THROWBACK THURSDAY: When I predicted that streaming costs would be a problem

One of the things about this blog, and having done it for 11 years, is that it’s impossible to ignore when I get things wrong. You can look through the archives on this site by clicking on a year, and you’ll find dozens of editorials over the years that didn’t quite work out as I expected. So, when I actually get something right, I like to crow about it… a little too much.

Back in 2018, the average person paid about $20 a month for streaming. It was hard to imagine that just five years later, the average person would pay more for streaming than for traditional pay-TV. Yet, that’s what happened. And, I predicted it in this article called, “The big problem with streaming costs.” I pointed out that back in 2018, streaming services were being sold at a loss. At that time it was about getting new subscriptions, not about profits. Back then, I said it couldn’t last forever.

Where we’ve gone in five years​


Internet costs have remained roughly stable in five years. Increases in costs have been balanced out with massive increases in speed. Today, I could very easily get 1,000Mbps internet at home for about what I paid for 50Mbps internet in 2018. Now, I’m not kidding myself here. I know that 1Gbps internet may test out nicely in the middle of the night, but that doesn’t reflect my real speeds when I’m trying to stream on a Saturday night. Still, all things considered I’d still get faster speeds than I did in 2018. I’d need them too, as 4K HDR streaming can suck up all that bandwidth pretty fast.

In the meantime, Netflix now cost more than the top three streaming services combined back in 2018. Disney is continuing to raise prices for their content, and we’re seeing every major app do the same. If you have Netflix, Disney/Hulu, Peacock, Max, and Paramount+/Showtime, you’re now paying over $80 a month just for that. And I’d consider that more or less the minimum you need to stream every day.

Where’s the backlash?​


Here’s the part where I may or may not be proven right. As recently as December ’22, I predicted that streaming providers may start shutting down as people try to cut costs. So far that hasn’t happened, but there’s still time. What we’re seeing is the apps themselves charging more, trying to cut down on password sharing, and consolidating. This is driving the cost for the average person higher and higher. It might not be long until something snaps. So I’m going to reserve judgment on that particular forecast for a while longer.

For now, the backlash has come in the form of FAST (free, ad-supported (live) streaming TV) services and ad-supported tiers on regular streaming apps. But that can’t last forever. At some point, just as I predicted five years ago, something is going to give.

Time to come back to pay TV?​


That’s the real question underlying all of this. Pay television is now the value-priced alternative. Granted, you don’t get the “hot new content” because all of that is based on streaming. Yet, I can’t help wondering if some of that content will migrate to pay TV anyway as the writers’ strike continues to impact production schedules. Within 6 months, you may be seeing some of last year’s hot streaming content on your pay channels, and you’ll get that content for a lower price than you pay for streaming.

It might just be time to cut down on streamers, at least until they start debuting new content again, and come back to a service that’s always treated you right. If you want to know more, fill out the form below or call Signal Connect at 888-233-7563.


The post THROWBACK THURSDAY: When I predicted that streaming costs would be a problem appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.

Continue reading...
 
DIRECTV's streaming pricing raised the bar to dizzying heights and nearly doubled the cost/channel versus their industry leading satellite pricing.
 
That’s the real question underlying all of this. Pay television is now the value-priced alternative. Granted, you don’t get the “hot new content” because all of that is based on streaming. Yet, I can’t help wondering if some of that content will migrate to pay TV anyway as the writers’ strike continues to impact production schedules. Within 6 months, you may be seeing some of last year’s hot streaming content on your pay channels, and you’ll get that content for a lower price than you pay for streaming.
Streaming is a lot less expensive, for tons more content, in better quality

Streaming, all commercial free
Hulu with Disney Plus and ESPN+-$25
Paramount+ with Showtime-$10 a month if you pay for the year
Peacock-$10 ( if you pay for the year)
AMC+-$9
Discovery+-$7

with that you get the vast majority on Traditional Live TV plus all the exclusives, a lot in 4K now, for example, the new season of Justified was in 720P on Live TV, but 4K on Hulu.
Total-$63 a month
You could even get MAX, then you do not Discovery+, brings the price to $71 a month, 4K MAX brings it to $76 a month.

DirecTV Entertainment Pack with 3 boxes, $104 a month, no showtime, no max, no exclusives.

So a difference of at least $28 dollars and more depending on what configuration.

You can then even add Netflix at $20 to the streaming side, still $8 less then DirecTV.

Now if you add HBOMA:mad:4K) , Showtime and Netfli:mad:4K) to DirecTV Entertainment, brings the price to $156.

Streaming would be for everything above, $96 a month.

It might just be time to cut down on streamers, at least until they start debuting new content again
Traditional TV will be hurting more for new content then streaming will.

It has been reported that Netflix has enough new content until the end of 2024.

Disney+ already has 2 Star Wars Series and 3 Marvel Series in post, so they are all set for 2024, plus the movies.

Netflix has announced they will be getting more productions out of the U.K. ( different Union) so they will still have new content continuing to be made.

Unfortunately, Paramount only has enough new content until Summer 2024.

Peacock I have no idea.

And yes, more content from streaming will be on Traditional Channels, but that has been the long term plan for awhile now, even before the strikes, they want both Traditional and Streaming to share in the content costs, that is part of the path they believe will lead to profitability.

The strikes have just accelerated those plans.
 
I love your answers. The math is a little different for me, because I'm including some sort of paid live TV option. But you make excellent points and if you ever feel like writing an article for The Solid Signal Blog send me a PM.

I don't pay for content, but it's a great way to get your opinions out there and start building a career as a content creator. A couple of my guest bloggers have gone on to high paying jobs doing content for other companies.
 
I love your answers. The math is a little different for me, because I'm including some sort of paid live TV option. But you make excellent points and if you ever feel like writing an article for The Solid Signal Blog send me a PM.
I have a NDA with Disney, do not believe it would be allowed, if I violate it, I will be glued into a Pluto Costume and trapped forever entertaining people at the parks.

My reports with them are not really blog type, lots of internal stuff I cannot revel publicity.

But I do like knowing all the secrets.

I don't pay for content, but it's a great way to get your opinions out there and start building a career as a content creator. A couple of my guest bloggers have gone on to high paying jobs doing content for other companies.
Thanks but no, already have a high paying job that I will be retiring from when my contract is up next year.

It will be my second attempt at retirement, first retired at 52, back to work at 56, thought it would help with grief issues since my wife passed last year, retire again at 57.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart Sweet

FUN FRIDAY: Eyeball in Las Vegas

Can an amplified antenna actually be worse than a non-amped one?

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)