5 ms·

It would be all better (for the customer) if video streaming services were like music streaming services. Want to hear an album? it's on Spotify / Apple Music

It would be all better (for the customer) if video streaming services were like music streaming services. Want to hear an album? it's on Spotify / Apple Music / Deezer / Qobuz... You pick the one that offers the best user experience (or unique features like HD songs). Exclusives are basically non-existent.

elAhmo 3y ago
This is quite hard to achieve with original comment getting the spotlight and being a differentiator between services. For "the rest" of the content, I think the situation is pretty much close to streaming services with music.
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  Agreed, but I think it only works to a point. Content is becoming more commoditized/more generic (maximise margins/cash in on some big trend). This, coupled with way too many new services claiming exclusive originals and people are deciding to not even bother watching it or just to sail the high seas. It's much like at one point the music streaming services had exclusives too. Sorry Spotify I'd rather just not bother listening to Rammstein than have yet another subscription.
- pallas_athena 3y ago
  A solution could be time-based exclusives. Stranger Things is on Netflix only for X days (a month?) and then it's everywhere. The hype train will still give Netflix its edge, because a lot of people want to watch in the first few days after release.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    And it completely devalues the content and their catalog.
ericmcer 3y ago
So an independent studio would produce a show, put it on all the platforms and the platforms would pay based on views? Sounds like youtube. The current model works because producing a television show is way more complex than making an album, it is way too much risk for indie companies to absorb.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  Where precisely is the risk? If you already produced the content why not make it available on multiple streaming sites? Is it the production studio asking for exclusivity or the streaming outlets?
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    The economics just don't work the same. the most lucrative scheme for productions, while also staying within that invisible boundary of not alienating consumers, for films and series: the exclusivity deals. How's that dr watson? In an extreme example you are paying a long term subscription, let's say $200, for the exclusive privilege to access say 2 shows. That's $100 for one aficionado, per production. What you are advocating for is for each production to be made available on dozens of platforms each having most other productions, you end up with a prorata/ratio of that aficionado who viewed yours, but also happen to have viewed 8 other productions. Unless the viewer pays up 20x or 30x for some universal subscription, that's far less revenue than $100. In practice subscribers simply won't even spend 10x. Why? Because they are only ready to pay 10 times more for certain beloved productions, but very little for those that aren't deemed that necessary to watch. So they tend to accept to pay a lot for a few hits, even if they have to give up on all the rest. Why does it not work the same for music? First, it used to. Apple, in the good old Steve Jobs days, did it good to break the practice. With iTunes. Which managed to catch up with every other platform and integrate well to provide a UX leaving the competition far behind. Pressure power, and master maneuvers accomplished the exploit. Apple TV didn't show the same prouesse, maybe Jobs started to fade away, Apple didn't make a great screen display like they did with the iPod to gain that consumer pressure against the trad distributors, and it was simply a much harder battle due to the second reason below. A great tune is played many many many times. An average one at least far less. So the prorata formula used to compensate the owners, works OK. The pareto distribution applies where great hits get accordingly rewarded. With movies/series, unless it is one of those rare non thriller/mystery gem, it is watched once and for all. A one to one view to reward system puts greater productions at a deficit. I doubt the Entertainment industry saw all of this from the get go, but they have decades of accounting experience and shaped it up once cable/satellite tv with network channels became prominent. It roughly applies the same with with streaming. Does it make it right? Legally it seems that they win, those exclusivity contracts are legal. Building a platform and funnel your productions through it only as well. Although legislators needs to step up their game, end the lobbying thr led to this abuse of Intellectual Property rights, to finally enforce what it is and just it: ownership of the art, not of its distribution.

elAhmo 3y ago

This is quite hard to achieve with original comment getting the spotlight and being a differentiator between services. For "the rest" of the content, I think the situation is pretty much close to streaming services with music.

theonlybutlet 3y ago
Agreed, but I think it only works to a point. Content is becoming more commoditized/more generic (maximise margins/cash in on some big trend). This, coupled with way too many new services claiming exclusive originals and people are deciding to not even bother watching it or just to sail the high seas. It's much like at one point the music streaming services had exclusives too. Sorry Spotify I'd rather just not bother listening to Rammstein than have yet another subscription.
pallas_athena 3y ago
A solution could be time-based exclusives. Stranger Things is on Netflix only for X days (a month?) and then it's everywhere. The hype train will still give Netflix its edge, because a lot of people want to watch in the first few days after release.
- scarface74 3y ago
  And it completely devalues the content and their catalog.

ericmcer 3y ago

So an independent studio would produce a show, put it on all the platforms and the platforms would pay based on views? Sounds like youtube. The current model works because producing a television show is way more complex than making an album, it is way too much risk for indie companies to absorb.

dv_dt 3y ago
Where precisely is the risk? If you already produced the content why not make it available on multiple streaming sites? Is it the production studio asking for exclusivity or the streaming outlets?
- hirako2000 3y ago
  The economics just don't work the same. the most lucrative scheme for productions, while also staying within that invisible boundary of not alienating consumers, for films and series: the exclusivity deals. How's that dr watson? In an extreme example you are paying a long term subscription, let's say $200, for the exclusive privilege to access say 2 shows. That's $100 for one aficionado, per production. What you are advocating for is for each production to be made available on dozens of platforms each having most other productions, you end up with a prorata/ratio of that aficionado who viewed yours, but also happen to have viewed 8 other productions. Unless the viewer pays up 20x or 30x for some universal subscription, that's far less revenue than $100. In practice subscribers simply won't even spend 10x. Why? Because they are only ready to pay 10 times more for certain beloved productions, but very little for those that aren't deemed that necessary to watch. So they tend to accept to pay a lot for a few hits, even if they have to give up on all the rest. Why does it not work the same for music? First, it used to. Apple, in the good old Steve Jobs days, did it good to break the practice. With iTunes. Which managed to catch up with every other platform and integrate well to provide a UX leaving the competition far behind. Pressure power, and master maneuvers accomplished the exploit. Apple TV didn't show the same prouesse, maybe Jobs started to fade away, Apple didn't make a great screen display like they did with the iPod to gain that consumer pressure against the trad distributors, and it was simply a much harder battle due to the second reason below. A great tune is played many many many times. An average one at least far less. So the prorata formula used to compensate the owners, works OK. The pareto distribution applies where great hits get accordingly rewarded. With movies/series, unless it is one of those rare non thriller/mystery gem, it is watched once and for all. A one to one view to reward system puts greater productions at a deficit. I doubt the Entertainment industry saw all of this from the get go, but they have decades of accounting experience and shaped it up once cable/satellite tv with network channels became prominent. It roughly applies the same with with streaming. Does it make it right? Legally it seems that they win, those exclusivity contracts are legal. Building a platform and funnel your productions through it only as well. Although legislators needs to step up their game, end the lobbying thr led to this abuse of Intellectual Property rights, to finally enforce what it is and just it: ownership of the art, not of its distribution.