DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Godfather
Joined
·
855 Posts
So I don't see anything that looks like failure here.
At the end of the day, it will come down to whether their revenue is greater than their cost of earning that revenue. Essentially, can they keep their content interesting enough to retain subscribers. Subscribers to these products are notoriously price conscious. Interesting content can be expensive, and cutting back on new content is the quickest way reduce costs. Lack of interesting content leads to fewer subscribers and less revenue.

This will be the road to failure for all these services.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
855 Posts
So your general view is that Americans are sort of done with TV and all the services -- cable TV, HBO Max, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. -- will see losses in subscribers and revenue going forward? That seems... unlikely to me.
No. I think they are done with brand loyalty and are happy to cut and run, taking their money to the shiny new thing.

Except maybe Disney, but Disney has their fingers into so many piece of the media pie. Theme parks… kid programming… movies… TV…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
855 Posts
I still think that carriers shouldn't be allowed to own content. Similarly, I don't think content companies should be allowed to own TV stations.

Both create a certain leverage with their customers that I don't think should exist.
I think part of the problem is defining who a carrier is of streaming. The (v)MVPD model, the carrier was who the end user interacted with. They were a middle man who aggregated content in the form of linear channels and got a cut.

In the streaming realm, the content owner can provide direct, on-demand access to their content library to an end user. No carrier needed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top