• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"paramount should quit streaming"

Jarvisimo

Captain
Captain
Quite a damning day for paramount, but perhaps a silver lining in licencing
https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/paramount-plus-quit-streaming-analyst-1234859135/
Sixty million people can be wrong. On Thursday morning, Paramount Global reported now having 60 million subscribers to its core streaming service, Paramount+. But by the end of a disastrous trading day (PARA -28 percent), one crippled by poor quarterly earnings and a major cut to shareholder dividend, equity analyst Steven Cahall of Wells Fargo suggested the company just quit streaming altogether at this point.

Paramount+, like every streaming service not named Netflix or Hulu, is not (yet) profitable. But that’s only the beginning of Cahall’s argument. Analysts and media executives have long speculated that only a handful of all the streaming options around today will survive or make money in the long run. Cahall is ready to scratch one of that list today, even if Bob Bakish and his fellow senior Paramount executives are not.
“Why is [direct-to-consumer]/streaming the wrong approach? Because it’s too crowded, meaning lack of scale. Only [Netflix] currently has healthy margins and it’s 7x Paramount+’s scale. We think [Disney] can get there too and it’s 3x [Paramount],” Cahall wrote in an investor note Thursday. “Alas, we see no willingness for these paths.”
Cahall in his analysis suggested that Bakish “change course” and consider “shutting down DTC,” specifically Paramount+. This comes in the wake of the company having already spent $1.7 billion in merging Showtime with Paramount+, based on its Q1 earnings figures.

The way Cahall sees it, Paramount+ is “fighting hard for fifth place” in the streaming wars behind Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max [soon just Max], and it’s competing with the likes of Peacock, Apple TV+, and Amazon Prime Video. According to Wells Fargo’s model, Cahall doesn’t see Paramount or even Comcast breaking even in streaming until 2027. Disney+ expects to be profitable by 2024, and Warner Bros. Discovery should see Max break even by next year.

“We think streaming losses could remain elevated with low clarity on break-even or long-term profitability,” Cahall continued. “In fact, we think DTC will only be meaningfully profitable for the biggest scale players. With both linear and DTC presenting challenges, [Paramount] is likely to have negative revisions and tough decisions, which could include reconsidering sports rights or shifting strategy.”
There’s another alternative for Paramount here. Be Sony.

If Wells Fargo were running Paramount, they’d turn it into an arms dealer like Sony, licensing and selling its content to others. Or they’d go another step further and break up the company’s assets. There’s gold in those mountains of entertainment: Cahall points to Amazon buying MGM for $8.5 billion and figures that Paramount’s studios are worth a combined $30 billion or more.
Anyway i also hope Trek played a role in bumping those subscribers, but it's also a bit dismal on the future - enjoy our new trek while we can
-
Other sites covering this, with quotes from the meetings. Here's the Hollywood Reporter:
Paramount Global reached 60 million Paramount+ streaming subscribers worldwide as of the end of March, a gain of 4.1 million from nearly 56 million as of the end of 2022. But the Hollywood conglomerate on Thursday posted a swing to a first-quarter loss amid a wider streaming loss and an 11 percent TV advertising revenue drop as the latest results missed Wall Street expectations.

Management also unveiled a dividend cut, preserving cash amid economic and other challenges as the industry pushes towards turning its streaming businesses profitable. Paramount’s stock was down 14 percent in pre-market trading, a fall that gathered pace as shares fell by $5.73, or 25 percent, to $17.17 in early morning trading.

Paramount’s advertising-supported streamer Pluto TV grew its monthly active users (MAUs) to 80 million as of March 31 from 78.5 million as of the end of the fourth quarter. The company didn’t immediately detail its total global streaming subscriber count, which had stood at more than 77 million as of the end of December.

However, higher streaming investments were again a drag on the entertainment company’s bottom line, as the quarterly adjusted operating loss before depreciation and amortization in its streaming unit widened to $511 million, compared with $456 million in the first quarter of 2022. The company cited “higher costs to support growth of Paramount+” as the key driver.

Paramount, led by CEO Bob Bakish, also took impairment charges of $1.67 billion in the first quarter, driven by its upcoming combination of Paramount+ with Showtime into a single U.S. streaming platform later this year. Earlier this year, it had said the integration would lead to a content impairment charge of between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion in the first quarter, while forecasting $700 million in annual expense savings.

“We’re going to focus on driving market-leading streaming growth, while navigating this dynamic macroeconomic environment. And know that the decisions we’re making will position us well for a path of streaming profitability, significant earnings growth and a return to positive cash flow,” Bakish told analysts on a morning call.

Paramount’s TV unit advertising sales continued to fall in the January-March period. The 11 percent decrease in the latest quarter followed a 7 percent drop in the fourth quarter of 2022.

“We are seeing signs of stabilization in the ad market. But perhaps more importantly, we are seeing the unquestionable and growing value of our content and platforms to both the consumer and business community, as exemplified by growing usage, as well as a broadening range of deals and partnerships,” Bakish told analysts, while adding the studio’s content like Mayor of Kingstown, 1923 and Tulsa King was underpinning growth in its streaming platforms as legacy cable channels continue under pressure.

“Yes, this takes investment,” Bakish conceded as Wall Street concerns rise over the studio getting to streaming profitability as TV ad revenues slump and costs rise while Paramount+ combines with Showtime.

He reiterated that 2023 will be a peak investment year for streaming. “But there is no question that our investment is producing results. And as we scale, we are very much on a related path to streaming profitability,” Bakish argued, without putting a timeline on breaking even.

“The levers are in place to continue to drive Paramount+ subscriber revenue and ultimately continue down this path to profitability,” Bakish added in response to a question about continuing momentum in streaming subscriber growth. He argued Paramount+’s content offerings and the coming combination with Showtime will help underpin growth.

Another article from HR about the debt too.
 
Last edited:
I've got several services which I rarely watch - Netflix for the family, Disney for Marvel and Star Wars, P+ for Disco and SNW, Amazon for Rings Of Power and Picard.

i almost never watch Netflix and only the shows mentioned on the others. Were it just me using them it wouldn't be worth the outlay.

I'd be very happy with less streamers and the stuff I like being licensed to them.
 
Yeah it's a terrible landscape for streaming sustainability.

Anyway, if Picard has been super successful in terms of P+ and Pluto, that's a good sign. However I don't think one or two shows can carry the platform - so what it means for future trek shows (including a more risky Picard spin off), I'm not sure.

Lots of good analysis to come from the industry trades, I'm sure.
 
The P+ streaming service will never generate enough revenue to become profitable. At this time, Paramount plus is artificially kept alive, only to die even more gruesomely in the future. Star Trek and Yellowstone won’t be able to save this failed from the start business model.

Lets just hope that the Chinese don’t start buying into US media cooperations, Paramound would be an easy target for fresh (dictatorship) money…
 
I think, in general, the streaming model is a good one. Frankly, I can get by with spending $100 a year on Paramount+ when I don’t have to sit through ads and I don’t have to pay $200 a month for 500 channels of bullshit that I might only watch five channels of.

At the moment, I get Amazon Prime through Prime and it basically pays for itself, HBOMax ( soon to be Max) through my cell phone provider. I pay annual subscriptions for Disney+ and Paramount+. I get Apple TV+ through Apple One which includes premium Music, Fitness, News, Arcade, our cloud storage and allows for some nice features for our smart home monthly. The only thing we pay for monthly that’s really not bundled with anything, and I’d gladly give it up, but my wife has shows she likes to watch on it, is Netflix. Generally this works for us. We don’t use everything regularly though because with two kids under the age of 5, there are just not enough hours in the day. The younger just turned six months so she’s not watching anything yet but the four year old is pretty much regulated to 30 minutes a day. If he has a good day. So by the time the kids are asleep and everything is reset for the next morning, we might have 30 minutes left in us before we are ready to crash. Limits how much we watch.

But I agree that the market has shown that there are just too many streamers out there. I think the desire to have a piece of the pie is a big problem. Five streamers might be all the market can muster. Then, having content providers making shows for those streamers works. Either that or the smaller streamers are just going to have cheaper to produce content.
 
Aside from biting the bullet and paying for YouTube so I can avoid the ads, this is the only streaming service I buy. Don't know what I'll do if Trek migrates to Netflix... bite another bullet, probably.
 
In the UK, there is next to nothing on it really. I have it only for the Trek library. The Stallone series was absolutely fucking shite.

Streaming just seems to be doomed, you'd have thought D+ woudl have been a home run. Netflix just seems to get by on brand and being the first because it's endless trash.
 
I don't think Paramount quitting streaming will mean we lose Trek. I think they will, in the worst case scenario, just farm shows out to Netflix or Amazon as they have in the past.
HBO Max (very soon to be just Max) might also be a contender. Currently, the first ten Star Trek movies are there instead of at Paramount+. Although they'll eventually cycle out and leave, they have been there for a while, so that could be a potential home for Trek too should Paramount+ go dark, IMO...
 
HBO Max (very soon to be just Max) might also be a contender. Currently, the first ten Star Trek movies are there instead of at Paramount+. Although they'll eventually cycle out and leave, they have been there for a while, so that could be a potential home for Trek too should Paramount+ go dark, IMO...

The biggest contender to buy Paramount is Walmart, who doesn't have to worry about media consentration complaints unlike Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Peacock, etc...,

Why Walmart? Because they want to compete with Amazon with their Walmart+ subscription, which is why they already have a deal with Paramount to offer free Essential (ad supported) tier subscriptions for Walmart+ subscribers. Its just a matter of taking things to the next level.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...rt-strikes-streaming-deal-with-paramount.html

Alternately Bell Media, the Canadian company that has the Star Trek rights to the series, could buy Paramount and merge Paramount+ with CraveTV.

And before you say Bell couldn't afford it, Bell might only serve the Canadian market right now for content, but the company runs the Telecom infostructure for much of Canada, so its got the money.
 
Last edited:
It's weird they're losing so much money considering what a massive success these new Trek shows have been.
 
It's weird they're losing so much money considering what a massive success these new Trek shows have been.

There are factors beyond Star Trek, like things going on in the advertizing industry in general and ongoing costs related to the CBS/Paramount merger, and maybe they over invested in none Star Trek content.
 
It's weird they're losing so much money considering what a massive success these new Trek shows have been.

So streaming essentially was built on debt, massive debts. Until the last year or two, Wall Street didn't mind; it was about market share. Then when Netflix announced it had lost subscribers, it essentially announced that everyone who would subscribe had done so, and there could only be a fall in numbers. No more subscribers to tap into. That means the streaming business was no longer a licence to print money; that companies couldn't afford to lose so much money on a venture that might never be profitable - that was only going to decline in success.

Also, has new trek really been a "massive success"? We live in an echo chamber, one which easily validates how we feel with circumstantial evidence to convince us of it - and that's a danger, as we put forward claims like that without being sure what we mean or even if it is true. What do you mean, "a massive success", and can you prove it?
 
Also, has new trek really been a "massive success"? We live in an echo chamber, one which easily validates how we feel with circumstantial evidence to convince us of it - and that's a danger, as we put forward claims like that without being sure what we mean or even if it is true. What do you mean, "a massive success", and can you prove it?
I was being sarcastic :)

I don't think these shows have had much success at all. There's been some short lived buzz here and there, but it burns out quickly. They've made almost no pop culture impact aside from spawning the Star Trek Hate Industrial Complex on YouTube.
 
Unless you're Marvel or such the cultural impact is limited. I don't see Trek having an impact since TNG ended. It's good time entertainment; nothing more and nothing less.

ETA: and no one has successfully explained why I should care about cultural impact. It's an intangible that gets thrown around that is meaningless in its ambiguity.
 
The only streaming services to make money so far are Netflix and Hulu. I think the solution is clear--just outsource Trek to Netflix the way Marvel did in their early days to their tv shows.

Netflix definitely has their own problems though. Just pop into any Witcher discussion subreddit or forum or facebook group and you'll see that it's all hell broken lose and has been since Cavill left. That's not even getting into the racial stuff in regards to Netflix's Cleopatra movie that even got the Egyptian government in uproar.
 
The only streaming services to make money so far are Netflix and Hulu. I think the solution is clear--just outsource Trek to Netflix the way Marvel did in their early days to their tv shows.

Netflix definitely has their own problems though. Just pop into any Witcher discussion subreddit or forum or facebook group and you'll see that it's all hell broken lose and has been since Cavill left. That's not even getting into the racial stuff in regards to Netflix's Cleopatra movie that even got the Egyptian government in uproar.

Amazon Prime makes money, but that's not just streaming.
 
Amazon should just buy Paramount.

FWIW, Bezos is a Star Trek fan.

Or maybe Apple. Star Trek kind of fits Apple's "aesthetic".

IMO, all this money put into various Trek shows, is an attempt to present it as Paramount's version of a Cinematic Universe (but for TV), thus making the company look more valuable to investors, or a potential buyer.

In terms of making it look more valuable to investors, it's failed. Best strategy now is hoping to get bought out IMO.

Current Market Cap:
Apple 2.8T
Amazon 1T
Disney 184B
Nextflix 143B
WarnerBros Discovery 31B
Paramount 11B

Anyone of the top 4 could buy Paramount.
 
Amazon should just buy Paramount.

FWIW, Bezos is a Star Trek fan.

Or maybe Apple. Star Trek kind of fits Apple's "aesthetic".

IMO, all this money put into various Trek shows, is an attempt to present it as Paramount's version of a Cinematic Universe (but for TV), thus making the company look more valuable to investors, or a potential buyer.

In terms of making it look more valuable to investors, it's failed. Best strategy now is hoping to get bought out IMO.

Current Market Cap:
Apple 2.8T
Amazon 1T
Disney 184B
Nextflix 143B
WarnerBros Discovery 31B
Paramount 11B

Anyone of the top 4 could buy Paramount.

Walmart 409 billion Market Cap and Walmart already has a deal with Paramount to offer Paramount+ Ad tier as part of its Walmart+ program, which is Walmarts answer to Amazon Prime subscriptions. It makes the most sense if Walmart buys Paramount given the current deal and the fact that Walmart isn't already a content provider means its alot less likely to have a merger between them blocked by the US government then say Amazon, Apple, WBD, or Netflix.

Walmart wants Paramount to be its Amazon Prime video (and maybe music, does Paramount do music?), this merger makes so much sense honestly I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Walmart and Paramount are dating in a sense, it just makes makes sense that it'd be Wal art who Paramount marries.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top