Problems with (legal) video streaming services?
I read an article not long ago complaining about how video streaming services were actually backfiring and things were ending up in a similar, if not worse situation than they were one cable.
I can't predict where things will go. But what I can do is comment on the current state of things and what I think will actually happen longer term.
Yes. As more streaming services pop up, things become more fragmented and it becomes more expensive to get all of the things you want. Unfortunately, what Netflix once was, was never something which could last. And while that isn't a good thing, it is also, perhaps, not as bad as people think. In fact, Netflix serves as a good example of where the industry is headed.
As other players dive into the market, it gets more expensive for Netflix to buy rights, exclusive or otherwise, for content. And so the Netflix catalog shrinks. But, then Netflix original enter the picture. It is also worth noting that we are still rather near to the beginning of this shift and that the nature of licensing deals is likely to change over the years to accommodate.
The problem with cable was twofold. Ever ballooning prices and hit channels bundled with crap. Everything cable, TV, satellite, etc... related just gets perpetually more expensive. Which wouldn't be a problem but for the fact that providers continue to think of new ways outside of simply making things more expensive to gouge you. And the reasoning is simple. There are so few players in the game that while they don't technically have a monopoly, all of the players act collectively as one.
When there is healthy competition prices tend to go down, or other perks offset stagnant or rising prices. Incumbents run the risk of losing substantial market share to a competitor or an upstart if they aren't on their game. The telecom industry isn't like this (in Canada for sure, and NA in general from the sounds of it). There are generally 1-3 providers in a given area, and they basically trade a few scant percent of population back and forth. And rather than racing to the bottom, they collectively jack prices up.
On the one hand you might say... well the infrastructure is expensive. And that is probably true. But the infrastructure is expensive because they leverage market share, lobbying and other tools to keep upstarts out of the industry. And their major competition is as risk averse as they are and so no one is innovating. As demands increase on an ever aging system compounded by rising wages you bet it actually does cost them ever larger sums of money to stay in the game.
Streaming services on the other hand are much lighter weight. It is easier for others to get into the game. The infrastructure isn't even their own. It is delivered over the telecoms internet connections. As a result, we're already at a point where there are more options for streaming services than there are for old school TV. But, right now cord cutters aren't a big enough slice of the market and competition isn't fierce enough yet. So, major titles are getting split up across the services.
And this is what people are bitching about. But I don't get it. And I live in Canada where we don't even have access to Hulu+ and YouTube Video and a whole host of other magical sounding streamlining services.
So, to start. Getting EVERYTHING you want on Cable/Satellite? Probably $200+ a month. At least in Canada. That is INSANE. And, it is probably somewhat optimistic.
There are some general purpose streaming sites like Netflix, Shomi and CraveTV. Then there are specialty ones like Curiosity Stream, Crunchy Roll and others. Each one averages between $5-20 a month. I'd need to subscribe to 10 of them to start approaching the costs of Cable. And to what end?
Here is where the arguments start getting stupid... "oh but show X is on service Y, so now I need to subscribe to that as well for another Z a month". This is where you can stop under analyzing things. If the only reason you'd subscribe to Y is for X... then JUST BUY F***ING X. It may cost you more than Z, but it is a one time fee.
There is a decent amount of overlap in the generalized services. There are generally just a handful of things here and there which might draw someone to a particular service.
I would say, that in the subscription range, $12 is the average. If you paid for 5, you'd get a LOT of content. It would cost you $60 a month and you'd save over $140 vs. cable. And guess what? Some of these shows never even make it to cable now! For $140 a month, you could probably buy 3-5 seasons of shows online before breaking even every month. You could rent 28 movies on top of your $60 a month.
Another thing you can do? Cancel subscriptions!
If you actually binge watch SO DAMN much that swapping streaming services every now and again is not viable for you... perhaps you simply spend so much time watching TV that you really should be able to justify just about any price tag.
We still tend to think in terms of cable viewing. But, streaming services allow you to watch what you want on demand. And most of the rights are bought for between 6 months and 2 years. So, if you find you watched everything you wanted on one service... cancel it. Because guess what? They'll also let you re-subscribe later! Then, use that money to switch to one of the other services until you get your fill there.
In other words, while the current state of things is getting worse than when Netflix was the only name in streaming... no amount of bitching and griping will make it worse than the current state of affairs on cable. And what's more? I think it will actually get better in a sense.
My prediction is that as upstarts start snatching up the odd prime titles here and there, eventually, incumbents will start losing customers due to the lost rights. And what you'll probably see is either fewer exclusive sales of rights, or shorter terms on them. Non-exclusive means cheaper for everyone to buy and more overlap. Shorter terms means catalogs might become a little more like revolving doors. Both outcomes will lead to a better situation in the long run.
I also expect more specialty streaming services to pop up as the market leans towards streaming services. And that is good as well.
At the end of the day, I think over time streaming services will remain a better alternative (for most people) than traditional cable. It will likely get worse than it is before it gets better. But, as bad as it is now, it is still oodles better than traditional cable (for people like me). I would say, at the moment, easily the best solution to most problems is simply switching streaming services every 2-3 months. Pretty much all of the major ones can be cancelled online in a few clicks. WAY better than trying to cancel or even switch packages with a cable sales person.
I can't predict where things will go. But what I can do is comment on the current state of things and what I think will actually happen longer term.
Yes. As more streaming services pop up, things become more fragmented and it becomes more expensive to get all of the things you want. Unfortunately, what Netflix once was, was never something which could last. And while that isn't a good thing, it is also, perhaps, not as bad as people think. In fact, Netflix serves as a good example of where the industry is headed.
As other players dive into the market, it gets more expensive for Netflix to buy rights, exclusive or otherwise, for content. And so the Netflix catalog shrinks. But, then Netflix original enter the picture. It is also worth noting that we are still rather near to the beginning of this shift and that the nature of licensing deals is likely to change over the years to accommodate.
The problem with cable was twofold. Ever ballooning prices and hit channels bundled with crap. Everything cable, TV, satellite, etc... related just gets perpetually more expensive. Which wouldn't be a problem but for the fact that providers continue to think of new ways outside of simply making things more expensive to gouge you. And the reasoning is simple. There are so few players in the game that while they don't technically have a monopoly, all of the players act collectively as one.
When there is healthy competition prices tend to go down, or other perks offset stagnant or rising prices. Incumbents run the risk of losing substantial market share to a competitor or an upstart if they aren't on their game. The telecom industry isn't like this (in Canada for sure, and NA in general from the sounds of it). There are generally 1-3 providers in a given area, and they basically trade a few scant percent of population back and forth. And rather than racing to the bottom, they collectively jack prices up.
On the one hand you might say... well the infrastructure is expensive. And that is probably true. But the infrastructure is expensive because they leverage market share, lobbying and other tools to keep upstarts out of the industry. And their major competition is as risk averse as they are and so no one is innovating. As demands increase on an ever aging system compounded by rising wages you bet it actually does cost them ever larger sums of money to stay in the game.
Streaming services on the other hand are much lighter weight. It is easier for others to get into the game. The infrastructure isn't even their own. It is delivered over the telecoms internet connections. As a result, we're already at a point where there are more options for streaming services than there are for old school TV. But, right now cord cutters aren't a big enough slice of the market and competition isn't fierce enough yet. So, major titles are getting split up across the services.
And this is what people are bitching about. But I don't get it. And I live in Canada where we don't even have access to Hulu+ and YouTube Video and a whole host of other magical sounding streamlining services.
So, to start. Getting EVERYTHING you want on Cable/Satellite? Probably $200+ a month. At least in Canada. That is INSANE. And, it is probably somewhat optimistic.
There are some general purpose streaming sites like Netflix, Shomi and CraveTV. Then there are specialty ones like Curiosity Stream, Crunchy Roll and others. Each one averages between $5-20 a month. I'd need to subscribe to 10 of them to start approaching the costs of Cable. And to what end?
Here is where the arguments start getting stupid... "oh but show X is on service Y, so now I need to subscribe to that as well for another Z a month". This is where you can stop under analyzing things. If the only reason you'd subscribe to Y is for X... then JUST BUY F***ING X. It may cost you more than Z, but it is a one time fee.
There is a decent amount of overlap in the generalized services. There are generally just a handful of things here and there which might draw someone to a particular service.
I would say, that in the subscription range, $12 is the average. If you paid for 5, you'd get a LOT of content. It would cost you $60 a month and you'd save over $140 vs. cable. And guess what? Some of these shows never even make it to cable now! For $140 a month, you could probably buy 3-5 seasons of shows online before breaking even every month. You could rent 28 movies on top of your $60 a month.
Another thing you can do? Cancel subscriptions!
If you actually binge watch SO DAMN much that swapping streaming services every now and again is not viable for you... perhaps you simply spend so much time watching TV that you really should be able to justify just about any price tag.
We still tend to think in terms of cable viewing. But, streaming services allow you to watch what you want on demand. And most of the rights are bought for between 6 months and 2 years. So, if you find you watched everything you wanted on one service... cancel it. Because guess what? They'll also let you re-subscribe later! Then, use that money to switch to one of the other services until you get your fill there.
In other words, while the current state of things is getting worse than when Netflix was the only name in streaming... no amount of bitching and griping will make it worse than the current state of affairs on cable. And what's more? I think it will actually get better in a sense.
My prediction is that as upstarts start snatching up the odd prime titles here and there, eventually, incumbents will start losing customers due to the lost rights. And what you'll probably see is either fewer exclusive sales of rights, or shorter terms on them. Non-exclusive means cheaper for everyone to buy and more overlap. Shorter terms means catalogs might become a little more like revolving doors. Both outcomes will lead to a better situation in the long run.
I also expect more specialty streaming services to pop up as the market leans towards streaming services. And that is good as well.
At the end of the day, I think over time streaming services will remain a better alternative (for most people) than traditional cable. It will likely get worse than it is before it gets better. But, as bad as it is now, it is still oodles better than traditional cable (for people like me). I would say, at the moment, easily the best solution to most problems is simply switching streaming services every 2-3 months. Pretty much all of the major ones can be cancelled online in a few clicks. WAY better than trying to cancel or even switch packages with a cable sales person.
Comments
Post a Comment