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

[Kamen Rider Blade]

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.

That all depends on the show and how they budget for things as they grow.
It can go any which way.

Given the volume of sports fans, as long as they cater to what they want, they will do fine.

Same with most big drama shows.

For those with lower budgets and less viewership, you'll need to be innovative.

Just look at the YT model and how some channels are HUGE while others fall onto different parts of the spectrum for size.

Even with Netflix, if shows don't pull in the ratings / viewerships, they get thoroughly cancelled.

 

[Sci]

That all depends on the show and how they budget for things as they grow.
It can go any which way.

I think that's an exceedingly broad statement that doesn't account for the particularities of individual productions. You can have an ultra-low-budget show, but unless you want it to read as cheesey it's gonna be confined to Realism/Naturalism in its genre and it'll be confined to what it can afford to film. There's a limit to what low-budget can accomplish and still maintain a level of quality.

Like I said: If you're not bundling things together so that programs can share subscription income, then you're gonna end up with a situation where only a very few big hits and low-budget stuff is economically viable. Because a lot of programs that are sustainable if they share subscription income just would not attract sufficient numbers to maintain production in an a-la-carte model.

Just look at the YT model and how some channels are HUGE while others fall onto different parts of the spectrum for size.

The vast majority of YouTube productions are not narrative fiction, so the YT model really doesn't apply.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I think that's an exceedingly broad statement that doesn't account for the particularities of individual productions. You can have an ultra-low-budget show, but unless you want it to read as cheesey it's gonna be confined to Realism/Naturalism in its genre and it'll be confined to what it can afford to film. There's a limit to what low-budget can accomplish and still maintain a level of quality.

Like I said: If you're not bundling things together so that programs can share subscription income, then you're gonna end up with a situation where only a very few big hits and low-budget stuff is economically viable. Because a lot of programs that are sustainable if they share subscription income just would not attract sufficient numbers to maintain production in an a-la-carte model.

We'll see, because shows have to figure out how to get sponsorship $$$ along with attracting viewership.
So if they can bring in funds to run the show, they'll be able to survive.
Feast/Famine.

The vast majority of YouTube productions are not narrative fiction, so the YT model really doesn't apply.

It's a new broadcasting world with a new model. Time to sink/swim.

 

[fireproof78]

I think it's sink time.

 

[cultcross]

What every consumer has been asking for is "A-la-carte"

You can't just assume your opinion is shared by every consumer.

Subscription models incentivise making new content - any content, really - to keep people subscribed. It's supportive of "giving someone a go" decision making which gives new ideas a chance. Combined with Netflix's newfound willingness to cull those not performing, you have your "survival of the fittest" element without squashing new productions before they've had a chance. A pay-as-you-go model favors huge sure hits/established franchise content with an existing proven audience almost exclusively. And if they ultimately make less from that model than subscription (which I assume is your intent, you're not going to want to pay more for less, right?) They'll just bump up the prices to match or cut the less watched stuff, which might well turn out to be what you are watching.

 

[Sci]

Yeah, one very basic reason I'm against a-la-carte is that I don't think shows like Star Trek have large enough audiences to survive in that environment. There are a lot of enduring mid-tier programs that can maintain steady, long-term fanbases but can't really grow those fanbases past a certain point, Star Trek among them, and I think pay-for-what-you-like would kill those shows.

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is a trick.

It's not the failure of streaming, or the lack of audience.

It's a one time billions dollar payment, an accounting glitch, as the market shifts from old media to new media.

 

[thribs]

Just combine with Disney Plus. There are too many streamers as it is

 

[StarMan]

As Warren Buffet said when asked about Paramount (Berkshire hold 91 million shares), seeing dividends cut by that degree is never a good sign. They cut them by what - 80%? - while reaffirming their commitment to more spend on DTC content. That's one surefire way to piss off shareholders.

If modelling shows breakeven in approx. 5 years from now, after a head-above-water effort the previous 7 ... yeah, call me skeptical on Bob Bakish's attempt at reassurance with "we have a plan!" on the investor call.

I agree with the analyst - Paramount's best bet was solidifying a position as an arms dealer in the streaming wars. Will they make that pivot anytime soon - after spending north of a billion on the Showtime merge? Doubtful. They've never appeared to have been the most agile company.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

You can't just assume your opinion is shared by every consumer.

Subscription models incentivise making new content - any content, really - to keep people subscribed. It's supportive of "giving someone a go" decision making which gives new ideas a chance. Combined with Netflix's newfound willingness to cull those not performing, you have your "survival of the fittest" element without squashing new productions before they've had a chance. A pay-as-you-go model favors huge sure hits/established franchise content with an existing proven audience almost exclusively. And if they ultimately make less from that model than subscription (which I assume is your intent, you're not going to want to pay more for less, right?) They'll just bump up the prices to match or cut the less watched stuff, which might well turn out to be what you are watching.

Keyword there are "Sure Hits" / "Established Franchise" content.

Star Trek & Star Wars & Marvel & DC Comics are all large "Established Franchise" with plenty of back-catalog content along with new content & merchandise coming out of the pipeline.

Those who have established a history of success will continue to survive and gain new audience over time.

Kind of like how Gundam / Macross / Super Sentai / Kamen Rider have survived all these decades while making new shows and pushing out more toys/merch.

 

[cultcross]

Yes, exactly, and anything else gets squashed out by endless repackaging of the same old stuff. Not a win.

Although even if all you care about is more Star Trek, if these companies start losing money to a party as you go model, it won't be sport that gets cut to save costs. It'll be expensive to make fiction like Star Trek.

 

[Weyoun 251]

Not sure what the pricing is like in the US but over here to get Paramount, Netflix, Disney, and Prime (arguments can be made for the fact that Prime also covers the delivery side of Amazon so maybe doesn't count) can be bought for £30-40 a month for all of them.

This isn't cheap but at the same time I remember ITunes used to sell episodes of shows at about £2.99 per episode up to £9.99 (I think) for certain shows/films.

Let's assume they do a full season at DVD prices (say £15) and a film for £10 - I'm going to have to fork out £100 to watch DS9 on its own.

I'm also going to be much more cynical about what I choose to watch (I wouldn't have paid to watch Daisy Jones and the Six but I checked it out and it is class) as it is like buying CDs in the old days - it has to be good or it was a waste

I am the sort who will put on shows in the background while I work just to provide noise so I can nail a season of Community or Family Guy a day quite easily and that approach to TV watching will start to add up.

There is space in the world for both options and it depends on your viewing habits for sure but it feels to me like the streaming model works well in UK

I see people mentioning sport - the TV deals for football for just the Prem go for around £6bn or so (might have reached £10bn by now) over a 3 year period. Pretty sure that is more than even Disney spends on their Star Wars content for a year which shows that it isn't going away - they don't spend that money for fun either as the viewing figures for the Prem over here each month are likely more than any Trek or Disney show will do in a year (looks like around 3-5m viewers per match, usually 4 or 5 matches shown per week on Sky, 38 weeks plus 2 or 3 games on BT Sport; you then have EFL, La Liga, Champs League etc. Viewership in the UK across all football will exceed 1bn per year and that dwarfs anything else)

 

[publiusr]

Yeah, one very basic reason I'm against a-la-carte is that I don't think shows like Star Trek have large enough audiences to survive in that environment. There are a lot of enduring mid-tier programs that can maintain steady, long-term fanbases but can't really grow those fanbases past a certain point, Star Trek among them, and I think pay-for-what-you-like would kill those shows.

Then too, with the writer’s strike, I could see a search for scab content meaning made for streaming fare put on network TV?

CBS might wind up showing Kolchak and Harry O in place of James Cordon.

“Get those Axanar folk on the phone—they’ll work cheap!”

Scab Trek

 

[Sci]

Keyword there are "Sure Hits" / "Established Franchise" content.

Star Trek & Star Wars & Marvel & DC Comics are all large "Established Franchise" with plenty of back-catalog content along with new content & merchandise coming out of the pipeline.

What makes you think that Star Trek's audience base is large enough to support it a-la-carte? I mean, if these guys are such guaranteed money-makers, how come Paramount+, Disney+, and HBO Max/Max have all failed to turn a profit?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

What makes you think that Star Trek's audience base is large enough to support it a-la-carte? I mean, if these guys are such guaranteed money-makers, how come Paramount+, Disney+, and HBO Max/Max have all failed to turn a profit?

They invested in more series than they can get recoup money from on top of the massive infrastructure bill that comes from streaming + massive competition amongst too many streaming platforms + legacy broadcast/cable.

And we're in a recession on top of all that.

 

[Quantum21]

Once again, P+ made money streaming. That part of the biz was up. It lost money from traditional revenue streams like selling advertising and its shows. They expected to lose money after bringing everything in-house.

They invested in more series than they can get recoup money from on top of the massive infrastructure bill that comes from streaming + massive competition amongst too many streaming platforms + legacy broadcast/cable.

And we're in a recession on top of all that.

If you're talking about the US, the origin country here, we're not in a recession despite that possibility being repeated quite often by those who own the media.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/inve... to the NBER's definition,we still aren't now.

 

[Campe]

People keep mentioning merging streaming services. That will limit the amount of shows available. Content providers turning off their distribution and selling their content to one distributor will limit the amount of shows available. Selling a single episode or season and having that the only method of distribution is not sustainable for most programming. Therefore that will limit the amount of shows available.

100% that there are too many streaming services. But any of these models suggested here are going to see big casualties in shows. And that’s probably going to be a lot of niche shows. To be fair, streaming is all nice programming right now.

There are finite resources. If a business model can break even in four years, that’s certainly a risk. This is all a mess and could implode. But I’m not seeing a lot of solutions that won’t end up with us ultimately just having a lot of reality TV garbage.

 

[Space Socialist]

Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred it when I could watch Trek on BBC channels for no extra cost on top of television licence I have to pay for anyway.

 

[Weyoun 251]

Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred it when I could watch Trek on BBC channels for no extra cost on top of television licence I have to pay for anyway.

The beauty of being Streaming only - no need for a licence!

But yes, I do miss a simpler time of BBC 1 and 2, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 having near enough every show I want to watch on over the course of the week

 

[drt]

I am the sort who will put on shows in the background while I work just to provide noise so I can nail a season of Community or Family Guy a day quite easily and that approach to TV watching will start to add up.

Yeah, I don’t own the physical media for any of the Berman-era TV shows, but I routinely watch old episodes on P+, if I had to pay for them al a carte, I wouldn’t bother.