It's not precisely Gresham's Law, because bad content only drives out good content until people get bored enough with the specific kind of badness. Then something, which either is good or at least is differently bad, catches on, and the cycle repeats. What doesn't change is that the wealthy and powerful hate quality in their business, because with their short term perspective, they can never see it as "profitable enough". Quality is meant to be for them to display (without necessarily paying much attention to it) in their private lives as a status symbol, something not meant to be available to ordinary people, because if it were, those rich people wouldn't want it. So good content does get hoarded while bad content gets circulated, but unlike with coined money, not because people in general value the good money more than the bad.
As a person with a bucket full content looking for a home this is an exciting time. Having spent the past 40 years gathering stories its nice to know there is a demand. I already have two in the hopper. This is a great time to be an original story teller. Lovely article.
This interesting premise is lost in the writer's mistaken and supporting evidence-free belief that what media writers like is what the public likes. For example, he and his peers keep insisting that a Netflix special made Hannah Gadsby a superstar and changed standup comedy, when there is nothing to indicate this is true.
It is comforting to be in the cocoon of media writers--generally coastal, privileged from birth and like minded--but their observations would be much more accurate if they knew a significant number of blue collar workers, military veterans, rural residents, nonaffluent people of color and Trump voters.
1
Streaming is not just about the new stull. As a newcomer to streaming tv, is was pleasantly surprised at the amount of free programs -- and not just old movies. I found an enourmous amount of Japanese animation and anime, documentaries including an excellent one on Edith Wharton and another on impressionist art, etc. All these options fill the slots left open beyond the new, the big and costly shows that are produced and presented. The made for screen or TV vaults are full of a great variety of material that may not make the hit parade, but are interesting, often very well produced, and cover many areas of screened interest.
1
Wake me up when I can subscribe to the 4 or so channels I actually watch without paying for junk I have no interest in. I also want to pay per view for sports- I like College Football but have no interest in subsidizing DIsney’s 17 ESPN sports gossip channels.
A handful of companies dominate TV production and distribution and are determined to lock viewers into the same model regardless of the form of delivery- cable, satellite or streaming. Where is the DoJ anti-trust? Disney should not own Hulu, AT&T should not own Warner and DIRECTV and Comcast should not be able to own both NBC/Universal and the cable service.
5
Netflix succeeded because it offered a lot of content for not that much money. Streaming wars is becoming the cable wars of old. For sure people will not pay for 4-5 streaming services at $15 each. They will keep maybe one or two, if they come bundled with other subscriptions like Amazon Prime and go back to torrents for the rest of the content they crave.
4
So "stankey" is apparently responsible for abandoning HBO's legacy of Boxing coverage. Just an abrupt ending to decades of boxing journalism. If you were to ask me, a loyal subscriber to HBO, I would say that "Stankey's" method is stank. The "profit is king" model will lead to homogenized entertainment with each outlet copying the other to capture one market, instead of offering the largest variety possible. What a shame that the corporate model invades every aspect of our existence.
3
And then there's YouTube basic. It's like a thrift shop in a university town in that you never know what you'll find on the DVD shelf. Judi Dench has always said that her favorite screen role was Christine Foskett in "Absolute Hell", but if you want to see her in it, this is your only option:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-Ccw_yg_0&t=78s
Or you can go on watching her give James Bond his next assignment.
1
Think I'll just read a book.
10
The shows are merely the filler between the ads.
10
It does seem like the quality of streaming shows is going downhill. I am disappointed that Netflix in particular is using its cash to finance original programing instead of streaming more "new release' movies. They used to have more indie films in their DVD section but now there have been a few that I've had to go to Amazon or Apple to rent IN ADDITION to my Netflix monthly fees.
That said I am still of the opinion that eventually all of these streaming services will consolidate into 2 or 3 monopolies just like other industries before them so they can control pricing.
1
I don't care how many new shows they are going to produce every year. I don't have that much time to watch them anyway. What I care most is the quality of the shows. I believe most of the people would agree with me.
15
Streaming gained traction because of the quality shows being produced. If they are now just going to follow the networks’ formula of producing game show and reality TV drivel, then let’s all save ourselves some money and turn off the box.
229
@Andrea Rathbone
Also because you watch on your own schedule, and -- most importantly -- NO COMMERCIALS!
The day Netflix or any other subscription provider forces commercials on us with no option to avoid them, even by paying more, is the day I will cancel immediately.
56
@Pat
I despise commercials, but am willing to put up with them for free content. CBSN is a free streaming (and profitable) news service that is ad supported.
What I object to is pay for content AND getting commercials.
7
For someone who appreciates classic films, art films, foreign films, documentaries and independent films, I was grateful to be able to stream up to 10 quality films per month on "Kanopy" for free (at least "free" to the end user). Sadly, the New York Public Library could not continue to pay for Kanopy and there's really no good alternative.
5
@Todd
Does your library belong to Hoopla?
Only six shows, compared to ten, and it's shows, not hours--so it's six half-hour episodes of a comedy, or six three-hour epics.
The Criterion Channel can be paid month to month or annually as a stand alone.
No commercials and the kind of films you describe.
2
Frustratingly, Criterion is not available in Australia to stream. It would do well here.
1
exclusivity is going to be serious problem for Netflix. it appears that the vast majority of of stream watch back catalogue stuff like office and friends. Netflix will loose most of them and a huge amount of movies to Disney and At@t. Netflix has tried to produce original content like Stranger Tide but that alone cannot support its business model. Also it has no big hits like Game if Thrones I suspect the future of Netflix is a niche market if quirky US content and unique overseas shows like the excellent Suburra but with much lower stock market value
2
Not sure why some of the comments discuss cable anymore. That Titanic has left the harbor a long time ago. It's really about what the future (streaming OD) market will look like and who will thrive in it. I think there can't be a viable, separate provider where there were networks in the past. So, some consolidation and weeding out is likely to come. And realistically, the current big players have a huge leg up already, so I don't see a whole lot of credible competition challenging them. But it's certainly interesting to follow and should provide more options going forward.
Overheard this morning during 7AM Crossfit:
“Hey, did you finish watching the latest Arrested Development episodes?”
“No, when did it come out?”
“I dunno, like, a few months ago?”
(Uncomfortable silence)
I thought about asking them if they had seen the latest Jessica Jones, but realized it was hopeless. Those episodes have been available for just a few weeks so the chances were pretty slim...
The shows I watch now are vastly superior to the sexist rubbish I watched as a kid: MASH, Cheers, Knight Rider, Dukes of Hazard. But I miss the community aspect of television.
25 points for mentioning Crossfit.
1
So John Stankey from the monolithic, stodgy phone company better known as AT&T actually lectured Richard Plepler on how to run a media/entertainment company. What a joke. And what arrogance.
I have news for Mr. Stankey. Volume in terms of hours or minutes of use is an appropriate metric when your dealing with a commodity such as voice and data traffic running over a communications network. But the wheels quickly fall off the wagon when you try to apply that same yardstick to carefully crafted, creative output such as television shows.
The bean counters at AT&T are in for a very rude awakening.
13
Great article...and thank you, NYT.
Content is and will continue to be king. But it's going to be interesting to watch how common notions of content change over the next 10 to 15 years as SVOD merges with big data and 5G technology. Today we consider old episodes of Friends as content, but in the future content will include virtually anything you can get off the internet...shows are just the beginning. It will include music, news, education, intelligent home services, health monitoring...the mind boggles. SVOD is just the initial tether that ropes us in.
12
I think the elephant in the room is where will the money come from to develop more programs. We’re in a show development arms race right now and we, as viewers, are the beneficiaries. At some point people will decide that spending a lot of money for “TV” or whatever you want to call it isn’t a good deal. Sports betting will save ESPN but lacking that change, ESPN was sinking because of too many high priced contracts for talent and content. The reckoning is coming. Enjoy the glut of good shows while you can.
3
Somebody's sucking up all this junk. I spend a lot of time surfing around on Netflix and Amazon Prime Video looking for something to watch.
Surprise!
I rarely find anything. But I'm old,curmudgeonly, and not into vampires, zombies, axe murderers, shoddy and predictable computer animated childrens stories, hackneyed sitcoms, superheroes, or #7 in any sequel series.
But as with our ever burgeoning mountain of waste, we can simply bundle it up and ship it out to some poor sucker country looking for any source of revenue.
Hope the suckers can absorb all of this before, like carbon emissions, it leads to a very pitiful end.
11
Does anyone know about Kanopy.com? It's a free streaming service provided to anyone with a public library card. I've been using it for a year now and am so happy with its interface and selections of films. The categories are broad and diverse. Most recently, I discovered films by Michael Blackwood, an independent filmmaker who has produced over 150 documentaries on various mediums of art and artists - including one about Thelonious Monk, which is just Amazing! Kanopy had over 100 films by Blackwood, all available for viewing, for free!
With so many companies creating "original" content, I am happy that a company like Kanopy is creating a platform for films and filmmakers that were lesser known or harder to find. The folks who were sad to see the end of Filmstruck, I think you should try out Kanopy.
9
The NYPL no longer supports Kanopy.
3
While Kanopy is available free to end-users whose public libraries subscribe to this service, it is not free to the libraries who provide the service. Just like the books, CDs, DVDs and anything else that libraries circulate without charge, the libraries have to purchase the commodity or service. There is no free lunch. Either your tax dollars, or donations, and/or grants are purchasing this service.
If you use kanopy instead of subscribing to a service independently, you might consider making a donation to the institution that provides it to you. Libraries’ budgets are generally strained to the max, and a little local assistance for a great service would go far in the continuation of libraries providing such services. Indeed, they’d go a long way in simply maintaining the functioning, much less the existence, of such libraries.
9
It wasn’t that long ago that we were told to get off the couch and go live our lives. No one wanted to be a couch potato. Oh, the shame.
Now the cultural conversation has shifted. “Are you caught up on this or that series?” Caught up? Like it’s my job.
Strange. Now, even the New York Times and WAPO have articles every week telling us what to binge.
8
"We actually complete with sleep and are winning" by Hastings should be something he is embarrassed to say. Not only for the negative goal for his customers, but the inability to see that his platform has the potential to serve more than just a hyped awake state. This avalanche of content shouldn't be only about more comedies, dramas, thrillers... it should also be about creating new categories of content and service that there was no place for before and can be more customized to each users specific goals. More educational, relaxing, informative, helpful, instructional, functional, art creation types of various media. I just hope one of these executives might also ask how we can serve more rather than just what amount of candy should we throw into the play room so the children will want more.
6
Hate to tell you, but there is too much content and frankly n9 one watches it anymore. The last show I watched was Chernobyl on HBO. It was great.
2
I pulled the plug on cable and switched to streaming precisely because of the low caliber of shows on cable. Three hundred channels and nothing but junk! If that's the way the streaming services are going, then I'll be canceling my subscriptions. I was already disappointed with HBO's choice of new programming and had decided to cut them out of my budget this month. Reality TV and game shows are mostly pablum for idiots. Ugh.
11
As a casualty of a “largely niche market streaming service” - FilmStruck - this article worries me about the end of the second golden age of television and the Disneyfication of programming.
10
Filmstruck has been somewhat replicated by the Criterion Channel.
What doomed Filmstruck was a poorly designed app that made discovery of content a chore and a lot of bugs at launch.
I do not watch it often, but joined as a charter member and paid for a year in advance. I like the fact that such content is available commercial free and on demand.
There is an object lesson in there for those pushing drivel with the bundled services detailed here.
1
What's Television? A race to where? To the bottom of the dummy ladder.
4
Let them stream all they want; there's only so many hours a day people may watch. In an increasingly crowded space the most titillating fare will triumph in the ratings -- get ready for trash.
As for "anything goes" it will prove what H.L. Mencken said: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Like the moron in the white house, streaming fare will also flow downhill to whatever execrable level sates the masses.
My wife and I don't care for 99% of what's on TV. We watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and record some shows to watch later (food shows, hgtv, etc) as we fast forward through the ever more numerous and ever more noxious ads.
Most fare leaves us cold. If I had to watch Sean Hannity I'd shoot my TV. Gone are the glory days of Boston Legal, Twin Peaks, Dallas, Dynasty, Moonlighting, House, etc.
I "watch" the stocks of these firms and invest accordingly. :)
I'm 71, wife is 67. Boy, do we ever miss Bob Newhard, Steve Allen, Johnny Carson, Cybill Sheppard, and so many more.
11
I thought this was one of the better articles written recently about the Great Race to Streaming TV. It provided an insider perspective about the challenges facing the various participants. For all the discussion about content creation and library reshuffling however, cable is being propped up by live sports. It would have been interesting to hear more about how and when the Streamers will compliment their services with live sports.
8
Or do what I do: buy physical media (DVD and Blu-ray) and keep the costs of streaming to $0...
4
The party is over. I moved out on my own right around the time streaming took off. I had no desire to pay for cable since anything I wanted was available streaming. I remember feeling blissfully ignorant that the days of the cable model were numbered. What will 2020 and 2021 bring us? Disney, NBC, HBO, Netflix, etc. will now have their own separate "channels". Instead of a coaxial cable to the TV, it's now delivered via wifi or ethernet. Yes, we can pay separately for these "channels", or we will probably be given the opportunity buy a subscription by a provider that will "bundle" all these channels into a single fee. Hmm, maybe my internet provider will tell me I can pay $90 a month to "access" all these channels. Just like cable. And remember how cable was supposed to be "ad free" in the beginning? Just wait 3 years for ads to start running on all these paid channels once everyone gets comfy. Just like cable. A teacher of mine had a saying: "Adapt, Adjust, Overcome". And that is exactly what the media giants are doing. They learned the new world they live in and found the best way to siphon as much cash out of it as possible, again.
12
@Mike
The content is the ad. There is no further need to produce discrete advertising.
1
@Mike I have the beta version of Apple TV (minus their new content) where they have done just as you said and bundled the channels. I can now subscribe to HBO, Showtime, etc along with I think 20 individual news channels along with other content including games. After one month I discovered I still have nothing to watch and Apple TV has become a big pitch to subscribe to more channels. I've now taken up Twitter where my comments are not moderated (much) and a meme would be my new entertainment.
Ultimately it is the public that loses. Fewer genuine quality programs spread across multiple subscription-requiring platforms, with an abundance of valueless filler content.
7
I hope HBO doesn't go the way of the 1,000 mediocre offerings of a Netflix. They've far and away always had better, deeper, and more high quality programming.
Let's hope the war for our attention goes to books. So much more to be learned there.
5
Love the animated illustration.
3
The new teevee looks a lot like the old teevee: a business of selling eyeballs to advertisers, save that the advertisers are no longer limited to the time slots within the shows themselves.
The objective has always been to get the most eyeballs for the lowest cost in “content”. And just when you thought that the quality couldn’t get any lower. Sigh.
6
I am paying more for internet, cable and streaming than I paid for rent back in the 70s. That doesn't take into account the passwords that relatives have shard with me. A big problem in my opinion is that the cable companies control internet access. Cord cutting does not drastically reduce the cost of access to good programs. My brother in law in Spain pays about half of what we pay for cable and internet. Once 5g is established the phone companies will find a way to overcharge. Consumers are treated like suckers by the media companies in the United States.
12
The quality of streamed shows has plummeted in the past year.
6
Prestige shows still hold more interest than streaming junk endemic to Netflix. Amazon is my choice for better films and entertainment. Netflix is a cable listing for network junk.
5
The streaming channels are basically like free cable channels. Oceans of complete garbage. It takes way too much time to find the stuff worth watching (fortunately I’m married to a content whisperer). The only difference from what’s on free cable is a veneer of “high concept.” But that quickly rubs off while watching. It’s all done slapdash and on the cheap with too little focus on quality writing, directing, editing and acting. Aka the fundamentals. In this respect it carries more of the genetic material of daytime soaps and in so doing dumbs down its audience instead of uplifting and inspiring. It’s cynical and ripe for a comeuppance.
5
Netflix + Prime + quarterly rotation of one other.
4
Bill Maher's Real Time and a few other things are the only reason I still subscribe to HBO. Hope they get more quality content, not just pump out a bunch of mediocre stuff.
2
A lot of people creating a lot of junk, with their eye solely on making a lot of money. This is what happens when entertainment is controlled by very few very large businesses with whom smaller, perhaps more creative people cannot possibly compete. Now you know why Netflix is full of glut.
5
We need a high-res version of the illustration. It is so fun!
1
I am surprised not to see any mention of the ad based time fillers such as Pluto. It has got to have the most eclectic (or weirdest) collection of shows I have seen. It is almost as if it buys its shows from streaming equivalent of the $3.99 cart at Wal-Mart. They run the gamut from Midsomer Murders 24/7/365 to MST3K and back to movies not that old to old documentaries and news shows. It makes no effort to insert commercials in line with plot. The screen goes black, ad pops in and then plot resumes. At some level, I think they understand the new process as much as anyone. Get stuff cheaply that people may give a modicum of interest to and monetize every square inch of it. You don’t get so-called water cooler shows. Big deal. When less than 5 per cent of America watched Thrones’ most highly watched episode, I wonder what water cooler means in 2019.
The other thing happening is the increased difficulty of knowing whether what you are watching is live or on demand or even what “channel” has it. If I want to watch Seinfeld, Frasier or Outer Limits, it appears on my screen almost always without added fee. What does it mean to get a show from HBO? Who knows? I don’t even know if I am watching HBO, TNT, TBS, TCM or some other 3 letter acronym.
it's entertaining just watching the streaming wars but in the end, it'll all collapse down to 4-5 streaming behemoths that gobble up the smaller fish. AT&T's new strategy to misuse the HBO brand for broadcast twaddle like Friends makes me think they don't have a clue how to pull it off. Apple is a wild card, CBS is probably too small, Comcast is still futzing around and far too late. The only solid contenders I see are Netflix, Amazon and Disney. With a list that short, it's good news for CBS...
3
I have hundreds of cable channels including HBO, Showtime, and Starz, and subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu -- and I can never find anything I want to watch...
6
Disney, HBO, and other new entities don't have a clue about streaming--if they did, they either would have already started it years ago. But of course, they just pushed out mediocre content with no view to the future. How would it be any different now? They only smell cash, which is fine, but without really understanding consumers today, they will fail.
What is their track record for innovation?
How have they connected to customers in any real way?
Of course, HBO had Game of Thrones and other excellent shows, but that was built on an old model.
If Warner things they can create a service on Friends or other old shows, they are doomed.
3
The article has a link to the 20 best dramas since the Soprano's. 20 best if you can't or won't read subtitles. Shows like Dark, Spiral, a French Village, Black Spot, The Forest, The Bridge, Borgen, The Legacy and Trapped are all gripping and better than a lot of the shows mentioned. Not to mention the excellent dramas on PBS Masterpiece such as Endeavour. The Times film critics consistently include International films in their critiques, whereas the television critics hardly do so. Also, this article makes no mention of streaming services such as MHZ, which carried quality European dramas. television critique at the Times is generally middlebrow at best, not taking enough time to highlight some of the best shows out there. I search for reviews online for up and coming dramas as the Times coverage is so infuriatingly limited.
7
Specifically Netflix has a way of making a show that’s good for 2-3 episodes and creates a lot of buzz, but then the rest of the show is complete garbage.
4
I am 40 and pretty much gave up watching TV five years ago. I don't stream, don't flick, don't DVR, don't watch live sports, none of it. I took up woodworking, gardening and reading (mostly books about woodworking and gardening) in its place (I learned early on that youtube is a bad place to go for good advice). I am not sure my life is better or worse for it, but I do enjoy the control I have over my down time. I am not hostage to the networks' output.
I do have an interest in understanding various streaming options, my wife and kids are users and our media bill seems to go up every month...
4
I have zero experience in TV, only fashion. So, I'm thinking of this in fashion marketing terms. A brand can't be everything to everybody and each brand does best when it knows who it is, who its audience is and makes it its sole business to entertain THEM and them only. Netflix is H&M--high volume, varied quality churned out frequently at a low price and therefore appealing to many. HBO is Akris, a premium brand focusing on smart, high-production value programming at a premium price, so it appeals to fewer.
When one brand tries to become another brand in search of an even bigger profit (greed), it usually doesn't go well. The brand gets diluted and the original devoted audience smells the greed and gets turned off. Let Netflix do Netflix. HBO, you do you.
Also, HBO and others are a little late to the game. TV streaming is peaking right now and will likely be saturated in the next couple years when something else newer and more exciting that we haven't even thought of has come along.
I haven't had TV or cable in 15 years, btw. I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, HBO and Sling. They're all great but they're all different as well they should be.
5
The reason why people watch netflix instead of say amazon, is because it is much more user friendly. Easy to navigate, subtitles easy to turn on and off, subtitles in different languages, it is fast and intuitive. And the streaming quality is much better. Amazon could really learn from Netflix. It isn‘t just about content, but how easily and enjoyable it is to view that content.
10
The reason why people watch netflix instead of say amazon, is because it is much more user friendly. Easy to navigate, subtitles easy to turn on and off, subtitles in different languages, it is fast and intuitive. And the streaming quality is much better. Amazon could really learn from Netflix. It isn‘t just about content, but how easily and enjoyable it is to view that content.
1
We are trading the cost of all those cable packages for the cost of all those streaming services, once again fragmenting a market by having everybody trying to get their slice of a consumer's wallet. Netflix, Prime and Hulu each have their devotees and good content, but do we really want Disney Plus, CBS All Access, HBO Gold, and whatever other services will now want $5-10 per month? I guess time will tell, but personally I am rooting for a few of these services to crash and burn.
6
The actual core issue behind all this is the ownership/licensing of internet access. The internet was invented by the DoD for national security purposes. In other words - it was created and developed via taxpayer funding, and by any sane rationale is the property of the public, much as radio frequencies have been deemed to belong to the public in telecom law.
So why exactly are we paying private cable providers to allow us access to what we already own? If some sum of money is required to maintain land or wireless networks, they should be government utilities just like water or electricity. Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner - why are they profiting from providing access to something they have no business being a part of?
With landline and cable subscribers dwindling, the cable giants will send internet access prices skyrocketing, as it will be their last profitable commodity. The streaming era will be more expensive for the consumer than the cable era ever was, unless we wise up and take our public property back from the private sector that stole it.
8
We're reaching the point of critical mass for streaming options. There are only so many premium subscriptions that people are willing to buy or can afford. Many cord cutters went that route to save money. It's not uncommon for monthly streaming to exceed a cable bill with three or four services. Increased media fragmentation and reliance on expensive original programming means that companies will need an increasing number of subscribers and will charge higher fees. All that means tension between the financial limits of consumers' budgets and the financial needs of the services. When the dust settles there will only be a handful of very large companies left behaving like cable companies.
3
Scary. Luckily there will always be the good ol’ classics to remind us of the long gone era of great storytelling.
The only thing that would get me back to cable is if they finally offer a la carte channel selection. There are a few channels I would pay for, but I refuse to pay for the dozens of others that I never watch. Digital cable boxes can easily do this but the cable operators want to sell you an expensive package instead. Hopefully they will be forced to change.
5
As a member of one of the crafts unions involved in producing the content shot in NYC, I truly cannot complain as the work has been steady, if not torrential at times. The entertainment industry has always supported so many crewmembers as well as local businesses from caterers to dry cleaners. It has traditionally bucked the economic downturns, and now we are riding the wave of demand for more- good or bad, the paychecks are the same.
That said, I have worked on some truly outstanding shows that I have been proud to be a small part of, as well as the other ones that weren’t so hot. As a consumer of a certain age I am not choosing between watching a series or playing games or watching YouTube videos on my phone. But my 20 year old son is, and I suspect the age of the one-hour drama is coming to an end. And with streamed content, you can see as much or as little as you choose at a time.
6
Subscribing to every individual streaming service will become more expensive than traditional cable subscriptions and might end up driving subscribers back.
Unless Hulu and Disney+, like Netlfix, is offered outside of the USA, I don't see it surviving. Both Netflix and Prime video have managed to stay ahead not only by streaming in regions around the world but by also offering region specific content.
There is only so many times you can watch Star Wars and there is a good chance that one has already seen it in the theatres. Good Luck Disney +
2
People keep promoting Disney because of its “vast” content. You can only watch Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar movies so long. 24/7/365 requires an ocean of content. They have a Long Island Sound of content. Disney will be buying or cranking out time fillers just like everyone else and spending a lot of money to do it. The only way to survive to get hundreds of millions of subscribers and retain them.
1
Network and cable television, to me, is a bit like land lines...a relic. I had to laugh when my internet service provider offered me a land line with a discount that lowered the cost of the internet access. I never used the phone service, but took advantage of the discount.
Today, I have Netflix (streaming only) and Amazon Prime which I mainly use for purchases through Amazon. I wonder if Netflix is even essential because I find myself binging instead of doing more "in person" activities. It's definitely a habit I'm working to change along with getting off of 2019's version of MySpace....Facebook.
4
A point of fact: “Russian Dolls” is a Netflix (not HBO) program.
The author of this article evidently adopted the programming practices employed by the streaming services he discusses. That is, his intention is to make his article so voluminous that someone reading it will have their time monopolized and then have no time to do anything else.
If the streaming companies really think consumers are going to pay $15 a month for 5 or 6 services, they must devise a solution to the income inequality problem. Three US citizens people have the same wealth as half the US population. It is unlikely many people have $90 a month to pay for streaming. Strange that these companies think they are producing something of such vital importance that anyone will give up food and rent to pay for it.
33
Don’t forget the old fashioned content provider - your neighborhood library. Just borrowed GOT Season One DVD set to see what all the hype is about.
Same goes for old and new TV shows, movies, documentaries etc. I can borrow with my card. Our library also offers a digital service called hoopla for music, videos and audiobooks that can be borrowed- downloaded x number per month.
I may not contribute much to watercooler chat about the latest episode of whatever but I’m also not forced to pay for content I may not even enjoy anyhow.
34
@Elizabeth Yes!
All these comments all depends on what age you are, whether you are retired or not, etc. It is ridiculous to make global assumptions. I just believe it is about time cable got competition. They have had a monopoly too long with gutless politicians deregulating them. Their bills are way too high and I hope cord cutting really shows them a lesson.
52
@Bruce Kirschenbaum. What you and the “youngsters” assume is that cutting the cord frees one from the cable companies. It does not. To keep my internet low, I have cable and telephone bundled (so they have numbers to show), neither of which I use, no box or phone, just so I can keep my bill below $90. Otherwise, I’d be spending over $130 on my internet access. Until the internet is considered a utility and regulated accordingly, “choice” is fallacy. The internet was built with taxpayer money. It’s ridiculous that a third party, who had no part in building it, gets to charge me again and again and again.
3
@Bruce Kirschenbaum @Bruce Kirschenbaum. What you and the “youngsters” assume is that cutting the cord frees one from the cable companies. It does not. To keep my internet low, I have cable and telephone bundled (so they have numbers to show), neither of which I use, no box or phone, just so I can keep my bill below $90. Otherwise, I’d be spending over $130 on my internet access. Until the internet is considered a utility and regulated accordingly, “choice” is fallacy. The internet was built with taxpayer money. It’s ridiculous that a third party, who had no part in building it, gets to charge me again and again and again.
One thing mnising from the discussion is the use of product placement and its possible ramifications for companies that span more than one jurisdiction.
"More recently, “Stranger Things” came to life not long after Netflix gleaned from its data that there was an unmet audience desire for what Holland called “higher-budget young-adult programming.”"
Maybe the legislators in the EU and individual countries around the globe will be interested to note that a programme aimed at young adults provided product placement for Marlboro Red cigarettes. (Stranger Things 3 Episode 6)
4
Anyone else notice the current dearth of quality programming from streaming services? That there is almost nothing of value or substance left?
The new "strategy" discussed in this article - to create quickly-made, shallow, cheap-to-produce dreck and avoid the high cost of quality production - takes advantage of the spreading and unbreakable hypnosis for the screen, any screen, showing anything. They're going to watch anyway; why spend money on quality?
It's a strategy that will increase viewership of the addicted and boost profits.
Therefore, lose any hope of some future "The Wire", "The Sopranos", etc. To the executives, pundits, operators quoted here, the picture couldn't be clearer: people will not leave just because you're only offering garbage.
What a society we've become.
22
@WM
We can't rely on capitalism to produce fine art. With AT&T (and others) seeking to monetize every second of our attention it's going to be a vast wasteland.
4
We cut the cord and now subscribe to YTTV. But now they’re becoming the same as the cable companies, adding useless channels we’ll never watch and jacking up the price. Now what do we do?
4
Next: Soylent Green, The Series?
5
""Online binge-watching can have an emboldening effect on outré creative impulses""
I for one, don't need the NYT to state the obvious.
Just look at our freakishly emboldened chief executive.
9
I can’t stand all the disparaging comments on here. If you don’t want to spend the money on these SVOD services don’t do it. It really is that simple. Keep watching network television and cable channels full of garbage content and constant commercials.
Netflix has some really excellent content that these other services (Hulu, Amazon, HBO) are trying to catch up to. What’s wrong with that? Traditional TV is dead as is cable television.
59
@N The constant commercials are truly bad, but percentage wise I think Netflix offers more garbage than network and cable. Yes, there's a lot, mostly poorly written and acted.
1
@N Exactly
@Rose Anne, Yes but I don’t care how many “bad programs” (to me) Netflix has, I care how many good programs they have. And they have a lot. We’re retired, watch a lot of Netflix, and have yet to sample any other streaming service.
6
Well, if Hulu were not exclusively showing "The Handmaid's Tale" - a Hulu production - I would not bother to subscribe to Hulu.
So, there's that.
3
Todo:
Head to the library to renew card
Limit children’s screen time to 30 minutes (better be judicious, kids. Don’t get hooked on garbage)
Sell stock in media companies because risks are large and not worth the payout ... its a race to the bottom of commoditized content and the costs are huge to win if you are going to build the platform AND create the content
Go outside and play
Interact with people
Think and develop my own thoughts
10
Remember the original enticements from Ted Turner and the cable industry that turned into a vast wasteland of channels? Welcome to the next accelerating decline. Don't tell me about innovation. There will always be a limited number of superb productions, but you will have to dig harder and pay more to find them.
Behemoths want you in their ecosystem. All Apple, all Facebook, all Disney, all Netflix... As we used to say, gag me with a spoon.
13
"Erwich squinted. 'All right,' he replied, not yet fully sold. 'O.K.'"
As long as high-level decisions are made by individuals representing ~50% of the population, 50% of the audience will get continue to get shortchanged in some way in terms of budget, content, production values, frequency, duration until cancellation, and/or day part, because those shows are considered somehow less deserving than "action" shows with thin, predictable plots that compete primarily on outdoing each other in terms of sex, gore and body count. This is coming from someone whose favorite show was Person of Interest (CBS). Why? Because it was an intelligent., thoughtful show, it raised important ethical issues about privacy and control (and even more so in 2019), the hero was not the typical cliché bulked up male, there were strong women characters, and the arc took one through despair and optimism, often at the same time. Yes, HBO gave me hope with Sharp Objects, Veep, Young Pope and Gentleman Jack, but now I'm hanging on by a thread with Bill Maher, John Oliver and the occasional decent movie. The rest seems to be "bro" fare or soapy drama.
7
PLEASE don’t mess with HBO. It’s the only quality programming left out there.
9
Interesting that none of the people interviewed for this (outstanding) article said anything about how what they are doing contributes to our society, our culture, our families., etc. It's the dollar that drives them.
In those golden olden days of yore, families gathered around the TV to all watch the evening's shows....together. My family had a tradition: Mom cooked hamburgers and french fries on Tuesday nights, and we watched the Tuesday evening lineup of westerns. That was 60+ years ago, and I can still remember those delicious, hand cut and deep fried french fries.
And going to Blockbuster was fun. It made the movie an "event." Pile the kids in the car and pick it out together.
We recently had a subscription to Netflix DVDs, but we stopped it because Netflix has no interest in providing older movies. Their streaming is their priority.
Now, instead of families watching TV together, everybody has their own screen.
My wife and I like to take dinner dance cruises. We'd see couples out on this romantic date sitting across from each other at the table, while the band was playing and the water and mountains were outside the boat, watching their individual screens. Probably Netflix, I guess.
We are 70. I think we are too old. We want Gunsmoke and Mary Tyler Moore. We don't like this short-attention-span world.
Maybe we need to just get marooned on Gilligan's Island.
15
@Travelers You fooling yourselves if you think back then it wasn't all money. I am in my 70's and remember those shows well. But the world has changed. Families don't eat tougher. You can either go with the changes, or just be stubborn on watch old reruns. Those channels are still making money off of you. They are not doing it for the good of society - very few ever were.
3
This article is actually not that relevant to me. I get most of my entertainment and streaming from Youtube.
This article fails to include the overwhelming phenomena that is the 800 pound gorilla: Youtube and dismisses it in one sentence.
The myopia of this article is breathtaking!
2
For years we subscribed to DirecTV. It got to the point where we were paying close to $140 per month for 1 1080p feed and 3 720p feeds. Sure we got over 150 stations, but that was the minimum package that included also TCM. And many of those stations were religious or just ridiculous and of no interest to us. We tossed the satellite dish and switched to Hulu. It's under $50 per month and provides us with all we need. And, when we dumped DirecTV we got numerous calls offering us a lower price of $75 per month. Not enough of a price cut and offered too late. Of course, within a few more years we will probably be in the same situation with Hulu. I miss the days of free tv, even if we were limited to 4 networks (and I'm counting PBS, not Fox).
9
A one time investment in a digital antenna may give you what you wish for. With that you will have far more than 4 channels. Did you know that PBS actually has 4 channels now? Superior. And the major nets offer multiple channels as well, mostly airing their old classic shows. Here in St Louis we have 24 over the air channels.
1
I hate commercials so I subscribe to Netflix . I have a Prime account. I use my dad's HBO sign-in. 3 years ago I cut my cable for an over the air antenna. I never watch network news. I watch news on you-tube and read the Times and Post from my paid subscriptions. I don't want to pay for any more channels and I've made peace with the fact that I won't see a lot of good TV, like the Handmaid's Tale - I'm reading the book now instead! The reason for all this craziness is the unbridled greed of the cable companies where they would not allow you to pick and choose your channels but you had to buy these outrageous packages and raise the prices every single year. I will do without all this in the future if priced out or commercial-ed out!
103
@Itsnotrocketscience Agreed but as one of their service reps pointed out to me in anger, they (the cable companies) were simply going to raise the internet prices until you were paying what you had before. And, yes, he was right. They are slowly inching up the prices for internet alone.
10
It's all good. The Comcast cable conglomerate needs more competition. I remember when there was one phone company - my bill was always $100+ a month. Now, people can have cell phones with no contract, unlimited calls, for as low as $10 a month. Bring it on.
1
Unfortunately, we live in an area where there's not enough signal for over-the-air TV. So we're stuck with minimum cable for basic TV and Internet. We watch PBS and, now that we can, the occasional baseball game (which we could easily do without). Enough. There's much to do in life that doesn't involve sitting on a sofa and staring at a screen.
5
Do people really "need" any sort of television any longer? Yes, free television (over the air) is a great medium through which to get information. The along came VCRs so one could record. Then the DVR coupled with cable and pay TV, television even greater by offering more choices plus the ability to record, skip the ads, and watch later. Now this arrangement is being challenged by the likes of internet online video (e.g. YouTube) and streaming direct to laptops, tablets, and smartphones. But is what it offers necessary? Given that most of what is on television has been and nowadays is fiction with little bearing on what is really happening in our lives, it seems like most of TV hasn't changed. It just a time waster. I donated away my TV because I could no longer find anything of use; everything was just for entertainment and selling ads.
3
I support the PBS streaming services. Outside of their fundraising chazerei, most programming is amazing and highly re-watchable. It's a good period in time to read all those books you scoffed at in school. I couldn't believe how much I recently just enjoyed Jane Eyre (free download on Kindle).
12
"Success in the streaming game isn’t zero-sum, but it might be close."
It is zero-sum in this household. When we dropped the all-everything cable subscription as cord cutters we basically set the upper limit on what we'll spend per month - forever. Never spending that much again.
The fun thing is that within that budget we can get a lot of great programming. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, HBO or Showtime, maybe BBC and others. And we can change whenever we want.
Along the way we also stopped watching ads. Now when we do watch a show on live TV, we skip the ads using our DVR. Never watch ads.
We both work so I can't imagine where people find all these hours to watch video each day! We look forward to watching the shows we like, and enjoy the current surge in great shows and movies, but don't watch TV daily.
6
I have to applaud the TV industry in general for their willingness and success of innovative programs and creative content for all age levels during the past two years. But...it comes down, for most of us, to money and time.
The first barrier in our region (Pacific Northwest) is Comcast. Their streaming internet price starts at $29.99 that keep going up every year until it becomes outrageous and not feasible. Then, add a major streamer like Amazon, Netflix or HBO and it's another $12-15 per month. That's about $50. With sports and entertainment like MSNBC and ESPN that jumps to $80 per month. (I do have friends who spend $150 a month or more).
Using antenna only I can get free TV and 14 stations with ads in our area of Oregon, focusing on OPB/PBS with its three-four stations, and NBC,CBS, ABC. They do great work. But...gotta have internet. That jumps it up to $30 minimum. Then add streaming Amazon Prime ($12) and then sports channels in the football and basketball season and that's another $30 or so. Hard to get below $80 a month for meaningful entertainment. Now, if Roku can do all of this for $40 incuding the internet, they have a winner. (I love their format).
In summary...I applaud the innovation taking place today. Just get the price down to $50 a month for good content that includes streaming, sports and news. And, Comcast needs more competition.
4
The other issue that all the streaming services are going to run into is the fact that viewers have a finite amount of time to spend watching stuff on screens.
My wife and I have probably 4-5 shows on our "want to watch" list that we haven't found time to even start on, as well as the several shows we are currently watching and others that are currently in between seasons.
In other words, while the supply of content is increasing, I'm not so sure that the demand for it is.
5
As an industry insider, I'd like to make a few points.
There is a glut of content chasing too few subscribers and advertisers. Neflix's margin are falling, just like most distributors in the industry.
So we end up with a lot more in quantity, but programing quality is slipping. Furthermore, audiences are increasingly fragmented making it difficult to justify quality shows that cost more to produce. Cord cutting has led to major declines in PayTV penetration and associated revenue. Even the venerable ESPN has been laying off staff as their ratings slip.
This article doesn't mention it, but competition from gaming and user generated content (ie. YouTube) have further eroded viewership for traditional video programs.
This is a like the final days of Rome. A big party before the fall.
19
the net result, like most consolidation, is going to be more disposable income spent on streaming services.
Open up your wallets, it's going to cost more.
Or less when I decide enough is enough -- and yes it is possible.
1
@R.L.DONAHUE
it's costing a lot less than paying for a bloated cable service full of stations that are useless to me, or having nothing I want to watch when I do.
At least with streaming services I get to chose. Even if some of my favorite shows may migrate to another streaming service, the ones I have still have more options than cable ever gave me. For a fraction of the price
2
I believe the golden age of tv is over. as i found myself settling for a less brillant quality of programing and searching hardering and harder for something good to watch. i wandered away from my tv set and discovered a whole new realm of entertanment with audiobooks. they are portabable and can be with you in almost every aspect of your day except vacuuming. one subscription is all you need.
7
I think quality will determine who wins. I have Netflix and Amazon. While the quality of original content on Netflix has dipped with quantity, it is still miles ahead of the portfolio of what I can best describe as film student class assignments constituting the bulk of Amazon's content, so I tune in once a year for Bosch and Goliath. Of course, I don't know there are enough talented content producers out there to meet the need.
5
Yyyep. Although I like that you can “rent” or otherwise get one-off film and television content on Amazon without a subscription. They have had a lot of movies I want to see, which other services don’t. I agree it means a kind of conflict of interest with their subscription model, which was insulting enough for me to drop Prime. I also still love the library for Dvds.
About 11 or 2 years ago I used to have to subscribe to all 50 premium movie channels on DirectTV, pay them $150 a month, and then spend hours every week culling and choosing movies to record on a DVD recorder. Now I pay $72 for basic satellite, Netflix and Amazon Prime. With these endless lists of streaming services you could easily start paying $150 or $200 again. I'm not going back to that. There's one channel, a National Geographic-type thing, that charges $6 or $7 a month for the single channel! They must be joking. Who's going to shell out $7 for one channel?
2
Who has time to watch this much TV ? Netflix has 700 TV shows and movies in production ? I can't help but think there will be shakeout of this as customers realize they are not watching enough to justify even a few dollars a month on these platforms. Get off the couch and go for a run!
51
@Joe There will be a big crash and consolidation of streaming services, at least among the majors. Right now, Amazon, Netflix and Disney look solid to survive. One or two more may join them. But consumers just aren't interested in more than two or three of these services.
4
I cancelled HBO Now after binge watching GOT in 5 weeks and after 5 episodes of Chernobyl. Now waiting for DISNEY+ so I can cancel Netflix.
This is indeed a “brave new world”. No one really know how it will play out. Our personal game plan is to get multiple streaming services. However, we will not own them at the same time. We will get them serially. Netflix, then CBS, then Disney, then Britbox, then YouTube Tv, then who knows. Our plan is to get a great deal of content from one place then simply change services. Eventually, there will be further consolidation of this group and we will have to go to Plan B.
9
Nice to know it's safe to ignore TV again. I'm focusing my leisure time on books and magazines, and I don't miss streaming one bit.
1
Greed makes the world go round. Shamelessly.
Of course, all this is going to collapse. Most people will just choose one or two platforms. The rest will suffer and burn out. If they all divide content amongst platforms, people just don’t watch.
I love the Handmaids’s tale but I am not going to pay for Hulu to see it.
Cheap short content is YouTube content , which is free.
And then there is real life to live. I’d rather do that.
8
And online servers become virtual libraries for streaming videos for viewers to click.
And eventually, humans return to wooden shelves to pick paper-binded books to read.
THE END.
3
As Sturgeon's Law says: "Ninety percent of everything is rubbish." I have to decimate a number of times to find worthwhile material.
So rather than the bundling that a streaming subscription entails, I instead purchase streams of individual movies, seasons, or episodes, and use my premium YouTube subscription to watch short clips or compilations of such (which cut out another 90% junk).
The problem with the former is that they're priced to easily blow past the cost of a subscription. The problem with the latter is that the compilations are almost always unlicensed.
Kudos to Giacomo Gambineri for the hilarious illustration prefacing this article! I only wish I could zoom in more to explore all the little hidden nuggets.
14
How's this fragmented streaming cartel like a fire truck?
Some of them do great and heroic things, but if you don't keep back 200 feet then you'll be spending a lot of money.
Avoid every one of them! YouTube (but save yourself the Real Name harassment and don't create an account, and don't pay), antenna, or actual cable, if at all.
@SR
" actual cable," ?
Actual cable costs me way more than several streaming services combined and offers much much less.
4
With cable companies charging almost as much for internet as internet plus cable, I will not be adding any more streaming services beyond the two I have. It would be a waste of time and money. I’m done! Good luck to the late comers....
1
I dread the takeover of anything by AT&T. I seldom choose them as a provider of anything, but often find myself under their "care" through acquisition. I just cancelled my Direct TV subscription after close to a 30 year relationship due to their obvious hollowing out of the service while raising rates and fees at an incredible rate.
This article just serves to further my hardening against them, but I am still amazed that other large high tech companies are coming under scrutiny for anti competitive behavior yet AT&T seems to be the most destructive and virulent of the bunch. They can and do destroy the innovation and value creation of these smaller entities they acquire.
RIP HBO
14
Streaming is cable. Period. There is already pushback to the idea of subscribing to and juggling a dozen services just to get everything you want to watch. So the next thing with be bundling... just like cable. Netflix, Amazon and Hulu will simply become channels in an over-priced package everyone thought they got rid of when they cut the cord. And those of us dinosaurs who have been quietly maintaining our physical media collections may be the only ones left who can see shows like "The Office" when greedy executives pull the streaming rights due to the petty reason du jour.
4
The fight between choosing great, mediocre, and poor original/exclusive content per service, versus pirating your show of choice will be the endgame for streamers. No one wants to go back to the model of shelling out a ton of money for 1000 shows, only because they wanted one or two (cable), which is what this seems like it's regressing back to. Being able to pay for shows individually may not be profitable for large networks now, but if that business model ever comes to fruition, it will be the best for the consumer.
If anything, it will be an easier option that pirating.
1
Unless there is a show you are looking for, turning on the tube leads you down a rabbit hole. We have HBO, Starz and Prime plus who knows how many cable stations. Trying to find a movie or tv show that my wife and I want to watch together can 20+ minutes of movies we have seen, don't want to see or meh. After watching 4 seasons of Luther my wife doesn't want to see another episode ever or another detective show. Boy do we miss Lenny Briscoe and Elliott Stabler.
Which station will we drop to add Netflix? Say your prayers Starz.
Did You really need an article this long to tell us that big business wants our money and has no problems with taking our sleep away?
15
I have access to Netflix, HBO, Starz, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and a few others on top of my cable package. It's clear that an arms race has begun and there is simply no way for these networks and streaming services to pump out so much content and maintain a high level of quality. Netflix in particular is pumping out a lot of new, but very mediocre 'shows'. While Netflix entices you to start watching more shows, you end up watching one or two episodes and move on. HBO is still at the top for consistent quality. I think more about dropping Netflix than I do about dropping HBO because I value HBO's quality more than Netflix's quantity.
77
@Andrew Agree completely. Why does HBO need tonnage when I will always be willing to pay monthly for their premium program quality? Since it is not a commercial network, why do they need to compete for hours of viewing - as though its a ratings race?
5
@Andrew HBO's quality may not last for too much longer. Check out the new HBO Max promo video - ugh. Are they trying to make Netflix look good?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCS4CaZ9dwg
I disagree with the summation that innovation will suffer. If we take the corporate giants and change them to the old studio system we have about the same thing. There will always be innovation on the edges and those innovators will change the model. It is going to take a long time for the ATTs of the world to get a handle on the voracious appetite for new work. I seriously doubt they actually will.
1
This was an interesting article about the industry, but what about the viewers? I took a trial subscription to 'Netflix' earlier this year to see what all the fuss was about, but after skimming a few foreign movies and their Brit Marling series ('The OA') off the top, I could see that the rest was just a survey of the vast wasteland of TV and film. I had to ask myself the question of whether I really wanted to spend my time dredging through titles, or spend it watching some extinct series. The answer was obvious once that question was asked, and I think it will be for many others as well. So, I predict the next article on the streaming industry will be its contraction after people realize they have better things to do.
15
@David Godinez Try Mindhunter, Narcos, Ozark, Dead to Me, Russian Doll, Lost in Space, Homecoming, Gomorra, Love, Death and Robots, Babylon Berlin, Black Summer, altered Carbon, Better Things Black Mirror, Trinkets--all prestige series from or on Netflix. You didn't do your due diligence: read Margaret Lyons in the NY Times and other critics; visit rottentomatoes and metacritic. You don't find the gems just by surfing and then making uninformed generalizations.
19
HBO, to me at least, has always been the gold standard of quality programming. Their series have been unmatched. Netflix on the other hand shows what I call Disney'ish R rated series and is overpriced. If HBO sinks to Netflix level instead of raising the other streaming services quality we all lose.
8
Netflix was successful because they offered a wide variety of movies and tv shows in a very convenient way--at first via mail then streaming. It replaced the video store and had just enough content that it allowed people to ditch the expensive cable packages. If offered a huge selection of movies, many of which wouldn't have even been on my radar.
As more and more media companies get into the streaming business and offer exclusive content or pull their content off of Netflix, ALL streaming services lose their luster. I don't remember the last time I discovered a great indy film on Netflix (original content notwithstanding). I don't think many people will want to shell out $12-15 a month for 6 or 7 streaming services. Corporate greed is going to break the business model and we the consumers will be stuck with the short end of the stick.
44
It’s not going to break the business model. It’s an excellent business model especially if you as a SVOD provider is able to produce content that people will want to watch. I.e netflix.
Obviously not every provider will survive. That’s the nature of business. Also anyone who shells out $15 a month for several providers obviously isn’t too smart when you can add most providers to your Prime Video for much cheaper than that.
While content providers race to produce videos of wildly varying quality, I'll relax in my backyard with just one top-notch book.
22
@Albert McKeon Which many of us did years before "A Song of Ice and Fire" became "Game of Thrones."
Whom do you think is going to win this "race" in a world without the Net Neutrality protections the Trump FCC took from us in 2017?
(Hint: AT&T owns HBO streaming and Comcast still owns a sizable chunk of Hulu)
16
When you're talking about art, quantity is not the enemy of quality. If we end up with 200 more shows being made, there's a high likelihood that 10 or 20 of them will be watchable. That's better odds than waiting for HBO to strike lightning with the two or three big budget productions it used to do each year.
Streaming means networks are reaching deeper into the huge pool of talent, and some brilliant people -- like Pamela Adlon, or Phoebe Waller-Bridge, are getting opportunities to write and direct they never would have gotten 10 years ago, and we're getting extraordinary TV like "Fleabag" and "Better Things."
For sure there's risk for investors. In any gold rush, only a few people ever see the gold. But for ordinary people with TVs and Rokus, this is all good.
23
It'll be a sad day if we return to the "vast wasteland of television" described by Newt Minow in the 1960s. To an overwhelming extent, this was driven by the industry's addiction to advertising. Indeed, the major networks were headed not by programmers but by white-shoed adsalesmen who cared little about quality (and knew even less).The inexorable commercial pressures described here are driving out quality in the service of numbers, numbers, numbers. Beware, Mr Stankey, of driving away the richest talent pool in the industry by abandoning HBO's core vision -- an incredibly successful and highly profitable service that raised aspirations of the American public of what television could be.
11
Curiously, and this is true with almost everything in America, the consumer is the entity that is simultaneously short-changed and overcharged.
What I want is to watch those few shows that I enjoy. I used to be able to go over to Netflix, pay my ten bucks a month and stream or order a video.
Now, if I were so inclined, I would have to pay fifteen or twenty bucks a month to five or six companies that offer exclusive content--most of which I will never watch and for which I refuse to pay. They did this with cable packages. I want 3 channels and to get those channels I have to pay for a package that includes nineteen versions of QVC and Telemundo.
The lesson in all of it is to be found on Netflix and Marie Kondo specifically.
Collectively we will need to take all of our subscriptions, pile them on a bed, give them a hug to determine which ones really bring us joy, and discard the rest.
The rest just might be everything.
Anyone up for a hike?
125
@Justin Chipman I’m a 62 yr old and have just decided that I won’t pay for 16 versions of qvc and 7 religious Chanel’s so have canceled dish and bought an antenna I don’t have near the choices I used to but you know what I’m ok with that. Especially since my bill for this month was zero
20
I cut cable a few years ago. My kids don't watch "tv" - they stream things, and we don't care about sports, the one handcuff Cable still has. I get over the air TV into a set of recorders, so whatever we want to watch is all on our schedule and with advertising mostly skipped. I don't mind paying for Netflix, but CBS All Access was a non starter, I wasn't subscribing to another service for one show (Star Trek). Each provider thinks one tent pole is enough to justify another subscription. A la Carte cable doesn't mean 57 individual subscriptions for one show and lots of filler. At least I'm free of paying for content I don't care about, paying $8 per month per box to unscramble a signal the cable co scrambled for their own reasons, and $7 per month "Sports Fee" which is really an ESPN fee. I still have to pay $10 per month more for "no tv service" but it's less abuse than actually paying for cable plus boxes plus plus plus.
Unmentioned is that most programming is available from a variety of sources, some overseas.....
30
@Casey Agree with you completely: I love watched TVPlayer.com via VPN (I am currently watching Wimbledon).
As the costs of cable continue to skyrocket and the internet providers, who have a monopoly in most areas, continue to increase their internet only costs, i.e Spectrum in CT just raised our internet only price from $49.99 to $65.99 for no justifiable reason or any new benefits, we will eventually be forced to pay so much for the benefit to access streaming services that paying more for these portals to content will be untenable. How many people are going to agree to pay for more than 1 streaming service? If you do subscribe to more than 1, it better have enough content to last a life time so that you never need to look elsewhere. For me that will be Netflix and probably Disney because of their humongous library of past hits. The rest will not even be a possibility because the costs of all of these services will begin to equal the costs of just having a cable subscription.
17
You make it sound like you have no options here. These services (at least the ones I subscribe to) are paid on a monthly basis. If I want to watch Netflix one month, Hulu the next, then HBO Now the next there’s nothing stopping me.
11
Wow. A dissertation on the world of streaming content. Netfix follows the Facebook strategy of keeping people on its site.
11
Maybe the reason Netflix doesn't release audience data is that there isn't all that much there...there.
6
@Jeffrey Davis I would definitely disagreed, I barely know a single person who doesn't watch netflix and isn't watching it's flagship shows, it would be naive to believe that netflix isn't releasing audience data because no one is watching
10
@Jeffrey Davis . I'm pretty sure this is to kneecap actors and producers....Netflix has achieved the vertical integration the Studios dreamed about in the golden age of movies, where they own the whole thing from central casting to popcorn sales....ratings are needed for ad sales, revenues for producers/investors. Netflix doesn't have to answer to either party the same way.
12
And how many people do you know? 10? A 100? A 1,000? May e thats the 1,000 who are watching. If it benefitted them Netcflix would sing it from the rooftops
1
So basically Stankey’s “vision” is to create more mediocre programming more often and make it more available to drive revenue and eyeballs - ‘because that’s what people want’. How many of you go to a dinner with friends or co-workers and realize that everyone is watching “their” own shows and no one has seen anything anyone else is watching? Hyper individualism is killing social connections. As a consumer its not worth the investment of time to constantly be underwhelmed with junk and I find myself watching less TV altogether.
115
"All of our screens are now TVs, and there is more TV to watch on them than ever." Yet again comes the tendency to extrapolate a trend to every single person in America, whether that person agrees with it or not. If you don't have an unlimited data plan from your cellphone company, or if your data isn't throttled at peak demand times, you do not watch TV everywhere, all the time. Besides, I agree with the article that showed how the wealthy are freeing themselves from the tyranny of screens. I try to join them by keeping mine in my pocket.
24
We Americans watch too much TV but when I do I like a learning show, give me BBC, Public Broadcast, National Geographic, News Networks, cooking shows, and International movies (English subtitles). Half of Netflix is junk, same movie theme with different stars over and over again, most of the time we just listen to music streaming through our TV lots of genre choices. It’s like the boss said 57 channels and nothing on, I say throw out the TV
69
@CathyK Agree with Cathy. We cut the cord because, like the sun comes up every morning, the cable bill went up every year. We decided on a streaming service but it's the same thing all over again. The bill goes up every year. There are just a few channels that are worth watching. The rest is pure junk IMO.
25
@CathyK
I agree 100%. The best streaming service anywhere is available thru a modest annual donation to your local PBS station which entitles the donor to access PBS Passport.
Great quality programming across numerous genres for a fraction of the cost!
76
@H. Woods I am in Canada and used to watch a lot of PBS when it was over the air, and then later on cable. But when I cut cable to move to streaming-only, I lost access to PBS, due to borders and licensing issues, apparently. I was a longtime donor to the PBS station in Watertown, New York. So were many people here in Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, specifically). It really felt like we were neighbours. I'd love to be able to watch PBS again, whenever I want to. Netflix picked up some programs, and I continue to watch Frontline online, but I miss the complete programming.
3
I have an antenna for television which is free with mostly adds for older folks, I also have had Netflix and directv which has HBO and showtime premium channels. I almost never watch Netflix but have tried on many occasions to find some kind of adult fare. It is almost non existent. Netflix is designed for younger people and foreign viewers. Finally, when I cancelled netflix I told the sales agent who asked why, that there is very little programming for people over 50. In fact it boggles my mind that Netflix can be as successful as it claims when you see the programming it offers. It’s great for children and teens. Maybe that is their formula. Just offer pablum for kids. Lots and lots of pablum.
24
@Robert
Hilarious. Over 50 here and there are PLENTY of interesting Netflix series, including those 'foreign' shows which people like you don't watch...but those of us with broader interests DO WATCH. I routinely watch shows in seven different languages on Netflix. I speak and read three of them. Language is only a barrier if you choose for it to be so. I don't speak any of the Scandinavian languages, but I have watched several seasons of various series in Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, and Finnish. Now watching two series in German, Flemish, Russian (on Amazon Prime), and both French and Spanish.
But, I enjoy international film, so I'm very happy with Netflix's offerings here in the US. I would have no other way to find most of these programs, except for dvd/bluray in only some cases, and for more money.
6
I am much older than 50 and I find lots to watch on Netflix.
1
I will acknowledge that I am not in the target demographic (61 years old), so I guess these media folks don't care if I have given up trying to consume popular culture. I don't have the time required to seek out what to watch or listen to, so I just don't. Keeping my business and personal relationships healthy requires a lot of time and energy, so when I have some extra time I don't want to spend it searching all over the streaming world for something that might entertain me. Fortunately, I can still buy printed books.
51
Meanwhile, those of us who are low income are dancing as fast as we can, but simply cannot afford all the subscriptions.
I am old enough to remember when all of America, pretty much, could afford a simple tv to watch the two or three networks.
We were linked and united by watching Gunsmoke, or other type show. Now, the talent goes with the money, to HBO or other such platform.
Sure, the technology is astounding, but really , it does seem to be dividing us rather than uniting us. And the rural poor, without high speed internet, are in another world.
Kind of doubt these new space based networks will be priced for the low income.
Hugh
53
Read a book. Go out to exercise. Meet a friend for coffee. The activity and the pleasant effects last longer and are less expensive, more fulfilling.
61
@Suburban Cowboy Agree - since TV has become so bad, I find myself reading more and more books. Far more entertaining
28
@Hugh Massengill I agree that cost is an issue -- especially as Internet service bundles with content. One answer is public libraries, which often hold boxed DVD sets of series (although -- curiously -- none of the Netflix shows have made it to DVD). Also, some libraries are investigating streaming services like Kanopy.
5