Nope, but I understand the confusion.Ah, you mean the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland/Las Vegas Raiders!
Peacock TV
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 270
- Views 37K
Ah, then it's the Cleveland/Los Angeles/St Louis/Los Angeles Rams!
Or perhaps the Los Angeles/San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers!!!
Or maybe just a Jets or Giants fan..neither of those play like NFL teamsAh, then it's the Cleveland/Los Angeles/St Louis/Los Angeles Rams!
LA:
NFL - Stole Rams from Cleveland, had them stolen by St. Louis, stole them back.
Had Chargers for one year, team moved to San Diego where they flourished, stole them back.
Stole Raiders from Oakland, had them stolen back.
NBA - Stole Lakers (see a lot of lakes around LA?) from Minneapolis.
Stole Clippers from San Diego.
MLB - Stole Dodgers from Brooklyn.
Leaving the only actual organic LA teams. The Angels, the Ducks, and the Kings. Which are probably among the least followed.
Yes, for the record, it was the Chargers.
At any rate, back on topic, watching my first EPL games this weekend on Peacock, I was quite pleased with the fact that the match I wanted to watch was immediately available as a replay after it ended, and in another instance, I could join in late, watch key plays, or go back to an earlier point in a match that was just ending. None of that is possible with soccer matches on Paramount+, where live matches don't even allow pause/RW/resume live.
Since I hadn't realized Rams were originally from Cleveland, I consider them an organic LA team (i.e., not traitors). And Raiders haven't been associated with LA in nearly two decades. If anything, they would be the LV Traitors.
At any rate, back on topic, watching my first EPL games this weekend on Peacock, I was quite pleased with the fact that the match I wanted to watch was immediately available as a replay after it ended, and in another instance, I could join in late, watch key plays, or go back to an earlier point in a match that was just ending. None of that is possible with soccer matches on Paramount+, where live matches don't even allow pause/RW/resume live.
Sounds like Peacock is gonna stay
www.wsj.com
WSJ News Exclusive | NBC Considers Cutting Back Programming Hours in Prime Time
The network could stop programming the 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. hour and give those hours to local TV stations to program, a cost-cutting move that would reflect broadcast television’s diminishing popularity.
www.wsj.com
Yeah. I am not sure what data these TV execs have, but it clearly shows them the revenue growth is going to be in showing ads on streamed content. Cutting out the cable/satellite distribution partners probably helps a lot.Sounds like Peacock is gonna stay
WSJ News Exclusive | NBC Considers Cutting Back Programming Hours in Prime Time
The network could stop programming the 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. hour and give those hours to local TV stations to program, a cost-cutting move that would reflect broadcast television’s diminishing popularity.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,155
- 20,805
Yep, raise the price to at least match ( and then exceed) the per sub fees they get from Traditional Providers, keep all the Advertising Revenue for themselves.
The only problem with Peacock is they really need to attract paying subscribers, compared to Paramount+ ( similar service) they are way behind.
Peacock has 13 million paying subs, Paramount 43 million, Peacock really needs content that will attract subscribers like Paramount has.
The only issue with that is..you lose a huge chunk of your viewing audience..meaning they will be forced to charge less for commercials...good luck with that model
Well, advertisers are already paying more for streaming commercials (that can't be skipped) than for some linear TV commercials (which can be skipped with a DVR), so I think things appear to be favoring the streaming model in the long run. It may be a gamble, but it seems to be paying off so far or is at least trending that way. Streaming apps may not be as profitable as cable channels once were, but cable channels are on the decline, so they have to try to make something else work. At least with streaming, they can leverage their entire catalog directly rather than rely on syndication and the middlemen involved there.
Cable just too expensive...someone will come out with a cheaper model before it all collapses...streaming is nice for those with internet..you can control costs by adding and dropping services at will
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,155
- 20,805
They already have, all the OTT Providers are less expensive then Traditional Live TV, not doing much better-
Sling TV ( now losing subscribers)
Fubo ( losing subscribers),
Hulu Live ( now also losing subscribers but gains in regular Hulu and the bundle with Disney and ESPN)
Philo ( it is only $25 and yet only 800,000 subs)
Last, YTTV, they are gaining subs, but only at a few hundred thousand at a time when 2 million are leaving Live TV, the last quarter loss was a net loss of 1.9 million, it included the gains of YTTV, same for the first quarter, 2.1 million gone, net.
Many have figured out they get the majority of shows on Live TV plus the exclusives for a less expensive price then just Live TV and they like the On Demand nature of the Streaming Services, plus in a lot better quality.
I know I do.
They are doing this because Days of our Lives is moving permanently from NBC to Peacock pay tier on September 12. They WANT people to subscribe, or I should say they are desperate for people to subscribe, and using this to sucker them.
The problem with “cut out the affiliates” as a business model is, umm, NBC (et al) own the affiliates in the big cities, covering upwards of 35% of the population.
NBC tried something very like this before with Leno. Didn’t work out.
NBC tried something very like this before with Leno. Didn’t work out.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,155
- 20,805
Not worth that, I received a deal for $30 commercial free last November, it is $30 too high, was going to rid of it, then they signed the Big Ten ( along with Fox and CBS/Paramount+).
Still going to cancel this November and see if I get a Win Back offer, if not, wait till next September, pay monthly for 3 months and drop it again.
All depending if they improve the content or not of course.
They really need to use Paramount+ as a example of how to do a streaming service.
The problem Peacock has is it's bundled with your cable package. Who will pay for it when they can get for free.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,155
- 20,805
I do wonder how many of those free subscribers ( 15 million) actually use Peacock.
I paid $30 for the year Commercial Free and I never use it, find it worthless and was planning on canceling.
We properly re-subscribe next year since they have part of the Big Ten contract, but only during Football Season unless content really improves.
I enjoy some of dramas on Peacock. Not sure if I would be willing to pay for it. At least not year round.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 98) Show all
- Juan
- mc6809e
- primestar31
- Dell00iss
- phlatwound
- Dave90000
- RaiderPower
- MikeD-C05
- brice52
- gpg
- hwkn
- ronman
- bcwmachine
- Yespage
- Bobby
- MartyDe
- stargate5
- Keith Brannen
- jaspcarr
- Mr Tony
- savarese04
- b4pjoe
- osu1991
- mackie99
- Jimbo
- zippyfrog
- Elsguy
- thomasjk
- KAB
- klang
- djont57
- Bruce
- jorgek
- Foxbat
- bwarning
- zoomer
- odbrv
- Albiondon
- Wescopc
- gms49ers
- dhpeeple1
- spiderman865
- Howard Simmons
- shy007
- harshness
- evetsmc
- mrc54
- Mister B
- johnr475
- ncted
- dhlaw
- VictoriaFTA
- navychop
- catamount
- dlwilkes45
- Jim5506
- pamajestic
- 356B
- chaddux
- John Nv
- metzmda
