The Business of Streaming Thread

[vertigop1ayer]

I thought it would be useful to have a singular location for members to post and discuss topics related to the business of streaming: subscription numbers, financial performance, and other information related to this part of the movie/TV industry. This seems like the best location for it here on Blu-ray.com, but mods can move it as needed.

[vertigop1ayer]

To kick things off:

Netflix closes down 35% wiping more than $50 billion off market cap

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/20/...iber-loss.html

in the streaming market, Netflix is the biggest and most mature business which has entered nearly every major market, with the notable exception of China. That said, everyone here on Blu-ray.com is probably aware of the rapid rise in competition, from major flagship alternatives like D+, P+, HBO Max, Peacock, or Hulu, alongside small and midsize options like AppleTV+, Discovery+, etc. Even non-movie-streaming services are considered competitors. For Netflix's sake though, there probably are a number of things which can be done to retain their leading position. In my opinion, these things would be obvious conversations for them to be engaging in:

Plans
- Currently (in the US) their plans' competitiveness has waned a lot. For $9.99 you don't even get HD. For $15.49 you aren't getting UHD. And for their top-of-the-line plan you're closing in on $20/month, far more expense than key competitors. Supposedly they're looking into an ad-supported plan, but that should be less than $10/month, and their $10/month plan should include HD, with the 4K plan moving down to the current "Standard" plan's price point. They likely wouldn't do that last suggestion to protect revenue, but I think it'd be wise in the long run.

Content
- Quantity over quality, in my opinion, is where Netflix has been in recent years. As more iconic content moves elsewhere (The Office, Friends, MCU Netflix shows), Netflix needs properties which they can rely on long-term and that large numbers of consumers see as essential to their entertainment. There are still popular Netflix Originals such as Stranger Things, Bridgerton, or Squid Game, but they need a better proportion of their content to be at that level (quality, not budgets). I would also speculate it's a pretty common opinion around here that Netflix has struggled to make many good movies which can compete with Hollywood studios' annual output, and so even in 2022 there are few Original movies as well-regarded as Roma, The Irishman, Hush, etc.
- Licensing deals with the major studios probably shouldn't be a focus as much anymore, except for Sony. Making deals with AMC, Lionsgate, and smaller distributors makes more sense as a way to build out their licensed library in the current environment. Maybe one or two of those would even be appealing from an acquisition standpoint.
- Sports and news are among the last two frontiers left that streaming hasn't fully figured out. Netflix should look to be at the forefront of both, offering content without alternatives on HBO Max, Paramount+, or Disney+.

Theatrical
- There's only so much to be made here, and so far it's more that theaters don't want to make a deal happen, but Netflix should continue seeking theatrical showings of their more promising films. For shows with huge demand (or with high hopes), doing theatrical "preview" runs for several weeks with two or three episodes could be interesting. That was attempted with Inhumans, but the widespread criticism of its quality (including visual quality) is what I believe failed, not the concept.

Merch
- They've been exploring this, and should continue. Many options exist here as a way to expand upon and maintain fandoms. And frankly, I agree with others that they should sell physical media of their own content.

Gaming & Music
- Mobile gaming has been their focus so far, and I think they should avoid any notion of streaming triple A games competitively. It'd be a huge drain on resources with little prospect for success if Google's endeavor is any indication.
- Music may be worth looking at. Competing with Spotify and others wouldn't be easy, but could be worth consideration.

[An4h0ny]

I really like this idea for a thread.

Here is a related story about N
https://www.avclub.com/netflix-bone-...ion-1848821909

Amidst the chaos, The Wrap released a quieter report this afternoon, one focused on the company’s once vaunted Original Animation department—reporting, among other things, that Phil Rynda, Netflix Director of Creative Leadership and Development for Original Animation, had been let go from the company this week, and that several high-profile animated projects, most notably the much-anticipated animated adaptation of Jeff Smith’s beloved comic series Bone, were dead at the service.

The Bone show is a blow, for sure; fans have been waiting for Smith’s all-ages adventure comic, seemingly a natural fit for animation, to get a worthy adaptation for years. But the report, written by Drew Taylor, also delves into Netflix’s overall treatment of animation creatives, who were once lured to the company with promises of creative freedom, and are now frequently tossed stacks of data to justify the company’s limited advertising for, and support of, its animated shows.

[filmbuffTX]

CNN+ Shutting Down Less Than a Month After Launch

New ownership is rethinking CNN's place in its streaming ecosystem.

Less than a month after it launched, the streaming service CNN+ will wind down operations, as its new corporate owner Warner Bros. Discovery rethinks the news giant’s streaming strategy. The service will shut down on April 30, after launching on March 29, a source familiar with the plans said.

CNN employees were set to be informed of the decision Thursday by incoming CNN CEO Chris Licht.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...6ab039a7423e93

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

CNN+ Shutting Down Less Than a Month After Launch

New ownership is rethinking CNN's place in its streaming ecosystem.

Less than a month after it launched, the streaming service CNN+ will wind down operations, as its new corporate owner Warner Bros. Discovery rethinks the news giant’s streaming strategy. The service will shut down on April 30, after launching on March 29, a source familiar with the plans said.

CNN employees were set to be informed of the decision Thursday by incoming CNN CEO Chris Licht.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...6ab039a7423e93

Surprise! (not )

How can you launch a paid CNN streaming service that doesn't include the actual CNN news without an additional cable subscription? Who did they think would sign up for this?

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

Surprise! (not )

How can you launch a paid CNN streaming service that doesn't include the actual CNN news without an additional cable subscription? Who did they think would sign up for this?

It was always meant to be a complement and not a replacement for the CNN cable channel. CNN is one of the cornerstones of the traditional Cable TV package and they weren't trying to directly compete with it. CNN made over $1 BILLION in profits last year. They also were only asking for $2.99 a month and you could get it cheaper than that for the life of your subscription if you took advantage of a promotion they were offering.

It's also not being shut down because it wasn't "successful", since it hasn't even been running a full month yet.

This is more about the new leadership (Discovery) having a different long term strategy for streaming than the old ownership (AT&T/WarnerMedia). CNN also just had a recent change in leadership with Jeff Zucker exiting as President in February and Chris Licht from CBS now in his place.

It's just odd that CNN/WarnerMedia pushed through with this and launched it knowing that the new bosses might have a different strategy.

It's looking more clear that in the near future Warner Bros. Discovery will have one single streaming service that offers a variety of content from all of its properties including CNN; instead of offering a bundle with separate services.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

It was always meant to be a complement and not a replacement for the CNN cable channel. CNN is one of the cornerstones of the traditional Cable TV package and they weren't trying to directly compete with it.

I know. That was a fatal flaw in the concept from the start. Why would anyone subscribe to a CNN streaming service without CNN news? Some weak-sauce catalog stuff and Chris Wallace interviews cannot make up for the lack of what makes CNN CNN. It could have been attractive for the growing number of cable cutters if the full news coverage had been included, but not like this.

It's also not being shut down because it wasn't "successful", since it hasn't even been running a full month yet.

For sure, the fact that it was the pet project of the outgoing management was an issue. But it is also true that the subscriber numbers were far below expectations.

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

I know. That was a fatal flaw in the concept from the start. Why would anyone subscribe to a CNN streaming service without CNN news? Some weak-sauce catalog stuff and Chris Wallace interviews cannot make up for the lack of what makes CNN CNN. It could have been attractive for the growing number of cable cutters if the full news coverage had been included, but not like this.

They were likely going after people who already have access to CNN and are already fans of their various on air talent and want more content. All of their main talent like Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, etc. have shows on the soon to be dead streaming service. In addition to Chris Wallace like you mentioned, they got someone from NPR, an ex NFL player, and others. They invested around $300 million so far and were going to dump hundreds of more millions into it to build it out over the coming months/years.

For them to offer a live broadcast of their main CNN channel they might have to renegotiate their carriage deals with all of the various providers of 'CableTV' content. I believe Paramount+ only offers live broadcast of CBS if you have Cable TV credentials. Does ESPN+ offer 24 hour live broadcast of its main channels?

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

For them to offer a live broadcast of their main CNN channel they might have to renegotiate their carriage deals with all of the various providers of 'CableTV' content.

Well yes, if they want to become less dependent on the eroding cable business and get into the growing streaming market, they'll have to come up with a business model. For example, the big cable companies have their own streaming offerings now because they are well aware that the traditional cable business is dying a slow death. CNN could have sold CNN+ through those channels in addition to their OTT app, giving the cable companies a nice cut.

But at the end of the day that is their problem, not mine. As a potential customer, I'm only interested in getting something of value for my money, and in this case I just didn't see it.

[An4h0ny]

This will be a tab on the newly merged Discovery/HBO service... right?

[An4h0ny]

CNN+ Failed for the Reason Netflix Struggles and Disney+ Thrives

When Netflix (NFLX) - Get Netflix, Inc. Report began creating original content, it had that space to itself in the streaming world.

Its early entries focused on creating prestige television and being very slow to cancel shows. That made its approach similar to how HBO has done things for decades, where it produced a relatively small slate, rarely canceled anything after the first season, and bet big on that relatively small slate.

That created appointment viewing. You had to watch "The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," "Sex in the City," and, more recently, "Game of Thrones" when they aired in order to be able to talk about them at work the next day.

Netflix did that at first, but as it expanded its audience, it got away from that strategy, creating an enormous amount of shows that got very little attention.

Netflix judges success based on its own internal algorithm and how many minutes people spend watching a show. The problem -- and it's a big one -- is vaguely watching something and emotionally connecting to it are very different.

As it went for volume over prestige, Netflix lost its relevance. That has been made worse by the company's insistence on releasing whole seasons all at once. That robs the company of the public-relations life cycle that Walt Disney's (DIS) - Get Walt Disney Company Report Disney+ takes full advantage of.

The content game has changed as the scene has become a lot more crowded. Now, it's about intellectual property and taking big swings, not throwing a lot of shows at the wall to see what sticks.

Netflix has decided not to play that game and that's causing its struggles. Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) - Get WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC. Report has followed a similar path as Netflix with CNN+, and that ultimately led to the news service lasting not even a month.

Why Did CNN+ Fail?
CNN+ assumed that having a lot of content meant more than having signature content. It created a lot of shows with big names (or at least big names in the news world) but it wasn't core programming. You might like Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper, but CNN+ did not give you their top-tier shows. Instead, it gave you those names doing vanity shows of limited appeal.

You can't actually watch CNN on CNN+. That makes its programming secondary. Yes, the channel had a lot of shows, but were any of them essential? Sure, you got stars, but mostly CNN+ delivered their vanity projects, not the shows people associate them with.

Basically, CNN+ followed the Netflix model: Hire a lot of stars and throw a ton of ideas at the wall. That can work to a point when you have more than 200 million subscribers. Netflix, for example, considers its Adam Sandler movies "hits" because they engage a segment of its audience. For CNN+, however, it's a very tough way to grow from zero.

Why Is Disney+ the Model for Success?
Disney's intellectual property has removed the threat of failure from its business model. It releases only shows that have large potential audiences. It also produces only a relatively small number of shows at a time. That makes it possible for a lesser-known character like Moon Knight to lead a series.

Every Disney show is an event that gets talked about and covered by the entertainment media extensively. That, plus the one-episode-a-week release schedule, enables word of mouth and water-cooler buzz to build.

When Disney brings back its biggest shows, it seems that everyone is watching them and that you're missing out if you don't. Netflix used to have that but no longer does, as even its so-called hits often fail to create much buzz (there are, of course, exceptions to that).

Netflix does not have Disney's intellectual property -- nobody does -- but it could focus its attention on building franchises in the way that HBO has (and the way it did in its early days): Make every release an event with some bigger than others, but have every single show serve a potentially broad audience (the company has suggested it would be doing this). .

CNN+ was likely doomed no matter what it did, but by launching without a few clear big swings, hit attempts as its core focus, it had even less of a chance. The streaming world has become crowded, and nearly everyone has shows they want to watch but don't have time for.

Disney has shown that it's about going big, not volume. Netflix still has time to learn that lesson, CNN+, sadly does not.

[LordoftheRings]

Subscribed

[LordoftheRings]

▪︎https://fortune.com/2022/04/20/elon-...ke-mind-virus/

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

This will be a tab on the newly merged Discovery/HBO service... right?

For CNN? I haven't read anything about a hub on HBO Max being the spiritual continuation of CNN+, but I imagine eventually they'll use HBO Max to include a hub for CNN. The CNN hub, rather than being the aforementioned successor to CNN+, will probably just have their CNN-produced content (such as American Style which was already on Max). Think documentaries, docu-series, and it wouldn't surprise me either if they did give some kind of new show to Wallace, Tapper, or others for the platform even if they aren't affiliated with the shows on CNN+.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

For CNN? I haven't read anything about a hub on HBO Max being the spiritual continuation of CNN+, but I imagine eventually they'll use HBO Max to include a hub for CNN. The CNN hub, rather than being the aforementioned successor to CNN+, will probably just have their CNN-produced content (such as American Style which was already on Max). Think documentaries, docu-series, and it wouldn't surprise me either if they did give some kind of new show to Wallace, Tapper, or others for the platform even if they aren't affiliated with the shows on CNN+.

Yep. I can absolutely see that.

It definitely is a huge value-add for them.

They should have just run with that plan from the start.

But hindsight is 20/20, etc...

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

CNN+ Failed for the Reason Netflix Struggles and Disney+ Thrives

Good read. I don't remember Netflix ever being prestige television though.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Good read. I don't remember Netflix ever being prestige television though.

I think their early originals easily qualify as prestige TV, things like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo (very underrated show, I never understood why it wasn't more popular), then another wave with Daredevil and the other Marvel shows, Mindhunter, Stranger Things, Dark, and a bunch of really good miniseries such as Unbelievable. They still make some good shows, but also a lot of rubbish.

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

Yep. I can absolutely see that.

It definitely is a huge value-add for them.

They should have just run with that plan from the start.

But hindsight is 20/20, etc...

You're probably being too generous towards them. This CNN+ concept never made any sense. It's an OTT service for CNN where you.....don't even get live news? And do I recall you have to have cable to access it anyway?

This idea that these major cable/broadcast news names are like beloved celebrities and people would pay to get even more was nonsense, and worse it was build on the foundation of what appears to be nearly news-free content.

Why they thought all of this was worth a separate service when they rolled all these other brands into Max is bizarre. And maybe they weren't expecting gigantic numbers, but the rest of media has been throwing around some hefty sums spent on CNN+, and their rumored audience size is/was dismal.

This made even less sense than Quibi and was timed worse, arguably.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

You're probably being too generous towards them. This CNN+ concept never made any sense. It's an OTT service for CNN where you.....don't even get live news? And do I recall you have to have cable to access it anyway?

This idea that these major cable/broadcast news names are like beloved celebrities and people would pay to get even more was nonsense, and worse it was build on the foundation of what appears to be nearly news-free content.

Why they thought all of this was worth a separate service when they rolled all these other brands into Max is bizarre. And maybe they weren't expecting gigantic numbers, but the rest of media has been throwing around some hefty sums spent on CNN+, and their rumored audience size is/was dismal.

This made even less sense than Quibi and was timed worse, arguably.

Well, we all just got a reality check on current demand vs supply in this space.

It is still an important co-brand or sub-brand or w/e it's called.

But definitely not something that can stand on its own. It is surprising they spent so much but I'm sure there is a "roll back" or B plan. Once the Discovery team takes over they will know how to use this content. They have been doing a great job so far, imo.

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

Well, we all just got a reality check on current demand vs supply in this space.

It is still an important co-brand or sub-brand or w/e it's called.

But definitely not something that can stand on its own. It is surprising they spent so much but I'm sure there is a "roll back" or B plan. Once the Discovery team takes over they will know how to use this content. They have been doing a great job so far, imo.

CNN definitely has name recognition. I think the question is more what that brand is worth now and in the near-to-medium term.

But even if CNN could negotiate deals allowing them to have an app with a livestreaming service, I just don't see that being a successful streaming service anywhere near what allegedly was spent on CNN+. Granted, they could've invested more in content for true learning (like a big budget version of Curiosity Stream), and that probably would've been more successful, but I think there are limitations to the brand (as with any of the legacy major media companies - maybe a "PBS+" would be the one possibility).