DBSTalk Forum banner
321 - 340 of 1566 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Just because DIRECTV didn’t negotiate to keep Sunday Ticket doesn’t mean they can’t negotiate to retain it. Unless a streaming service negotiates it to be exclusive, I am hopeful that it opens up for multiple outlets including Satellite and Cable.
There have been reports that DirecTV will try to cut a deal with the winning bidder, but there is no way to know if that will actually happen.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I'd consider that style of viewing to be "advanced". A lot of buttons to push and a tuner dedicated to each game. Someone who did that would probably be able to figure out a new interface. Hopefully whomever designs the app supports multiple stream pausing and content searching. Just because it is streaming doesn't mean it has to be a steaming mess.
There was a report on SI.com yesterday that quoted the NFL's chief media and business officer:


"NFL Sunday Ticket has been a fan staple since its inception in 1994 providing a way for avid fans to watch all the NFL games played on Sunday. But we believe it can be a lot better and we are planning a new rollout of NFL Sunday Ticket for the 2023 season. While we are not ready to reveal that just yet, one thing we can say is it will be more innovative, accessible and digital."

It's possible a streaming package could actually mimic the way many of us are watching games on Sunday Ticket now, but there is also reason to be skeptical until we see what they actually come up with.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
You realize that Netlifx has been LOSING subscribers, which is why they went this route.


It's gotten too expensive, especially when there's more and cheaper competition. The hope is that if they offer the cheaper, ad supported tier, they will stick around. Hulu for example, in 2019 had 70% of their subscribers on the ad supported plan. I can't find anything newer, but I'd bet it's even a higher percentage now, considering the incentives they've been offering to get you to sign up for the ad supported tier, be it through bundles offered with ESPN+ and Disney or their Black Friday deals for $2 a month (the deal I have, as I don't find it worth spending more for Hulu as there's only a few things I watch there). Hulu's advertising revenue has skyrocketed. At some point, it's going to be worth it to just get rid of the ad-free plan if they can guarantee more eyeballs to advertisers.
Netflix is trying to ADD subscribers by offering an ad-supported tier, not LOSE subscribers by removing the ad-free tier. And it's obvious the ad-free tier is working for Hulu or they wouldn't still be offering it after all these years. Sorry, but your arguments still don't hold water.

There will always be ad-free services available, because there will always be people like me who are willing to pay a few bucks extra for it. It would be foolish to turn down our money, and the CEOs of Netflix and Disney are not foolish. I can only reiterate my previous advice to you: If can't afford ad-free programming, you can choose to sit in the cheap seats and watch the ads.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #324 ·
Netflix is trying to ADD subscribers by offering an ad-supported tier, not LOSE subscribers by removing the ad-free tier. And it's obvious the ad-free tier is working for Hulu or they wouldn't still be offering it after all these years. Sorry, but your arguments still don't hold water.

There will always be ad-free services available, because there will always be people like me who are willing to pay a few bucks extra for it. It would be foolish to turn down our money, and the CEOs of Netflix and Disney are not foolish. I can only reiterate my previous advice to you: If can't afford ad-free programming, you can choose to sit in the cheap seats and watch the ads.
Tell me how much you would pay (over the ad-supported version) for any service? Eveyone has their breaking point.

Did you ever read the article I posted. Netflix is LOSING subs. By a lot. That's that why they decided to go the ad-supported tier. It's gotten too expensive. Consider the premium tier, the only one that offers 4K, is now $20 a month. That's a lot of money, even more than HBO Max. Even the cheaper HD tier is now more than $15 a month. So people are leaving or just subbing for the months there's something they want to watch, where in the past they'd stick with it. Sure they will gain some subs back with the ad-supported tier, and that's what they are looking to do. But consider this. What if they could convert 2/3 of their base (which is about the percentage of ad-supported vs. no-ad users on Hulu) and they find that they can make MORE money from selling ads than they can by charging a premium for no-ads? Why would they even want to maintain the ad-free tier? It would be a stupid business decision. And that's what's starting to happen. And if the content is good enough the vast majority of people won't care if there are ads. So Again, how much would you pay? And if the number of ad-free subs are dwindling, how long before it's not worth it to THEM to maintain? It's the satellite vs. steaming argument all over again. At what point does DirecTV realize that the expense of maintaining DirecTV satellite not worth it? They don't exist to cater to a few customers that cannot get good internet. They want to cater to the largest portion of users they can. If that's streaming, so be it.
 

· Cool Member
Joined
·
44 Posts
I plan on bailing on Netflix after I finish up a few series. I don't find much of their original series that interesting, and their original movies are pretty much garbage. There are some exceptions of course but for something approaching $200 a year, I'm not getting much value out of it these days. Losing major studio movies has really killed the reason to subscribe to Netflix for many subscribers.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #326 ·
I plan on bailing on Netflix after I finish up a few series. I don't find much of their original series that interesting, and their original movies are pretty much garbage. There are some exceptions of course but for something approaching $200 a year, I'm not getting much value out of it these days. Losing major studio movies has really killed the reason to subscribe to Netflix for many subscribers.
Exactly, content is what matters. I think there's a price point that people will pay for content and another price point that people will pay for content supported by ads. It's up to everyone to decide what that is. For some like me, paying $2 a month for Hulu that's ad supported is worth it because for $24 a year, I can watch the few shows I watch and not think about it. But to pay whatever the ad-free version costs for those show (or even the regular monthly fee) is not worth it. That's my point above. Is it worth $20 a month to you for the amount of content you watch? Seems like that's a no. What about if it was $5 or $10 a month, but ad-supported? Maybe that's worth it to you. And what happens if Netflix finds that the vast majority of their users think that they'd rather deal with ads to save a lot of money, at what point is it not worth it to maintain an ad free version? That's what some don't understand. They aren't in business to cater to a dwindling number of users. They want to make as much money as they can, whatever it takes. If they lose those few people, but make more money by selling ads over what the person pays, then they won't care about that person.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,190 Posts
Did you ever read the article I posted. Netflix is LOSING subs. By a lot.
Yeah ... they lost 200k in one quarter and are predicted to lose 2 million more in the next quarter. Out of 220 million subscribers. A lot of that churn can be attributed to their price increase and increased "binge" watching (subscribe to Netflix for a month, watch everything, unsubscribe until the next binge).

Try not to make it sound like Netflix will be closed by the end of the month. :)
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
Hulu's advertising revenue has skyrocketed. At some point, it's going to be worth it to just get rid of the ad-free plan if they can guarantee more eyeballs to advertisers.
Well some people will not subscribe to an ad-supported service. If they do away with their ad-free plan they are also getting rid of a customer. I have a Hulu ad supported plan that I got on Black Friday for $0.99 per month. I am only on that plan because I don't watch much stuff on Hulu so what I do watch I sit through commercials usually reading on my phone. If I did I watch more Hulu I would be on the ad-free plan or nothing. If they raise that price to an unreasonable number they would lose me as a customer and not gain me as an ad supported customer. I do use the ad-free option on both Paramount+ and Peacock. And if they do away with an ad-free plan or price it unreasonably I would be gone from them as well.

I also dumped the $19.99 per month cost of Netflix too. They keep inviting me back but with no incentive. No thanks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Tell me how much you would pay (over the ad-supported version) for any service? Eveyone has their breaking point.

Did you ever read the article I posted. Netflix is LOSING subs. By a lot. That's that why they decided to go the ad-supported tier. It's gotten too expensive. Consider the premium tier, the only one that offers 4K, is now $20 a month. That's a lot of money, even more than HBO Max. Even the cheaper HD tier is now more than $15 a month. So people are leaving or just subbing for the months there's something they want to watch, where in the past they'd stick with it. Sure they will gain some subs back with the ad-supported tier, and that's what they are looking to do. But consider this. What if they could convert 2/3 of their base (which is about the percentage of ad-supported vs. no-ad users on Hulu) and they find that they can make MORE money from selling ads than they can by charging a premium for no-ads? Why would they even want to maintain the ad-free tier? It would be a stupid business decision. And that's what's starting to happen. And if the content is good enough the vast majority of people won't care if there are ads. So Again, how much would you pay? And if the number of ad-free subs are dwindling, how long before it's not worth it to THEM to maintain? It's the satellite vs. steaming argument all over again. At what point does DirecTV realize that the expense of maintaining DirecTV satellite not worth it? They don't exist to cater to a few customers that cannot get good internet. They want to cater to the largest portion of users they can. If that's streaming, so be it.
If it made sense to have only ad-supported programming, they would be doing it now. They aren't, which means your argument still doesn't hold water. Making the same invalid arguments repeatedly does not make them valid.

As to my own situation, I can afford whatever programming I choose to buy. I am currently paying about $15 a month extra for ad-free versions of the various streaming services I subscribe to, which is chump change. If you are less fortunate and cannot afford the extra cost, those cheaper ad-based tiers are designed for you.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #330 ·
Well some people will not subscribe to an ad-supported service. If they do away with their ad-free plan they are also getting rid of a customer. I have a Hulu ad supported plan that I got on Black Friday for $0.99 per month. I am only on that plan because I don't watch much stuff on Hulu so what I do watch I sit through commercials usually reading on my phone. If I did I watch more Hulu I would be on the ad-free plan or nothing. If they raise that price to an unreasonable number they would lose me as a customer and not gain me as an ad supported customer. I do use the ad-free option on both Paramount+ and Peacock. And if they do away with an ad-free plan or price it unreasonably I would be gone from them as well.

I also dumped the $19.99 per month cost of Netflix too. They keep inviting me back but with no incentive. No thanks.
So if you had no choice but to sub to an ad-support version of any of these and there was content you wanted to watch, you STILL wouldn't subscribe? Or, if the ad-free version was VERY expensive, you wouldn't bother? That what I'm saying, my opinion, based on the way cable TV went from the early days to now is that eventually all but the most premium content will be ad supported, potentially without the ability to avoid ads.

I hate ads too, but if I were in the business of streaming and I could make more money charging less for ad-support than I could offering an ad-free version, I'd cut all of you ad-free people lose in a hot second. It's possible I might lose some subs, but it's also possible that the majority would take the savings and be fine with it.
 

· New Member
Joined
·
9 Posts
They would presumably be available for replay later. What you'd lose if NFLST goes streaming is the ability to watch multiple live games at once by pausing one, switching to the next until you catch up to live, pausing it and switching to another...

If you don't start watching until the game is over you'd be fine, though it would depend on how long after the game ends it is available to replay. Could be later that day, might not be until the day after or later. No way to guess right now.
Very interesting, thanks.
I do watch whole games later so streaming would still work for that.
But I also check out multiple live games at the time they air. I look at the Game Mix channels and see what games look interesting and then switch to the live broadcast for awhile. So I guess you could still do that too, right?
But like you said you wouldn't be able to pause one game, switch to another and then back to the first game without missing the action for that time.
 

· Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
26,461 Posts
Unless a streaming service negotiates it to be exclusive, I am hopeful that it opens up for multiple outlets including Satellite and Cable.
The bid is for sole rights to broadcast out-of-market games. That DIRECTV thinks they can shirt-tail off of this seems likely a pipe dream.
 

· New Member
Joined
·
9 Posts
Replays are available without DVR, via Short Cuts. That's still available to all NFLST subscribers via the Sunday Ticket streaming app. Games condensed to 30 minutes, no commercials. A great way to hammer through a game you missed, or one you didn't get to check out. Those are available Monday-Wednesday following each Sunday.
I forgot about Shortcuts. I did use Shortcuts for one year. I still recorded them though. Then the next year Shortcuts was streaming only and I didn't use it.
There are two Sunday Ticket plans with DTV, regular and premium. I may be wrong but I think Shortcuts comes only with the Premium package. I just have the regular package.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
So if you had no choice but to sub to an ad-support version of any of these and there was content you wanted to watch, you STILL wouldn't subscribe? Or, if the ad-free version was VERY expensive, you wouldn't bother? That what I'm saying, my opinion, based on the way cable TV went from the early days to now is that eventually all but the most premium content will be ad supported, potentially without the ability to avoid ads.

I hate ads too, but if I were in the business of streaming and I could make more money charging less for ad-support than I could offering an ad-free version, I'd cut all of you ad-free people lose in a hot second. It's possible I might lose some subs, but it's also possible that the majority would take the savings and be fine with it.
Well I don't actively watch anything that I have to watch ads on unless it is only on the $0.99 Hulu option and the only reason I have that is because of the price of it.

Well if they have 5 million ad-supported subscribers and 1 milion ad-free subscribers I don't see how they are going to make more money with 5 million total subscribers. They won't. They will make less. Most people that have ad-free is because they don't want to watch ads so you really think they would stick around for the ad-supported plan. I know I would not.
 

· Mentor
Joined
·
589 Posts
But I also check out multiple live games at the time they air. I look at the Game Mix channels and see what games look interesting and then switch to the live broadcast for awhile. So I guess you could still do that too, right?
But like you said you wouldn't be able to pause one game, switch to another and then back to the first game without missing the action for that time.
Here's what you can do right now, in the NFL Sunday Ticket streaming app: Multi-view streaming of 2, 3 or 4 games at once. Unlike the Game Mix channels on D*, you get to pick which games you want to have constantly playing. One game becomes a blowout? Swap it out for another game. You can even drop in Red Zone if you have the MAX package. Within that multi-view setup, you can double click on a game to take it full screen to watch a series or clutch moment, then double click to take it back to the multi-view format. It's a game changer in terms of being able to keep up on multiple games at once. If my favorite team isn't playing in an early window, I fill mine with Red Zone, then other divisional opponents.

There are two Sunday Ticket plans with DTV, regular and premium. I may be wrong but I think Shortcuts comes only with the Premium package. I just have the regular package.
Short Cuts does come with both tiers.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
The bid is for sole rights to broadcast out-of-market games. That DIRECTV thinks they can shirt-tail off of this seems likely a pipe dream.
Agreed. How many other services did DIRECTV let shirt-tail off of their exclusive content. ZERO! The service that gets it will be paying top dollar for what they end paying for EXCLUSIVE content. If it wasn't exclusive to their service they wouldn't be paying that amount.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
But like you said you wouldn't be able to pause one game, switch to another and then back to the first game without missing the action for that time.
It would be very possible for them to give you the option when you switch back to the first game to let you resume where you stopped or go to live. MLB-TV has that option now. But no one knows yet what the provider is going to allow.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Agreed. How many other services did DIRECTV let shirt-tail off of their exclusive content. ZERO! The service that gets it will be paying top dollar for what they end paying for EXCLUSIVE content. If it wasn't exclusive to their service they wouldn't be paying that amount.
What has been reported as a possibility is that DirecTV could cut a deal with the winning bidder to continue offering the package on satellite, with the revenue passing to the streamer. The streamer would get additional revenue from satellite customer who can't or won't stream, and DirecTV would retain customers it might otherwise lose. There is no way of knowing at this point if it's a real possibility or just a rumor, but that's what some sources have reported.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Oh and for those of you who are hoping an outlet like ESPN+ gets Sunday Ticket, they just announced another price hike by $3 beginning August 23rd. Streaming services going up as time passes. Everytime you turn around another price hike.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
I get it. It’s all about the $$$$. But when you move to a service that noone has where is the revenue gonna come from? People are leaving netflix a streaming service. Just read a long article the other day where people are leaving streaming services left & right because they are finding out it’s not what they expect. Content Content Content is where it’s at. People are realizing you can’t get everything all on one service, you have to have multiple accounts for streaming. One person in a family might like movies, one may like sports. It’s not all in one place the way DIRECTV or Cable can deliver. People are finding this out and coming back to Linear TV.
 
321 - 340 of 1566 Posts
Top