Has Streaming Been Resurrected? Is It Still Dead? Was It Ever? What The Hell…

Has Streaming Been Resurrected? Is It Still Dead? Was It Ever? What The Hell…

The Day Streaming Died” is the title of an article in Wired, only a few short months ago. One of the proof points was Netflix clamping down on password sharing.?

Only a week ago, as Netflix reported growth, even as two strikes brought the TV creative industry to a grinding halt, the analyst community changed its tune—at least as far as Netflix was concerned. One major reason? The success of their password-sharing campaign.?

My loyal readers know my ever-growing disdain (it will soon run out of growing room) for the analyst community that takes no accountability for their:

  • which way is the wind blowing pontifications.
  • complete lack of true understanding and insight of consumers/users.
  • blatant focus on driving short-term market movements.

Frankly, there ought to be a law (but alas, I digress).

Their damage is not confined to streaming but extends into all areas, including AI and the continued insistence on calling certain media, delivery, and retail business Big Tech—to the exclusion of all else—a topic to rant on another time.?

Netflix, as I have written in the past, was self-afflicted with a DIGIBABBLE mindset that those same analysts imposed upon them, including dropping entire seasons at one time. This encouraged Binge Watching, which encouraged Binge Churning, lax password-sharing protocols, and no advertising.?

Netflix has beaten them on all. (Still working on the seasonal drops, though…adding 5.9 million subscribers and increasing their revenues.)

What do we need to learn from this turn of events? (Even as the strike roils the Industry because it will end and production will begin again.) We can apply critical lessons elsewhere as we look at people and not just juice the financial market.?

  1. TV is TV is TV…or as Shakespeare so poignantly put it, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Whether Broadcast, Cable, or Streaming, it’s all about the content. What difference does it make in how you choose to watch it? As long as it’s good and affordable, people will watch TV.
  2. The differentiation between the various Streaming Platforms is not enough to command the premium pricing each demands from us. Frankly, you fill in the percentage—70/80/90% of each is the same. It’s just not worth it to pay full-on for the one or two shows you feel are “must see;” hence, churn, baby churn.
  3. Remember the Cable model? We need its streaming equivalent with one log-on, one price, maybe some ad-supported, and others not. Basically...innovation. Let the big studios (including HBO, Prime, Netflix, etc.) go back to creating and curating content, and let the tech platform of streaming be a shared one.?
  4. Kill the DIGIBABBLE…it’s TV.

Finally, pay attention. People like Netflix because it’s got the most content (yes, a ton of crap) and sometimes, on the downside the same experience (be honest) as “Dinosaur” TV… there is nothing to watch, but they are still curating it well.

SO PLEASE…no more death-knell reports! ENOUGH!?

I dreamt about “STREAMING” as a kid—watching what I wanted when I wanted—and now that’s how it’s done…amazing!

TV—plain and simple.

I’m off to finish The Witcher...you?

Tobe Berkovitz

Associate professor of advertising emeritus at Boston University

1 年

The bonus problem is too many interchangeable streaming services with too little must see content. Cable survives because it is one stop shopping. Convenient and easy. Yes expensive, but start adding up several streaming channels and soon you are talking real money (hat tip to Everett Dirksen). "As long as it’s good and affordable, people will watch TV." TV doesn't even have to be good. It can be mind candy or bread and circus. Sometimes just on. Click, click, click. OK I give up and will watch this. Or the occasional ground breaking program that pops up on cable or broadcast TV. There were many of them post-2000.

回复

I was living in London during the satellite wars. BSB vs Sky. BSB had all (and I mean ALL) of the great content. Sky had football. Who won? Sky. And it wasn't close. The only content which wasn't fungible was sports. The only thing that people will pay, for whatever the price, is sports. There are only so many services can will survive. I pay for Prime because I get it as a part of 2-day shipping on Amazon. But I don't pay for anything else on a regular basis. I might subscribe to binge a certain show. Or I might jump on a 3 month special. But to pay for everything is too costly. Curating is where services can separate themselves. Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, the winners will choose a demographic and cater specifically to that audience. Advertising has become a niche game. You can get bloody trying to reach everyone, competing for the most expensive media with a general message. Or you can select and deliver to a specific audience. The trouble is, everyone swings for the stars. The great baseball players are the ones with the best on base average? It all about their on base average and rarely about their homefun record...

Raja Sampathi

I Help Male Leaders Become Unshakeable | Unblock Yourself, Lead with Confidence, Resilience & Relevance - Without Sacrificing Work or Life | Executive Coaching for High-Stakes Leaders

1 年

I can totally relate! Analysts should prioritize understanding users to provide valuable insights. Three vital points I feel are: - empathy - real-world experience - actionable data. How do you think we can bridge this gap?

Pavle Lucic

Senior UI/UX Designer

1 年

These analysts are crunching numbers but missing the human element. People don't always behave like spreadsheets suggest they should - ask any Netflix binger! We need to get better at reading between the data points.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

David Sable的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了