HBO Max/Discovery+ Merger

[Bruce]

The big dog in the game is actually Amazon Prime with roughly 150 million subs just in the states. If you add in the add-ons like Acorn and Britbox etc the number skyrockets.

No, the number stays the same, to get the add-ons you have to be part of that 150 million.

I have Prime for the shipping, the video is a extra.

Britbox and Acorn only have about a million subs each, very minor services compared to Netflix, Disney, Hulu and Paramount.

BritBox vs Acorn TV — which streaming service is better for you?

BritBox vs Acorn TV — which is right for you?

www.whattowatch.com

IMHO CNN+ is a last ditch effort to save CNN which has been dying for quite a while now. CNN+ won't save it and HBO Max would be nuts to bundle it but this is what I've been talking about, HBOMax is heading toward being a streaming cable company by bundling in as many junk groups as it can find just to pump up the channel numbers.

Why are you bringing up CNN not doing well, unless you are trying to make a statement here that is not allowed.

By the way, while the ratings for CNN in the states are down, it is still quite big in the rest of the world.

If HBO MAX wishes to bundle, that is fine, usually that comes with a Discount, like the bundle with Commercial Free Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+ at $19.99 a month that I am going to get, the biggest plus for me is I can get Hulu Gift Cards ( along with Netflix and YouTube TV-Google Play)with my credit card points, so no cost to me.

Hopefully, like Hulu, HBO will continue to offer services separately, I care nothing for Discovery+.

 

[ncted]

Reading some of these posts reminds me a lot of what it was like working for a newspaper company for a dozen years. For years, people thought this or that would save the print product. First it was classifieds, then local sports, then whatever was left. Eventually, it cost more to print the paper than it made in revenue. Traditional linear TV is still on a steep decline, even though a slim majority of households (not actual population) still have it. With the advent of more and more sports going either Direct To Consumer or signing up with streaming platforms, I am not sure what will keep linear TV around in the long run, at least not in it's current form.

 

[Juan]

No, the number stays the same, to get the add-ons you have to be part of that 150 million.

I have Prime for the shipping, the video is a extra.

Britbox and Acorn only have about a million subs each, very minor services compared to Netflix, Disney, Hulu and Paramount.

BritBox vs Acorn TV — which streaming service is better for you?

BritBox vs Acorn TV — which is right for you?

www.whattowatch.com

Why are you bringing up CNN not doing well, unless you are trying to make a statement here that is not allowed.

By the way, while the ratings for CNN in the states are down, it is still quite big in the rest of the world.

If HBO MAX wishes to bundle, that is fine, usually that comes with a Discount, like the bundle with Commercial Free Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+ at $19.99 a month that I am going to get, the biggest plus for me is I can get Hulu Gift Cards ( along with Netflix and YouTube TV-Google Play)with my credit card points, so no cost to me.

Hopefully, like Hulu, HBO will continue to offer services separately, I care nothing for Discovery+.

Because not doing well means they don't have that many subscribers...

 

[NashGuy]

Paramount has a major heads up content wise, the Yellowstone spin offs, Star Trek of course and now Halo looks to be even bigger then the Star Trek shows ( plus other stuff like Seal Team and Evil for example), I just do not believe Peacock can catch up, too far behind.

Again, Paramount+ has been increasing in sub numbers every quarter, that is all we can base this on at this point, not if we like the service, they(P+) are now making at least $280 Million a month ( at $5 a sub average), that is more then $3 billion a year.

You brought up that Universal makes more then Paramount in movie grosses ( which they have to give Theater Owners at least 40% of that), well Universal in 2019 ( before Covid) made in Gross was $1.3 billion, so roughly $800 million ( and how much of that goes to production and all the other stuff), that means P+ is now making 4 times that ( $280 x 12 is more then 3.3 billion) and do not have to split it.

If they put 1 billion into production ( which I think is way high), that mean 2 billion they get to keep for themselves, other costs eat into that of course, so maybe about $1-1.5 billion in profit for P+.

So if you were a betting man, how much would you wager that Paramount+ still exists in its current form (i.e. as a globally-competing SVOD that has not been merged with any services/libraries from outside of the current Paramount corp) three years from now in 2025? I think the chances of that happening are very, very low. And likewise for Peacock. Three years from now, each of them will have merged with something else or called it quits as a global streamer.

Here's a key quote from today's Vox/Recode interview with Jason Kilar, who is exiting as head of Warner Media ahead of its merger with Discovery next week:

Peter Kafka​

You’re leaving WarnerMedia as it merges with Discovery. Do you think that combination will be big enough to compete? Or will they have to buy more stuff or sell themselves to someone else?
​

Jason Kilar​

I’ll speak at a higher level about the industry in general. I think it’s fair to say there are more players in the streaming world right now than I believe the industry will support at scale. So I believe there are going to be additional chess moves that are going to happen.​

 

[Bruce]

So if you were a betting man, how much would you wager that Paramount+ still exists in its current form (i.e. as a globally-competing SVOD that has not been merged with any services/libraries from outside of the current Paramount corp) three years from now in 2025? I think the chances of that happening are very, very low. And likewise for Peacock. Three years from now, each of them will have merged with something else or called it quits as a global streamer.

Never said that they(P+) would not merge with anyone, I just wrote based on the current subscribers numbers they are already one of the stronger streaming services and does not seem to need to.

If subs numbers start to decline or slow down, things might change.

I do have to say, P+ has become one of my favorite streaming service, they have been adding a lot of content that I have a interest in, unlike Peacock which just seems to be a very, very lite version of Hulu.

I was disappointed in Peacock’s 4 month later plan in putting movies on, I do not think that will help get more subs, 2 months yes.

I personally would not watch movies on Peacock, no 4K/HDR/DV, I would just buy what I want on Vudu, does not costs me anything ( gift card loophole).

I believe Comcast will stick it out with Peacock for about 2 years, it is hard to doubt them on any business decisions, look what happened when they bought Universal/NBC, made Comcast into a monster company, they have made all the right moves.

Unlike AT&T with DirecTV and Warner Bros, that has been a total disaster, 10 million sub loss in 5 years with DirecTV , Warner off to Discovery for a lot less then they paid for it, AT&T bought Warner for $85 billion, Discovery is only paying $43 billion to merge with Warner and take control.

 

[NashGuy]

I would agree that Peacock has been underwhelming. Hard to see how you can say that Comcast has made all the right moves when they were the last out of the starting gate to launch a DTC SVOD (i.e. the future of video entertainment). And prior to this year they have been pretty half-hearted about funding it. Actually, it's still under-resourced but they are starting to put more into Peacock this year, shifting some production money from linear to it, plus making it the debut service for recent Universal theatrical movies, the exclusive next-day streamer for NBC shows, and also putting MSNBC shows there next-day. It definitely needs 4K HDR added as those new Universal films begin streaming.

But Paramount+ is underwhelming too. It's mostly basic cable reruns from Viacom channels, next-day CBS broadcast shows, and new Star Trek originals. It's getting better but it's still simply nowhere close to being in the same league as Netflix, Disney+Hulu or HBO Max+discovery+.

If Sheri Redstone and co. thought Paramount could go the distance alone, I think we'd have already seen them do the most logical thing to bolster Paramount+, which is what Warner did to bolster their DTC SVOD: fold their premium cable service into it.

They should scrap the Showtime and Showtime Anytime apps. Instead, Showtime would only be distributed as an add-on to something else (e.g. basic cable) but would also get you access to the premium plan in the separate Paramount+ app. Following are the three Paramount+ plans they would sell:

• basic for $5 -- main content library with ads, HD only
• premium for $10 -- main content library with ads + live local CBS + Showtime ad-free + 4K HDR on select titles throughout the service + offline downloads
• premium ad-free for $15 -- everything in the premium tier but with the ads removed from the main content library

That pricing would put it in line with HBO Max, except they'd also sell a low-cost basic tier at $5, which would be analogous to HBO Max without the HBO part. That's obviously more aggressive pricing than what they offer now, given that Showtime alone costs $11, which it simply isn't worth when compared to competing options, e.g. the $10 plan on HBO Max that includes all of HBO ad-free plus the rest of HBO Max with ads.

But Paramount isn't really competing to win right now. They're positioning themselves to be acquired. That's why they're keeping Paramount+ separate from Showtime (as well as BET+ and Noggin, neither of which should exist -- simply fold them into Paramount+). Redstone knows that the company may need to be split up so it can be sold in pieces to more than one buyer.

 

[Bruce]

I would agree that Peacock has been underwhelming. Hard to see how you can say that Comcast has made all the right moves when they were the last out of the starting gate to launch a DTC SVOD (i.e. the future of video entertainment). And prior to this year they have been pretty half-hearted about funding it. Actually, it's still under-resourced but they are starting to put more into Peacock this year, shifting some production money from linear to it, plus making it the debut service for recent Universal theatrical movies, the exclusive next-day streamer for NBC shows, and also putting MSNBC shows there next-day. It definitely needs 4K HDR added as those new Universal films begin streaming.

But Paramount+ is underwhelming too. It's mostly basic cable reruns from Viacom channels, next-day CBS broadcast shows, and new Star Trek originals. It's getting better but it's still simply nowhere close to being in the same league as Netflix, Disney+Hulu or HBO Max+discovery+.

If Sheri Redstone and co. thought Paramount could go the distance alone, I think we'd have already seen them do the most logical thing to bolster Paramount+, which is what Warner did to bolster their DTC SVOD: fold their premium cable service into it.

They should scrap the Showtime and Showtime Anytime apps. Instead, Showtime would only be distributed as an add-on to something else (e.g. basic cable) but would also get you access to the premium plan in the separate Paramount+ app. Following are the three Paramount+ plans they would sell:

• basic for $5 -- main content library with ads, HD only
• premium for $10 -- main content library with ads + live local CBS + Showtime ad-free + 4K HDR on select titles throughout the service + offline downloads
• premium ad-free for $15 -- everything in the premium tier but with the ads removed from the main content library

That pricing would put it in line with HBO Max, except they'd also sell a low-cost basic tier at $5, which would be analogous to HBO Max without the HBO part. That's obviously more aggressive pricing than what they offer now, given that Showtime alone costs $11, which it simply isn't worth when compared to competing options, e.g. the $10 plan on HBO Max that includes all of HBO ad-free plus the rest of HBO Max with ads.

But Paramount isn't really competing to win right now. They're positioning themselves to be acquired. That's why they're keeping Paramount+ separate from Showtime (as well as BET+ and Noggin, neither of which should exist -- simply fold them into Paramount+). Redstone knows that the company may need to be split up so it can be sold in pieces to more than one buyer.

Pretty soon you’ll no longer need separate apps to binge Yellowjackets and The Good Fight: Paramount+ and Showtime are merging into one offering — sort of. While both platforms will continue to be sold and marketed as stand-alone services, their owner, ViacomCBS, said Tuesday that starting this summer, it will allow consumers to sign up for and access the combined offering of Showtime and P+ within the P+ app.

The new and improved P+ and Showtime bundle will carry the same pricing as the existing one. For $11.99 per month, you get the ad-supported P+ “Essential” plan and Showtime; pay $3 more ($14.99), and P+ becomes ad free. That will put the offering price tag on par with WarnerMedia’s HBO Max ($14.99) but notably less than the ad-supported Disney bundle of Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ ($13.99) or the premium Disney bundle with ad-free Hulu ($19.99). There’s no word yet on an exact launch date for the new offering beyond “summer.”

Paramount+ and Showtime Will Unite Their Houses, Kinda

Say good-bye to toggling between apps.

www.vulture.com

 

[NashGuy]

Pretty soon you’ll no longer need separate apps to binge Yellowjackets and The Good Fight: Paramount+ and Showtime are merging into one offering — sort of. While both platforms will continue to be sold and marketed as stand-alone services, their owner, ViacomCBS, said Tuesday that starting this summer, it will allow consumers to sign up for and access the combined offering of Showtime and P+ within the P+ app.

The new and improved P+ and Showtime bundle will carry the same pricing as the existing one. For $11.99 per month, you get the ad-supported P+ “Essential” plan and Showtime; pay $3 more ($14.99), and P+ becomes ad free. That will put the offering price tag on par with WarnerMedia’s HBO Max ($14.99) but notably less than the ad-supported Disney bundle of Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ ($13.99) or the premium Disney bundle with ad-free Hulu ($19.99). There’s no word yet on an exact launch date for the new offering beyond “summer.”

Paramount+ and Showtime Will Unite Their Houses, Kinda

Say good-bye to toggling between apps.

www.vulture.com

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of that plan. But it doesn't go as far as what I proposed above. First, they're still going to sell Showtime as a standalone streaming service. Second, the pricing/tiers are still overpriced. The pricing for the ad-free P+ upper tier and Showtime together, at $14.99, is what I recommended, but they want to sell P+ with ads (and without live CBS or 4K) and Showtime together for $11.99, which is at least $2 too much for what it is, given that HBO Max with limited ads on the non-HBO content sells for $9.99. (And never mind the fact that the HBO catalog is bigger, more popular and far more acclaimed than the Showtime catalog.)

Paramount+ is a little boy trying to play against the big boys.

 

[Juan]

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of that plan. But it doesn't go as far as what I proposed above. First, they're still going to sell Showtime as a standalone streaming service. Second, the pricing/tiers are still overpriced. The pricing for the ad-free P+ upper tier and Showtime together, at $14.99, is what I recommended, but they want to sell P+ with ads (and without live CBS or 4K) and Showtime together for $11.99, which is at least $2 too much for what it is, given that HBO Max with limited ads on the non-HBO content sells for $9.99. (And never mind the fact that the HBO catalog is bigger, more popular and far more acclaimed than the Showtime catalog.)

Paramount+ is a little boy trying to play against the big boys.

If they are truly over-priced..nobody will buy it..so they will either drop the price or fade away

 

[NashGuy]

Here's an interesting article I just found from a few days ago, an interview with former Warner Media head Jason Kilar. He gives his thought on the state of streaming and where TV is heading globally.

The Future of Streaming According to Jason Kilar

The departing WarnerMedia CEO talks to us about his HBO Max successes, his competitors, and what he sees next.

www.vulture.com

 

[KAB]

Here's an interesting article I just found from a few days ago, an interview with former Warner Media head Jason Kilar. He gives his thought on the state of streaming and where TV is heading globally.

The Future of Streaming According to Jason Kilar

The departing WarnerMedia CEO talks to us about his HBO Max successes, his competitors, and what he sees next.

www.vulture.com

He nearly ruined the WB studio.

 

[Bruce]

He nearly ruined the WB studio.

Considering his entire 2 years running Warner Bros was during Covid, including the lock down time frame, he did what he could.

Thanks to him, we now have new movies premiering on streaming services 45 days to 3 months after premiering at Theaters, not just from WB, Disney(Fox) and Universal also.

That switch is not really hurting Box Office, for example, The Batman made over $700 million at the Theaters, premiering April 18 on HBOMAX.

What he did at WB will help the switch to Streaming Services from Traditional Providers go much faster.

 

[Radioguy41]

Britbox and Acorn only have about a million subs each, very minor services compared to Netflix, Disney, Hulu and Paramount.


Why are you bringing up CNN not doing well, unless you are trying to make a statement here that is not allowed.

A: When I compare Prime to those providers you pull out add-ons Acorn and Britbox as the comparison? Looks like deliberate misdirection.

B: If you had read all the posts you might have noticed CNN+ as a streaming service was mentioned in an earlier one (page 2) and I was just referencing that. More misdirection.

 

[lakebum431]

He nearly ruined the WB studio.

I totally disagree. People weren't going to go to the movies anyway. Might as well stream them to promote your new service. I think all the flack there is complete BS. Not to mention that the WB studio is much more than just movies. Their primary product is TV which did quite well during the pandemic.

 

[KAB]

I totally disagree. People weren't going to go to the movies anyway. Might as well stream them to promote your new service. I think all the flack there is complete BS. Not to mention that the WB studio is much more than just movies. Their primary product is TV which did quite well during the pandemic.

New Era Begins at Warner Bros., Tinged With Nostalgia (Published 2022)

With a new owner, the 99-year-old movie studio appears headed back to its traditional sweet spot as an entertainment company. But the business of Hollywood is no longer the same.

www.nytimes.com

 

[lakebum431]

New Era Begins at Warner Bros., Tinged With Nostalgia (Published 2022)

With a new owner, the 99-year-old movie studio appears headed back to its traditional sweet spot as an entertainment company. But the business of Hollywood is no longer the same.

www.nytimes.com

That's paywalled so I can't see the article. What are you trying to point out?

 

[Bruce]

That's paywalled so I can't see the article. What are you trying to point out?

It is just a puff piece on David Zaslav and Discovery taking over Warner, it has nothing to do with Jason Kilar.

 

[Bruce]

A: When I compare Prime to those providers you pull out add-ons Acorn and Britbox as the comparison? Looks like deliberate misdirection.

You made this statement-

you add in the add-ons like Acorn and Britbox etc the number skyrockets.

and all I did was show you that those 2 services get very low sub numbers, definitely does not make the number skyrocket.

No misdirection in showing you to be incorrect.

 

[IcEWoLF]

I get free HBO max with att wireless. If I lose that then I might consider T-Mobile if their service here improved so that I can get free Netflix.

 

[NashGuy]

Considering his entire 2 years running Warner Bros was during Covid, including the lock down time frame, he did what he could.

Thanks to him, we now have new movies premiering on streaming services 45 days to 3 months after premiering at Theaters, not just from WB, Disney(Fox) and Universal also.

That switch is not really hurting Box Office, for example, The Batman made over $700 million at the Theaters, premiering April 18 on HBOMAX.

What he did at WB will help the switch to Streaming Services from Traditional Providers go much faster.

I think Kilar was very far-sighted and strategic in making the decision to go day-and-date for the 2021 theatrical slate on HBO Max. He knew that that service was the future of Warner and it needed a shot of adrenaline to boost subscribers, especially given the fact that the planned flow of new series was somewhat delayed in '21 due to pandemic-related production shutdowns in '20. The folks who were complaining about it at the time were mostly film directors, actors, producers, etc. who were afraid the shift would undercut box office revenues and therefore how much they'd make on those films. But Warner ended up cutting fat checks to mollify those folks, so it all worked out.