Youtube TV Price Increase

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by b4pjoe, Jun 30, 2020.

  1. Aug 6, 2020 #61 of 171
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    3,592
    601
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    This forum isnt going to make YTTV or anyone change there mind... But yes if you dont like there product there is other options
     
  2. Aug 6, 2020 #62 of 171
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    425
    99
    Dec 7, 2017
    It certainly wont make YouTube change their mind but it will certainly influence potential customers to spend their money elsewhere. No one posting reviews or complaints is getting paid for their opinion. That's why I value those opinions. Not buying because you don't like it is a no brainer. But by sharing that sentiment with us here on a site like this is much appreciated by those looking to make a wise investment.
     
  3. Aug 6, 2020 #63 of 171
    espaeth

    espaeth AllStar

    310
    137
    Oct 13, 2003
    There's no capital appreciation or quantifiable output, so everything comes down to perceived value. There's no such thing as a great deal on a service you hate, and you might be willing to assign more value than others to a service you enjoy using. In general, everybody wants things to be cheaper.

    Almost every major service increased their prices in the last year, from Dish, to DIRECTV, to Comcast/Xfinity, to YoutubeTV, to Hulu Live, etc..

    If it were just one provider jacking up prices it would stand out, but I think the only way to evaluate things is in the context of what everyone else in the industry is doing. Sure, this price increase is more than DIRECTV for 2020... but YTTV is starting from a much lower entry point.
     
  4. Aug 6, 2020 #64 of 171
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,156
    41
    Aug 4, 2007
    If some folks think that youtube/tv was going to sit on 3+ years of losses, you're nuts. Maybe 6 months, but not any more or their board and investors would pull the plug on the entire operation and kick the operators to the curb. That's the time frame it took Sony to come to two conclusions with psvue, first that the outsourced programmers couldn't get their system operating consistently (which resulted in a large percentage of their subscribers to abandon ship) as well as the rate hikes from many of their programming providers which made their profit/loss statements look grim, although they could have jumped their pricing >$15/ month and many subs would have stayed, even with the system programming problems. But at the end of the day, those problems were deemed too 'problematic' no matter what the enhanced revenue stream was, so down it all went.

    Yttv has just a few things going for it now, although charging for channels it doesn't yet carry could get it into legal trouble in the near term. It's as almost a year since carrying local PBS stations; yet no other streaming service (other than locast which is both limited by geography and lack of a dvr), and an outstanding dvr system which puts it way above all other operators. If any other streamers made inroads into these two areas in any real way, the stampeed would crush yttv.

    Of course, the big unanswered question of yttv is why they decided to add these viacom/cbs channels to all subscribers rather than creating a new tier for those channels. If they had added all the Discovery channels like hulu live and made it an 'add-on', again, would have made sense. But lopping it in with the rest of their offering simply looks like a money grab.

    For all the work and complaints I made to get yttv working fairly well over 3+ months, I decided to stay for now. But it's hanging by a thread.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
  5. Aug 7, 2020 #65 of 171
    grover517

    grover517 AllStar

    407
    142
    Sep 29, 2007
    Not so much a "grin and bear it" as much as it was meant to point out that nothing has really changed in that sense. It was no different when the likes of Dish, DirecTV, and your local cable company were pretty much your only choices and it's no different now. Carriage dispute blacked out a channel or set of channels, many jumped to another service. Prices increased, others jumped to take advantage of new customer discounts. This is no different in my view. These decisions were made by the providers and content owners to further THEIR long term goals and churn was inevitable, as it is now.

    So was my comment meant to just dismiss the need for discussion about it and basically resign anyone to just accept it? No, not at all. What I did take issue with was that the increase was the sole reason behind the ViacomCBS deal alone and it was done due to some nefarious plan to line the pockets of a few higher ups with gold, allowing them to buy yacht's, etc. I simply don't subscribe to such notions.

    After 22 years, we paid a premium price for a premium service that we loved but when DirecTV/AT&T eliminated my ability to do temporary service address changes and the limited options we had to work around it were more hassle than it was worth, the "value" for us was no longer worth the price, so we left. Was I pissed? Sure I was. But at least for me, it forced my hand to take a serious look at other options out there (that we didn't have before) and found something that works just as well or better in some instances for less money. I made a few sacrifices in the programming differences as well as a few other concessions on convenience, but overall, YTTV "right now", provides me the most "value" for the price as well as meets my needs for portability away from home and so that's where I am, even after the price increase.

    Same position many longer term YTTV subscribers now find themselves in. The loss of a bunch of RSN's, the renegotiation of the ViacomCBS deal adding channels many don't watch and the 15.00 price increase, is not something many wanted to see, so they all now need to re-access their needs and determine if something else works better for them and provides the "value" they are looking for. I am absolutely sure YTTV did their due diligence in looking at all the metrics (which is what Google does best), and made a decision based on not only those numbers, but what met their long term plans for the service are as well.

    Was the timing of the increase along with the renewal of the ViacomCBS deal "bad optics"? Sure, I don't disagree with that. But I also don't believe some massive, deep dive into the reasons behind the increase is necessary to try and prove some nefarious plan to line their pockets with gold either. I for one, am looking forward to what is yet to come.
     
    gio12, makaiguy and mjwagner like this.
  6. Aug 7, 2020 #66 of 171
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,781
    12
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    One thing for sure we cannot forget where we have come from,a land which was full of provider's "because we can fees".
    Also the programming cost the same if not more than we pay now.When I remember the past it helps me get past the objections of our problems now.
    A service has to make a profit to survive,but if I quit paying for anything on the internet I could still watch hours of free programs from the free apps.
     
  7. Aug 7, 2020 #67 of 171
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,387
    606
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    It is simply amazing to see just how much content is free with ads out there. And some of them are not too bad with how many ads they do.
     
  8. Aug 7, 2020 #68 of 171
    wmb

    wmb Godfather

    669
    70
    Dec 17, 2008
    For this reason alone, YTTV is cheaper than the equivalent DirecTV package I left. I think that package was $150 when receivers, whole home, and HD fees were added.

    However, with the recent proliferation of OTT services like Disney+, CBS AA, Peacock, and HBO Max, it’s hard to see the future for legacy cable, satellite, and replacement services.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    gio12 likes this.
  9. Aug 7, 2020 #69 of 171
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,083
    229
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Pretty sure the reason for that is that ViacomCBS demanded that if YTTV wanted to keep CBS in their lineup, then they'd have to add their Viacom cable channels too. Back when YTTV launched, CBS and Viacom were separate companies. But they merged together last year. And the way all these channel companies do is to force cable TV services to include several of their channels in the standard package. Want CBS? Gotta also also include Nick, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.
     
    grover517 likes this.
  10. Aug 7, 2020 #70 of 171
    wmb

    wmb Godfather

    669
    70
    Dec 17, 2008
    YTTV should have said “Ok, we’re not carrying CBS then.” These linear services have to keep costs down. Their only hope is that linear delivery is considered a value-add over “watch want you want when you want” streaming. Their problem is that separate purchases of the OTT streamers combined cost less than the the linear service. The future of linear providers don’t look good.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. Aug 7, 2020 #71 of 171
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,156
    41
    Aug 4, 2007
    CBS owns (and controls) only 15 stations around the US, they can't force all the other independent affiliates to do much of anything when it comes to carridge, and that includes the other dozen or so O&O cw and non-affiliated stations they also have. Yes, they are in the larger cities (NY and LA, etc) but those cities have huge ota broadcast footprints and that would extensively cut into any scheme to put pressure on any retrans carrier, be they cable, sat, or streamer.
     
  12. Aug 8, 2020 #72 of 171
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,898
    2,271
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That attitude didn't work for DISH or DIRECTV. Even though it only affected the broadcast stations in the major cities (owned and operated stations) those are the places with the most population. Tying the cable channels to the O&O stations has been a successful tool.
     
    grover517 likes this.
  13. Aug 8, 2020 #73 of 171
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,781
    12
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    In the email I received from YTTV they stated that the Viacom channels were the most requested channels from their subscribers.
    Myself I wish they would have included some other channels I like better,but until they do I will just subscribe to YTTV/wStarz and Philo.
     
  14. Aug 8, 2020 #74 of 171
    wmb

    wmb Godfather

    669
    70
    Dec 17, 2008
    The question is not what has worked in the past, but what will work in the future.

    Who is going to pay for cable/sat/replacement when CBS AA, Peacock, Disney/ABC/ESPN, and HBO Max can be had for half the price and retain most all of the content? Plus, you can add/drop these at will to save money.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. Aug 8, 2020 #75 of 171
    espaeth

    espaeth AllStar

    310
    137
    Oct 13, 2003
    That's great for scripted content, but you still have the problem of live or local content. CBS:AA is positioned better than a service like Peacock, because CBS will actually stream your local channel within the app. With just Peacock, you're going to miss your local NBC news, and most sporting events on NBC networks. Still, if you want to watch football with DVR controls, even CBS:AA isn't going to cut it. Just like an antenna into a TV, you get the linear stream with no ability to pause.

    Streaming providers have the absolutely best viewing data in the market, because they have functional 2-way communication with 100% of the devices viewing content. They know exactly what people watch most on the service, so they can prioritize their negotiations accordingly. CBS is the most watched broadcast network of the big 4, and no matter how much you point out how easy it is to get that content through other means (including using a cheap antenna with perpetual free service) it doesn't change the fact that many people do rely on services like YTTV for accessing this content. It's not always just about paying for the content, people are willing to pay for convenience.
     
  16. Aug 8, 2020 #76 of 171
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,083
    229
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    I guess that depends on Google's aspirations for YTTV. I don't think they want it to be something like Sling, which is intentionally marketed as a downmarket cut-rate compromise vs. the standard cable channel bundle. Leaving out CBS affiliates in those major markets, as well as access to CBS on-demand content nationwide, would have put YTTV in a weird category for a lot of consumers. CBS has been the highest-rated network in many of the past several years and they carry a decent amount of sports, including the NFL.

    And I'm not sure that streaming vMVPDs like YTTV even have the option of carrying a network's non-O&O affiliates without having a deal in place with the network itself; for instance, I've read if a vMVPD wants to carry, say, Sinclair-owned affiliates of Fox, they must have a deal in place with both Sinclair and Fox to allow that.
     
    grover517 likes this.
  17. Aug 8, 2020 #77 of 171
    wmb

    wmb Godfather

    669
    70
    Dec 17, 2008
    How about Locast for local content? Also, local stations have apps for news and other local content.

    Live content, I guess that depends on what. A few years ago, my daughter played D2 college lacrosse. I paid $25 for a season pass to stream their games. The production looked like it was done by students, but for what it was... Streaming has the potential to open up a lot of content that can’t be made available otherwise.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. Aug 9, 2020 #78 of 171
    espaeth

    espaeth AllStar

    310
    137
    Oct 13, 2003
    Local station apps will typically only have news, won't be available on as many devices, and will be missing most broadcast content. Locast requires a "donation" (typically $5/mo) to make their intrusive advertisements go away and lacks DVR functionality. In most markets, they also don't have enough capacity to keep up with the streaming demand of large sporting events.

    Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. Events on broadcast networks where they are the exclusive rights holder, you need that broadcast network to watch. If you want to watch AFC NFL games, you need CBS. If you want to record the games, you need an OTA setup with DVR hardware and you need to sort out how all your various devices can access that content -- or you pay a service like YoutubeTV that has the integrated DVR and carries CBS.

    They have data for how many of their 2 million subscribers regularly watch content on CBS, and made the bet that more people would leave because of dropping CBS compared to how many will leave because of the price increase.
     
  19. Aug 9, 2020 #79 of 171
    grover517

    grover517 AllStar

    407
    142
    Sep 29, 2007
    I also subscribe to the notion that YTTV, from the start, had no intentions of operating as a "niche" low cost service, but instead to be a full service "cable replacement" offering over time. Just by being a Google entity should speak volumes to those that thought otherwise. Any Google service that doesn't continue to plan for AND show growth within it's space, usually doesn't stick around for long.
     
    NashGuy likes this.
  20. Aug 9, 2020 #80 of 171
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,387
    606
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    YTTV is pretty much a cable replacement service now, missing some RSN’s and limited on other RSN’s. I figure if they bring back the RSN’s and add the NFL channel the price will come in around $75. And that’s still cheaper than most cable/sat. Of course right now there is no real consumer pressure for RSN’s because there is so little in the way of live sports now. I read an article recently talking about how consumers were not shuffling things around to get the RSN’s even with the start of a limited baseball season.

    I still keep thinking that the current RSN business model cannot survive. The RSN fee is what it is because they get so many to have sub levels that have it even if the sub doesn’t care about them. I think it will have to move to a tier add-on at some point at a much higher price per subscriber.
     
    grover517 likes this.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements