subject:"\[TV orNotTV\] The Great Streaming Purge"

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

2023-05-22 Thread PGage

Belloni writes that Streamers can do either or both: take what I understand
to be an accounting benefit , though perhaps it is some kind of tax write
off  (“Impairment”) and/or sell it to a different distributor, like DVD or
ad-supported streaming (a la Westworld). So not all of the purged material
will disappear, but a lot will, and a lot of creators who came of age in a
period when they expected their material to be essentially permanently
available are going to have hurt feelings.

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 8:53 PM ko...@frontiernet.net 
wrote:

> My understanding is that the Disney stuff being purged is being written
> off as a tax loss so it might really go away for good (legally that is).
> WBD stuff is showing up in other places like HBO shows on Roku channel,
> Elmo's Not Too Late Show on PBS kids and Looney Tunes on ME TV Tune in with
> me and a new Warner Archive Blu Ray tied to WB 100th  anniversary.
>
> Sent from Frontier Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:01 PM, Jim Ellwanger
>  wrote:
> Movies and shows that are being removed from streaming services ARE still
> available, but, of course, in an unofficial, not-legal manner (they’re on
> torrent sites, and probably some dark web locations).
>
>
> On May 22, 2023, at 6:35 PM, PGage  wrote:
>
> Matt Belloni at Puck News has a story out that, while it doesn’t exactly
> break new ground, crystallizes in a dramatic way what is happening in
> television right now. As he puts it, “the Great Netflix Correction has
> officially become the Great Streaming Purge.”
>
> He means that the draconian cuts made infamous by Zas at WBD are now
> becoming the norm in the industry. Iger at Disney is determined to cut $3
> Billion this year. Streamers will still be spending a lot of money on
> production of course, but more and more focused on content that is watched
> by significant fractions, and that drive sign-ups and limit churn.
>
> One of the things this means is a return to the television content
> lifespan that Boomers grew up with, but will feel new and intolerable to
> most everyone younger: most shows and films will (if lucky) live long
> enough to be enjoyed once, maybe twice, and then disappear, often for good,
> not living on infinitely on VHS, DVD or evergreen streams.
>
> What I did not really understand until now (even though WBD kept claiming
> it, but they are hard to believe) is that available content in a streaming
> library is not cost-neutral to the streamer. I had assumed that if nobody
> is watching a bad film that is available on Disney+, it does not cost
> Disney anything (aside from original cost to make it or purchase it). But
> that’s not true. Apparently, just making a film or show available for
> streaming incurs a significant licensing fee cost. We need to think of
> every show and film on a Streamer’s available archive as if it were
> actually being exhibited or shown on a TV channel, (I.e. there are as many
> channels exhibiting licensed content as there are individual films or shows
> in a Streamers archive) and that means you have to pay the owner of the
> content their fee, whether it is being watched by millions or by no one.
>
> Streamers original strategy was to have so much content always available
> that it drive subscription sign-ups and kept subscribers paying every
> month. That worked for a while, especially for Netflix. But not anymore.
> Mist subscribers will not subscribe or stick around just because they can
> always find something to watch; they come for what they want, then leave
> and go some place else. Now all that Un or under-watched content is all
> cost and no benefit, and Streamers are wanting to eliminate them.
>
> Belloni notes that residual payments to writers and actors make up a very
> small slice of the cost to streamers, and are not really a factor in the
> Purge (so go ahead and increase their residuals).
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK3pTXpv69ih5XggjZs5fGbYmK_cyJ1Bo54cW6SucKgqw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

2023-05-22 Thread ko...@frontiernet.net

My understanding is that the Disney stuff being purged is being written off as
a tax loss so it might really go away for good (legally that is). WBD stuff is
showing up in other places like HBO shows on Roku channel, Elmo's Not Too Late
Show on PBS kids and Looney Tunes on ME TV Tune in with me and a new Warner
Archive Blu Ray tied to WB 100th anniversary.

Sent from Frontier Yahoo Mail on Android

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:01 PM, Jim Ellwanger wrote:
Movies and shows that are being removed from streaming services ARE still
available, but, of course, in an unofficial, not-legal manner (they’re on
torrent sites, and probably some dark web locations).

On May 22, 2023, at 6:35 PM, PGage wrote:
Matt Belloni at Puck News has a story out that, while it doesn’t exactly break
new ground, crystallizes in a dramatic way what is happening in television
right now. As he puts it, “the Great Netflix Correction has officially become
the Great Streaming Purge.”
He means that the draconian cuts made infamous by Zas at WBD are now becoming
the norm in the industry. Iger at Disney is determined to cut $3 Billion this
year. Streamers will still be spending a lot of money on production of course,
but more and more focused on content that is watched by significant fractions,
and that drive sign-ups and limit churn.
One of the things this means is a return to the television content lifespan
that Boomers grew up with, but will feel new and intolerable to most everyone
younger: most shows and films will (if lucky) live long enough to be enjoyed
once, maybe twice, and then disappear, often for good, not living on infinitely
on VHS, DVD or evergreen streams.
What I did not really understand until now (even though WBD kept claiming it,
but they are hard to believe) is that available content in a streaming library
is not cost-neutral to the streamer. I had assumed that if nobody is watching a
bad film that is available on Disney+, it does not cost Disney anything (aside
from original cost to make it or purchase it). But that’s not true. Apparently,
just making a film or show available for streaming incurs a significant
licensing fee cost. We need to think of every show and film on a Streamer’s
available archive as if it were actually being exhibited or shown on a TV
channel, (I.e. there are as many channels exhibiting licensed content as there
are individual films or shows in a Streamers archive) and that means you have
to pay the owner of the content their fee, whether it is being watched by
millions or by no one.
Streamers original strategy was to have so much content always available that
it drive subscription sign-ups and kept subscribers paying every month. That
worked for a while, especially for Netflix. But not anymore. Mist subscribers
will not subscribe or stick around just because they can always find something
to watch; they come for what they want, then leave and go some place else. Now
all that Un or under-watched content is all cost and no benefit, and Streamers
are wanting to eliminate them.
Belloni notes that residual payments to writers and actors make up a very small
slice of the cost to streamers, and are not really a factor in the Purge (so go
ahead and increase their residuals).--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK3pTXpv69ih5XggjZs5fGbYmK_cyJ1Bo54cW6SucKgqw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/83234D12-CE01-467A-A701-E5B7457C4B76%40ellwanger.tv.

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

2023-05-22 Thread Jim Ellwanger

Movies and shows that are being removed from streaming services ARE still 
available, but, of course, in an unofficial, not-legal manner (they’re on 
torrent sites, and probably some dark web locations).


> On May 22, 2023, at 6:35 PM, PGage  wrote:
> 
> Matt Belloni at Puck News has a story out that, while it doesn’t exactly 
> break new ground, crystallizes in a dramatic way what is happening in 
> television right now. As he puts it, “the Great Netflix Correction has 
> officially become the Great Streaming Purge.” 
> 
> He means that the draconian cuts made infamous by Zas at WBD are now becoming 
> the norm in the industry. Iger at Disney is determined to cut $3 Billion this 
> year. Streamers will still be spending a lot of money on production of 
> course, but more and more focused on content that is watched by significant 
> fractions, and that drive sign-ups and limit churn. 
> 
> One of the things this means is a return to the television content lifespan 
> that Boomers grew up with, but will feel new and intolerable to most everyone 
> younger: most shows and films will (if lucky) live long enough to be enjoyed 
> once, maybe twice, and then disappear, often for good, not living on 
> infinitely on VHS, DVD or evergreen streams.
> 
> What I did not really understand until now (even though WBD kept claiming it, 
> but they are hard to believe) is that available content in a streaming 
> library is not cost-neutral to the streamer. I had assumed that if nobody is 
> watching a bad film that is available on Disney+, it does not cost Disney 
> anything (aside from original cost to make it or purchase it). But that’s not 
> true. Apparently, just making a film or show available for streaming incurs a 
> significant licensing fee cost. We need to think of every show and film on a 
> Streamer’s available archive as if it were actually being exhibited or shown 
> on a TV channel, (I.e. there are as many channels exhibiting licensed content 
> as there are individual films or shows in a Streamers archive) and that means 
> you have to pay the owner of the content their fee, whether it is being 
> watched by millions or by no one. 
> 
> Streamers original strategy was to have so much content always available that 
> it drive subscription sign-ups and kept subscribers paying every month. That 
> worked for a while, especially for Netflix. But not anymore. Mist subscribers 
> will not subscribe or stick around just because they can always find 
> something to watch; they come for what they want, then leave and go some 
> place else. Now all that Un or under-watched content is all cost and no 
> benefit, and Streamers are wanting to eliminate them.
> 
> Belloni notes that residual payments to writers and actors make up a very 
> small slice of the cost to streamers, and are not really a factor in the 
> Purge (so go ahead and increase their residuals).
> -- 
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK3pTXpv69ih5XggjZs5fGbYmK_cyJ1Bo54cW6SucKgqw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/83234D12-CE01-467A-A701-E5B7457C4B76%40ellwanger.tv.

[TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

2023-05-22 Thread PGage

Matt Belloni at Puck News has a story out that, while it doesn’t exactly
break new ground, crystallizes in a dramatic way what is happening in
television right now. As he puts it, “the Great Netflix Correction has
officially become the Great Streaming Purge.”

He means that the draconian cuts made infamous by Zas at WBD are now
becoming the norm in the industry. Iger at Disney is determined to cut $3
Billion this year. Streamers will still be spending a lot of money on
production of course, but more and more focused on content that is watched
by significant fractions, and that drive sign-ups and limit churn.

One of the things this means is a return to the television content lifespan
that Boomers grew up with, but will feel new and intolerable to most
everyone younger: most shows and films will (if lucky) live long enough to
be enjoyed once, maybe twice, and then disappear, often for good, not
living on infinitely on VHS, DVD or evergreen streams.

What I did not really understand until now (even though WBD kept claiming
it, but they are hard to believe) is that available content in a streaming
library is not cost-neutral to the streamer. I had assumed that if nobody
is watching a bad film that is available on Disney+, it does not cost
Disney anything (aside from original cost to make it or purchase it). But
that’s not true. Apparently, just making a film or show available for
streaming incurs a significant licensing fee cost. We need to think of
every show and film on a Streamer’s available archive as if it were
actually being exhibited or shown on a TV channel, (I.e. there are as many
channels exhibiting licensed content as there are individual films or shows
in a Streamers archive) and that means you have to pay the owner of the
content their fee, whether it is being watched by millions or by no one.

Streamers original strategy was to have so much content always available
that it drive subscription sign-ups and kept subscribers paying every
month. That worked for a while, especially for Netflix. But not anymore.
Mist subscribers will not subscribe or stick around just because they can
always find something to watch; they come for what they want, then leave
and go some place else. Now all that Un or under-watched content is all
cost and no benefit, and Streamers are wanting to eliminate them.

Belloni notes that residual payments to writers and actors make up a very
small slice of the cost to streamers, and are not really a factor in the
Purge (so go ahead and increase their residuals).
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK3pTXpv69ih5XggjZs5fGbYmK_cyJ1Bo54cW6SucKgqw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

Re: [TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

[TV orNotTV] The Great Streaming Purge

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information