Ugh, no. Twitter got worse after he took over.
Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
Correction – Discovery was on Netflix outside of North America, before it got suddenly pulled from the service. However, Picard and Lower Decks are still on Amazon (I’m in the UK and watched Picard season 3 on Amazon).
Yup, I got my streaming services confused, my bad.
I only pay for most of the platforms for one or two shows. I never watch the other stuff on them - it has little appeal. At least with Disney you get Marvel AND Star Wars content.
A great streaming consolidation would be great - merge as many as possible.
Or, you know, put shows on network...
The entire "Pay as you go" Monthly Subscription model is complete BS.
The original IPTV concept was to pay for each episode you wanted to watch or Rent/Buy the entire series at once and pay for each episode / series. The complete "A la Carte" model.
Get only what you want, nothing of what you don't.
This way you only pay for things you care about and spend less $ on stuff you didn't care about.
The original IPTV concept was to pay for each episode you wanted to watch or Rent/Buy the entire series at once and pay for each episode / series. The complete "A la Carte" model.
Get only what you want, nothing of what you don't.
This way you only pay for things you care about and spend less $ on stuff you didn't care about.
While I do agree there are flaws in the decision many streaming services have made to not release physical media of their shows, I'm not sure what relevance that has in this thread since Paramount+ does do physical media releases of all its original shows.
That applies more to Disney and other Streamers.
There are some who have given up on Physical to promote Streaming.
This would, in other words, be a return to the same basic production model that was used in Hollywood for decades: a studio would hire a production company to make a show for them, and then the studio would make a deal with a network to distribute that show. So whereas once upon a time 20th Century Fox hired Mutant Enemy to make Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the licensed Buffy to air on the WB network, in this hypothetical scenario Paramount via its CBS Studios subdivision would hire Secret Hideout to make Star Trek: Strange New Worlds for them and then license Netflix or Hulu to distribute it.
Basically they'll have spent the better part of ten years and a bajillion dollars to reinvent the wheel and discover that studios should produce and distributors should distribute.
That would be extremely foolish. Their entertainment division is what gives their company value -- giving those away is giving away the crown jewels.
That would be horrible -- it would decimate jobs and merge two companies together that have no business being the same corporation. Far better to just license new Star Trek shows for Netflix to distribute.
And what makes you think that a merged Paramountflix would not just carry over Netflix's practice of cancelling after two seasons?
And what makes you think they wouldn't just carry over Netflix's subscription practices, especially since Netflix is more successful than Paramount+?
Sure, but what's in it for Netflix to merge with Paramount then?
Apple and Amazon, maybe, because they're attached to larger corporations that seem willing to take a loss on their streaming side for the sake of prestige. Max? I dunno man, it's not clear to me that that one's going to last.
That is an argument for Paramount to license the shows for Netflix to stream. It's not an argument for the two companies to merge.
This is good news, hopefully early signs of the end of this frustrating era of fractured streaming into 9, 10 different services all costing together more than cable used to, to access basically the same content as when there was just Netflix.
I'm being stubborn about P+, I won't indulge this trend for more and more subscription services, won't pay for it. Three is my limit. I bought SNW on Blu Ray when it was eventually released, but I'm not paying another monthly sub. If that means I ultimately can't access Star Trek while they finish collapsing, I'll live.
I'm being stubborn about P+, I won't indulge this trend for more and more subscription services, won't pay for it. Three is my limit. I bought SNW on Blu Ray when it was eventually released, but I'm not paying another monthly sub. If that means I ultimately can't access Star Trek while they finish collapsing, I'll live.
Would you rather pay for content you might never watch in a 'All you can watch' "Subscription Model", or pay for ONLY the content you plan on watching on a regular basis? Pay on a per access for each (Series/episode) basis in a (Rent/Buy) the (episode/season/series) model?
What happens in 110 years?
They lose the rights to everything they made, and torrenting public domain TV like Breaking Bad and the Babylon 5 is completely legal?
Kelvin movie 4 still in development
Never going to be made.
)
I think the most probable result is a joint venture between Paramount+ and Peacock. Why? They already do it in Europe with SkyShowtime.
A major barrier to tie ups in the US are the ABC, NBC, and CBS networks with their assorted FCC regulated TV stations in major cities (for people outside the US... ABC, NBC, and CBS all own their TV stations in say Los Angeles, while once you get out of the top 20 metros areas, almost all of the TV stations are owned by third parties that affiliate with their respective networks). This is why Disney could buy 20th Century Fox, but not the Fox TV network and their major city TV stations.
Streaming will likely "rationalize" before the dam breaks of Disney, Paramount, or Comcast divesting ABC, CBS, or NBC. CBS and NBC can't merge, but maybe their streaming platforms could. Throw Fox network programing as well, and you've effectively recreated Hulu, if not in name.
But the US has suffered greatly from the already existing consolidation. I'd prefer joint ventures that preserve some degree of local programing over more mergers.
Remember when Data said TV would die out around 2040? That might prove to be just about right!
Gods, no. Keep that petulant manchild away from anything to do with the movie industry, there's already too many creeps and money-grubbing CEOs to contend with.
Yeah, I just don't see how a pay-per-access model works as a sustainable business. One of the reasons cable television worked so well for so long was that even though there were lots of channels people didn't watch, every channel had somebody watching it and everyone's dollars collectively sustained all of those channels and their shows. Subscriptions a-la-carte strike me as economically unsustainable.
If the "All You Can
And Cable TV services are going down the toilet in terms of viewership.
The only reason that even some of it was sustainable was the ad-revenue model from commercials and sponsorship ads for shows on top of the monthly subscription, but it's coming to a inflection point where everybody is so scattered that nobody is making money other than a few players.
But even then, as a consumer, you need to worry about satisfying them, otherwise they will go to what is more feasible for them, even if it's doing things you don't like like privateering.
What every consumer has been asking for is "A-la-carte" where you pay for only the Channels/Shows/Series that you care about, nothing that you don't want. That's fair to the consumer, that's fair to you.
If me, joe customer, doesn't watch any sports, why am I paying for sports subscriptions at all?
How's that fair to me?
What's fair to me, the consumer, is that I can pay a "Flat Fee" for the base subscription (Basic bureaucracy & service account maintanence) to have the base service access, and then some amount of money as credit is transferred into my account for me to spend on the shows I care about, then you just assign the credits to the shows that I actually paid for and watched.
It's simple as that. Survival of the fittest show. If the shows can't find a audience for themselves and maintain a sustainable profit, that's on them. Make sure to charge what it costs to transfer the show in the resolution and graphical fidelity (bit-rate) that you can afford. (1K / 2K / 3K / 4K / 5K, etc). Use the best Compression for each resolution and get the best visual quality out of the newest best codec for file size.
Then everybody gets what they paid for. It's a "Fair Situation" for each side of the business equation.
I strongly suspect that in your preferred a-la-carte model, there won't be a large enough audience base for the vast majority of individual programs to economically sustain said programs. Programs become economically sustainable when large numbers of people with different tastes all essentially share the costs of sustaining their programs together, even if no one person watches a majority of those programs.
Under your system, I think we'd end up with a few mega-hits and a few ultra-low-budget shows, and not a lot in-between. Goodbye large amounts of content, goodbye content diversity, and goodbye mid-budget programs.
