Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It's only not working because each company is setting up their own streaming service, decreasing the size of the library each one has access to. If there were only a few big streaming services, it would be much more efficient.
Also, there's a middle ground between paying to get access to multiple TV series and films and giving each TV series its own channel, no matter how small.

Or how about everybody team up, use one "Neutral Content Delivery IPTV service" that is just a delivery mechanism for their content, and they each charge what they feel is fair for every major Content IP they own.

1) Pay Per View each episode as a simple form of "Rental"
2) Rent Timed Access to the entire franchise
3) Buy to own Digitally
4) Buy to own Physically on Blu-Ray Discs
End Users Choice.

 

[Oddish]

No. VOY S6 through ENT S3 was a definite low point.

Well, I hardly ever watch most of those, so I can't exactly disagree. ENT was never a favorite, and most of my favorite VOY episodes are from earlier in the series... the Borg were less of a thing, the original "conserving resources" plot was still in effect, and Harry's rank made sense.

And it'll find one. Again, ST is a perennial mid-tier money-maker. It's never really been a huge hit, but it's almost always been a reliable performer. The trick is finding a streaming service with a financially viable business model.

I hope so. And I think that's true. We probably won't get more than 40 PRO episodes... but we'll get the 40.

Refusal, or inability to afford the fee Sony charges to have a PlayStation app?

I'm limited to watching Trek on my smartphone either way. Aside from SNW, because YouTube does have a PS5 app.

 

[Shawnster]

I've not seen mentioned yet that Disney owns Hulu. I'd like to learn how that has been working for them. Hulu is the typical pay one price, get everything streaming service. I don't think anything on Disney+ is on Hulu, though.

I don't understand the comments here how they were paying LESS for traditional cable TV than they are now with various streaming services. We cut the cord in 2008 and we are still paying LESS now than we were then. We subscribe to Netflix, Disney+, Peacock, and Paramount+. We share Hulu with our son, so that doesn't count. Still, high speed internet and 4 streaming subscriptions is less than we paid for cable 15 years ago.

Someone said they aren't paying for Paramount+ because they would also get Showtime? Huh? I guess that's one way to look at it. Seems backwards though. More like you were already paying for the premium service (which we are too, no commercials) but now with Showtime you get more for your money. Don't want it? You can choose not to watch it. Plus, isn't there a lower tier you can choose that doesn't have Showtime?

Paramount+ frustrates me because I can't access their entire library. Big Bang Theory is not on their. Only the current season of Young Sheldon and SWAT are available. What the hell? These are all CBS shows. They should all be available on the app. Now, I know the reason why is exclusive rights for all of BBT or previous seasons of other shows were sold to other channels or streamers or syndicators. This actually smacks of the old business model back in the days of traditional TV.

Commercial sales to streaming sites hasn't taken off yet, and that is hurting these streamers. Something needs figured out. If these streamers want to offer lower tier options that include commercials, they need to figure out how to do it.

The NFL choosing to put some games exclusively on streaming shows streaming is the way of the future. That giant is the leader, the trend setter.

 

[fireproof78]

The biggest problem with streaming is that it runs in conflict with the old business model and they are trying to balance between both of them.

 

[Nyotarules]

Depends on the person, i promise you a massive number of women like the male doctors.


Their gender was always important.

Janeway wasn't an issue because it's an ensemble cast. It's a completely different beast.

It's the same reason you can't gender swap the Alien franchise leads. The final character being a women, is crtical because of the vulnerability, if it's a man it's much easier for people to tune and out and just see the male lead as another red shirt. Not a lot of female red shirts, it's just not a big thing.

There's even sociological reasons why more male characters is important. Biologically speaking men have a more naturally wide range of personalities/archetypes. Women can get by a narrower set of traits.
With men you have the jock, the leader, the robot, the nerd, the comedian etc. Different men relate to different characters. With women it's not so obvious that they require the same range. In part because women generally aren't so dependent on having a self insert character. Either because of better empathy, or just the social environment of sci fi.

After discussion with other staff, this post is deemed to be trolling: specifically sexist. This is a formal warning. Comments to PM.

 

[Voodoowoman2]

All streaming services are on the same business model. They produce one flagship series to tempt subscribers, thinking that if they don't like the series, they will stay subscribed and find something else on their channel. No longer do they feel the need to create a huge fan base. Budgets are smaller and writers are supposed to be cheaper and it's all going down the tubes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That Disney+ is having issues too kinda says it's a universal thing not limited to Paramount. I just hate this "Bury a product forever to save a few bucks" tax break thing. The streaming bubble is bursting sadly. It won't go away but it seems the user base is finite and it may be downhill from here. I think I gave it 5 years when Alex Kurtzman announced Trekkake and I think that'll pan out.

 

[bdub76]

That Disney+ is having issues too kinda says it's a universal thing not limited to Paramount. I just hate this "Bury a product forever to save a few bucks" tax break thing. The streaming bubble is bursting sadly. It won't go away but it seems the user base is finite and it may be downhill from here. I think I gave it 5 years when Alex Kurtzman announced Trekkake and I think that'll pan out.

Users never wanted to have to pay for a bunch of streaming services. This thinning of the herd was expected from the beginning.

 

[drt]

Users never wanted to have to pay for a bunch of streaming services. This thinning of the herd was expected from the beginning.

Users wanted to pay $10 a month and watch everything possible, that really isn't possible either. If the actual content providers can't make money charging $10 a month seperately, there's no way one streamer was going to all by itself. I think we are in for further consolidation and price hikes by the few remaining players until we ultimately end up paying about the same for 2-3 streamers as we were for 5-6.

 

[Sci]

Users never wanted to have to pay for a bunch of streaming services. This thinning of the herd was expected from the beginning.

Yeah -- streaming just isn't a market conducive to there being seven or more streamers competing with one-another, most of them only carrying a single studio's content. Customers don't want a bunch of streamers that only carries one company's shows and movies, they want two or three big streamers with a wide variety of content from a wide variety of studios.

 

[Owain Taggart]

That Disney+ is having issues too kinda says it's a universal thing not limited to Paramount. I just hate this "Bury a product forever to save a few bucks" tax break thing. The streaming bubble is bursting sadly. It won't go away but it seems the user base is finite and it may be downhill from here. I think I gave it 5 years when Alex Kurtzman announced Trekkake and I think that'll pan out.

It's certainly universal, and it rather sucks. I feel for those involved in productions for months on end excited to see their product see the light of day, have it released only to have it pulled so soon after released. Talk about a gut-punch. It's like saying, "We don't believe enough in you, and we can't support you." And the FAST services are the ones that end up benefiting. I just saw that 'American Born Chinese' from Disney+ has shown up on the Roku channel, which was released on May 24th. That short of a release window is starting to feel ridiculous. At least give people a grace period and enough of a chance to discover it before yanking it. You can't expect a cult following to grow if something is not around for people to check it out.

 

[tomalak301]

I remember when Cord Cutting first became a thing, people wanted a la cart. How do you reconcile that with not wanting to pay for 7 different streamers, when that seems to be what a la cart is. I agree with the sentiment about not wanting to pay for all that stuff, but you only have a few streamers with many different shows and doesn't that bring us back to a cable model?

 

[bdub76]

I remember when Cord Cutting first became a thing, people wanted a la cart. How do you reconcile that with not wanting to pay for 7 different streamers, when that seems to be what a la cart is. I agree with the sentiment about not wanting to pay for all that stuff, but you only have a few streamers with many different shows and doesn't that bring us back to a cable model?

I cut the cord on cable in 2013 and haven't looked back. I'm not a big sports watcher. Back then it was Netflix or HULU. I had both, and that was good. Then, Prime came along, and I used it since I had Prime for faster delivery anyway. I really don't want more than one or two. And back then I paid around $10 total for both Netflix and HULU. I never wanted ala cart. Honestly, if they all fail except for Netflix, I'd be okay with that result.

 

[bdub76]

It's certainly universal, and it rather sucks. I feel for those involved in productions for months on end excited to see their product see the light of day, have it released only to have it pulled so soon after released. Talk about a gut-punch. It's like saying, "We don't believe enough in you, and we can't support you." And the FAST services are the ones that end up benefiting. I just saw that 'American Born Chinese' from Disney+ has shown up on the Roku channel, which was released on May 24th. That short of a release window is starting to feel ridiculous. At least give people a grace period and enough of a chance to discover it before yanking it. You can't expect a cult following to grow if something is not around for people to check it out.

FAST is frustrating. There are shows and movies on FAST services such as PlutoTV and TUBI that aren't on paid for streaming services such as B5. I'd rather pirate them now than watch ads. I spent over a decade not watching ads. It's hard to go back. And it's even worse now since those programs aren't getting physical releases. I can't even buy B5 on Blu Ray.

 

[fireproof78]

I remember when Cord Cutting first became a thing, people wanted a la cart. How do you reconcile that with not wanting to pay for 7 different streamers, when that seems to be what a la cart is. I agree with the sentiment about not wanting to pay for all that stuff, but you only have a few streamers with many different shows and doesn't that bring us back to a cable model?

It does, and that's what is going to happen again. You'll have that cyclical market style for a whlie, as people get too frustrated with the cable model of two or three plans (Amazon, Hulu or whatever), and then streamers will try again, and people will buy a bunch, then complain then back to a couple and then back again.

 

[bdub76]

It does, and that's what is going to happen again. You'll have that cyclical market style for a whlie, as people get too frustrated with the cable model of two or three plans (Amazon, Hulu or whatever), and then streamers will try again, and people will buy a bunch, then complain then back to a couple and then back again.

I constantly turn services on and off.

 

[fireproof78]

I constantly turn services on and off.

Same. Which is why it bothers me less.

But, I know several who hate it and will just one the same consistent services.

 

[Sci]

I think it's ultimately a better idea to use the "cable television" model of distribution -- cable television may have involved paying for a lot of stuff you didn't like, but it also ensured that a wide variety of content that didn't always have lowest-common-denominator appeal was able to be financially viable. I think it struck a good balance between micro-niche and juggernaut, and I hope to see the streaming industry move in that direction in the future.

 

[Owain Taggart]

FAST is frustrating. There are shows and movies on FAST services such as PlutoTV and TUBI that aren't on paid for streaming services such as B5. I'd rather pirate them now than watch ads. I spent over a decade not watching ads. It's hard to go back. And it's even worse now since those programs aren't getting physical releases. I can't even buy B5 on Blu Ray.

At least on the Roku channel it isn't all that bad as the ads are rather short and you don't get many of them before it resumes. I'm actually bothered more by the fact that they can appear so suddenly and often break the flow of what I'm watching. So, I end up muting whenever they appear until the countdown nears 0.

 

[bdub76]

At least on the Roku channel it isn't all that bad as the ads are rather short and you don't get many of them before it resumes. I'm actually bothered more by the fact that they can appear so suddenly and often break the flow of what I'm watching. So, I end up muting whenever they appear until the countdown nears 0.

If the show establishes a mood such as a horror show, ads can wreck it really quickly.