3 ms·

I cannot for the life of me understand the rebrand. This has got to be some idiot exec who just wanted to put their stamp on things. One of those decisions tha

I cannot for the life of me understand the rebrand. This has got to be some idiot exec who just wanted to put their stamp on things. One of those decisions that isn’t for the benefit of customers or shareholders—just the exec.

cameldrv 3y ago
I think that the point of the rebrand was to eliminate the expectation that HBO shows would be available on HBO Max. For example, Westworld is no longer available on Max.
- orev 3y ago
  It was supposedly more related to the fact that they’re now also streaming tons of non-HBO content, and so they didn’t want to dilute the perception of quality of the HBO brand by having all that junk under the “HBO” app.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  That's probably at least part of the official internal logic, but I can't help read that as 'removing a selling point for our service'. Even if shows were to disappear or rotate out, a la the Disney vault, why advertise it? It feels like a lesser version of Netflix rebranding so they can spin off 'netflix originals' to other services. Losing recognition and good will to ???. Besides, if they aren't going to hoard and leverage their portfolio to drive subscribers to their platform why are they even playing at being a streaming service?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  I think that’s the rationalization, but the point of the rebrand is David Zaslav pissing on things to mark his territory.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Why would HBO shows not be available on HBO's own platform? Makes no sense whatsoever.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Often it can be more profitable to license out shows to other services, if the show isn’t doing well enough to warrant keeping on your own. Disney does this as well, and Netflix will do this regionally.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Probably trying to save money on residuals or some sort of licensing (music perhaps).
- koolba 3y ago
  They should have called it HBO Min. Closer to reality.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    "HBO Max" was the original "rename" for the streaming service. It is now, they insist, just "Max".
1letterunixname 3y ago
Mergers allow concentration of power while antitrust regulators are nowhere to be found. Blithe unconcern about enshitification of goods and services but for more money equals higher profits. Consumers are dumb and will keep giving us more money whenever we ask for any excuse. is the mantra.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [flagged]
spondylosaurus 3y ago
Just linked this in reply to another comment, but the idiot exec in question in named David Zaslav. The alleged rebrand is because Max "mixes premium HBO content with some of Discovery’s more down-market shows." https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/can-david-zaslav-make-it-in-hollywood https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/can-...
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
I can't believe Marketing didn't raise a huge fuss; the other day I wanted to look up pricing and some other information about the service, and it's exactly as hard as you might imagine to google for a service named "Max".

cameldrv 3y ago

I think that the point of the rebrand was to eliminate the expectation that HBO shows would be available on HBO Max. For example, Westworld is no longer available on Max.

orev 3y ago
It was supposedly more related to the fact that they’re now also streaming tons of non-HBO content, and so they didn’t want to dilute the perception of quality of the HBO brand by having all that junk under the “HBO” app.
thereisnospork 3y ago
That's probably at least part of the official internal logic, but I can't help read that as 'removing a selling point for our service'. Even if shows were to disappear or rotate out, a la the Disney vault, why advertise it? It feels like a lesser version of Netflix rebranding so they can spin off 'netflix originals' to other services. Losing recognition and good will to ???. Besides, if they aren't going to hoard and leverage their portfolio to drive subscribers to their platform why are they even playing at being a streaming service?
dragonwriter 3y ago
I think that’s the rationalization, but the point of the rebrand is David Zaslav pissing on things to mark his territory.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Why would HBO shows not be available on HBO's own platform? Makes no sense whatsoever.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Often it can be more profitable to license out shows to other services, if the show isn’t doing well enough to warrant keeping on your own. Disney does this as well, and Netflix will do this regionally.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Probably trying to save money on residuals or some sort of licensing (music perhaps).
koolba 3y ago
They should have called it HBO Min. Closer to reality.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  "HBO Max" was the original "rename" for the streaming service. It is now, they insist, just "Max".

1letterunixname 3y ago

Mergers allow concentration of power while antitrust regulators are nowhere to be found. Blithe unconcern about enshitification of goods and services but for more money equals higher profits. Consumers are dumb and will keep giving us more money whenever we ask for any excuse. is the mantra.

networkchad 3y ago
[flagged]

spondylosaurus 3y ago

Just linked this in reply to another comment, but the idiot exec in question in named David Zaslav. The alleged rebrand is because Max "mixes premium HBO content with some of Discovery’s more down-market shows." https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/can-david-zaslav-make-it-in-hollywood https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/can-...

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

I can't believe Marketing didn't raise a huge fuss; the other day I wanted to look up pricing and some other information about the service, and it's exactly as hard as you might imagine to google for a service named "Max".