can truly succeed.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's because of all the depressed people sitting in their bed forts and watching Friends for 10 hours a day every day. Why make a good new shows when the old garbage steamrolls them all in watch time.

[–] MrFappy 5 points 11 months ago

Hey, their new garbage gets a lot of views too. Look at Wednesday. I wasn’t a fan, even though that should’ve been right up my alley, but I still watched, and so did everyone else apparently, based on the numbers they released anyway.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Indeed. Netflix is the new FOX TV network. The shows that I loved the most on Netflix are gone and replaced with lower budget reality. Such a bummer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 11 months ago

Those dumb bastards. Did they think we had unlimited money to spend on this shit?

Do you want Grandpa to pirate? Because this is how you get Grandpa to pirate.

[–] AllonzeeLV 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

"You will pay out the ass for cheap to produce, incoherent, patronizing 'Reality' garbage, because you don't deserve more, and you will be grateful."

-capitalists

Hey, fun fact: capitalists and pirates are natural enemies. ☠️ Yo ho ho.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Capitalists and pirates.

One is a turpitudinous group of greed-mongers that engages in despicable acts, operating outside the bounds of all morality and civility, fueled by the pursuit of stolen wealth and ill-gotten gains, preying on innocents, not above committing the most heinous acts of violence against their very brethren for the slightest sliver of filthy gold.

The other are pirates.

[–] AllonzeeLV 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Pirates are at least honest in intention. "Give us yer shit or we take it by the means at our disposal!"

Capitalists lie like breathing when it comes to their intent. It's literally about getting more than the person accross the table. Many of them lie to themselves about this to feel honest. They call their greed and lack of integrity "rational self-interest" 🤣

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] YoBuckStopsHere 7 points 11 months ago

Pirates were very democratic and shared the loot. Capitalists kept to to themselves and gave little to their employees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hightrix 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Reading between the lines, the days of adfree streaming are coming to an end.

Assuming this continues, expect the big player to start including ads and, the next step will be removing adfree plans entirely.

Get you torrenting and Usenet skills up to par. You’re gonna need them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 11 months ago

Streaming services got so shitty so quickly

[–] GrammatonCleric 28 points 11 months ago

Cable TV never left, it just deconstructed itself, then made a Jenga tower out of the pieces

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We will end up with Disney / Hulu and Netflix. The rest will die off.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Those are the only two I have right now. Lol And free Prime, until the ads kick in.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

I have been getting Prime ads for a while now and they are all ads for Amazon. Sometimes, the same ads would play back to back. If the continuous ads about Amazon weren't bad enough, they were of horrendous production quality as well.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The last thing I want is services merging and combining into a giant cable package.

[–] thantik 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I mean, it's either they don't merge, and you have 8 different $15/month services each to be able to watch everything, or they do merge and you end up paying $120 for access to everything.

We've come full circle... >_>

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I prefer having the choice. That's what was bad about cable - you had to buy the bundle for one channel, and they lumped a bunch of other stuff you didn't want in with it.

Have it been so long that people forgot how shitty this was?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You can also choose to pay nothing and sail the high seas to get your favorite shows to watch on whatever device you prefer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

I agree... But work is demanding and I have my family to think about, time wise. I don't have the the time to properly deal with it, and I currently like the "subscribe to what you want" model.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I hated cable/sat TV for this packaging but now with over 15 years since I cut the cord I wonder if they had the technology back then to piece meal out the channels to every single subscriber?

I'm not letting them off the hook for purposely packaging 1 good channel with 5 turd channels and then repeating this with the remaining good channels but I do wonder if there were any technical limits to how the channels were sold?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Absolutely not, they bundled because they knew no one would subscribe to certain channels individually. That and a combination of licensing deals. They could just have easily sold each channel a la cart.

The tech behind cable was the same RF signals as OTA, just pumped through a network of coax (and the days it's digital over hybrid fiber coax via DOCSIS). Channels are encrypted at the headend and decrypted by your set top box, which is programmed from the mothership to know which channels you do or don't subscribe to. They could have easily sold each channel on its own, but the media companies who own the content know no one is going to subscribe to the turd channels, so they bundle them with the most popular ones to ensure they'll at least be scrolled through, all so that they can sell the space to advertisers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Orrrrr they can treat it like music streaming and the IP goes to multiple platforms. I have no idea if that is economically viable.

[–] GlitzyArmrest 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I hope they continue to lose billions, the listed companies are some of the most greedy, especially Comcast.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] newthrowaway20 17 points 11 months ago

They've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.

[–] rivermonster 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Their greed forced everyone to the high seas. There's no reason to head back to land anytime soon. Gyarrrrrr!

[–] CaptainSpaceman 5 points 11 months ago

Yarr harr, fiddle dee dee!!!!

[–] squirrelwithnut 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Just go back to selling the broadcast rights to Netflix. You no longer have to pay development costs, infrastructure costs, the staff to maintain it, or advertising. The IP owners still get sizeable revenue, massively reduced cost, and customers go back to having a simple, one-provider way of easily and legally streaming everything they want that is worth watching. It's literally a win-win for everyone. Except it will never happen, because the IP owners want ALL the money; some money just isn't good enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rainerloeten 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Can somebody "translate" or rephrase the headline for me? I kinda have troubles sometimes reading headlines in English, they just don't make any sense to me. When comparing German headlines (my native tongue), I guess the reason for that is heavy usage of ellipses(?)

[–] EmpathicVagrant 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Netflix is the only one still making money, the other streaming companies are going to compensate by selling//merging instead of changing their pricing and business model to adapt to (lack of) demand for their overpriced nonsense.

[–] rainerloeten 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Ohh, rivals is a noun here, I read it as a verb 😅 Thank you!

[–] hansl 9 points 11 months ago

That’s called a garden path sentence, and I as an ESL love those.

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

[–] AngryCommieKender 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Totally understandable. I'm fluent in English and had to read the headline a couple of times to realize that distinction to get it to make sense.

Capitalization of "rivals" could have helped with clarity, but I don't know how to tell the headline writer that

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The irony is that they were actually making money licensing their content, and that consolidation also largely kept consumers happy, but then they got greedy. I really hope some white collars actually bleed for this, but I'm sure these idiots will just blame bad tech like usual.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Headlines in English have a distinctive grammar. It came from the need to fit a lot of content in the small space allotted to a newspaper headline, as I imagine is the case in other languages too. If you're curious,

https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›