26 Comments
Jun 28Liked by Tim Goodman

Netflix had years and years of red ink and just now turn a profit. Why Wall Street ran away from the other stremings before they could start making a profit? I think streaming has a more reliable future than AI right now

I don't want the other streamings to close and I don't wanna only Netflix making shows.

Expand full comment
author

I don’t think we’ll lose many streamers, actually. Maybe Paramount+

all about whining about lesser profits and dubious write offs. Streaming isn’t going anywhere

Expand full comment
Jun 28Liked by Tim Goodman

Great takedown. But please tell me the name of the yacht was the Seaward. 😆

Expand full comment
author

🤣

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

"Like" button? I want a "made me laugh" button for this post

Expand full comment
author

Working on it!

Expand full comment

I have that article saved. I read the first two paragraphs, and said "I will read it later". Sometimes later means never. We shall see. But yeah, the yacht and the old geezers threw me. I don't think they're going to be deciding the future of streaming.

I actually like some of the loser streamers and it's for a weird reason: less choice. I just find that works better for me!! If I know I have 5 shows I must watch then I get to work and start chipping away. If there are 20 shows I want to watch, I just throw up my hands in frustration conceding I will never get to it. That's Netflix. Because it's not on Apple Up Next, I forget to go there. And then I feel overwhelmed by the tiles. I am watching Bridgerton now but that is one of the few cultural events that has me actively going to Netflix. Meanwhile, I kinda dig Peacock? They have these "channels" that are ad free and when I am in choice paralysis or don't want to commit to a show, then I peruse the channels and watch 20 minutes of something. I do think P+ and Peacock might eventually chose shop. I do wonder if it isn't smarter just to sell to a few other streaming services without the headache of running one yourself. Did they not game that out before charging into streaming? We'll see what they decide in the next few years.

Expand full comment

I think it's less about "viable business models" and more about the fact that, with the reasonably sudden onslaught of streaming, there's been a firehose of content unleashed at a mindblowing rate and it's made viewers, in many cases unable to keep up — and more critically, unable to identify the programs that they'd want to watch.

When beautifully made and executed content like 1899 and The Peripheral get cancelled, it's not because of their quality, it's because of content overload and they just sort of get lost in the shuffle. Hell, The Peripheral had a firm renewal order and then the pandemic screwed up shooting schedules so it was quietly cancelled.

Let's face it, the Viewing Public needs The Bastard Machine to help them identify what they should be watching.

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

I'd be curious to know which of the super-niche streamers, like Britbox, MHz, Crunchyroll and WOW Presents Plus (which carries all of the international incarnations of RuPaul's Drag Race), are profitable. I would bet that if you subscribe to one of those services, it's because you are a superfan of that one type of content and less likely to churn. (I'm about to resubscribe to Hulu for The Bear and Only Murders in the Building, but will probably drop my sub again after OMITB finishes its season.)

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

For me it's the opposite. MHz Choices is foreign language TV. The new season of Babylon Berlin is going there this month. I will sign up to watch that show and then cancel. Meanwhile, Hulu is a must have for me all year long. I refer to MHz Choices, AMC+, BritBox, Acorn etc as "supplemental streaming". It's a supplement to the main big ones. I jump on and off them, with specific goals in mind.

Expand full comment
author

Kinda the same.

Expand full comment
Jun 28Liked by Tim Goodman

I'm in a book group with several people who are always talking about the shows they're watching on MHz. It's $80/year, which isn't a bad deal if you're really into foreign crime shows, which seems to be most of what's on offer.

Expand full comment
author

Might look into the monthly to binge.

Expand full comment
Jun 28Liked by Tim Goodman

Thanks! I will take a look.

Expand full comment
author

Yes and the smaller streamers (besides EXISTING, which is not mentioned by the NYT) don’t have as many add-on businesses that giant corporations do) and likely have manageable overhead.

Expand full comment

I just read this article in Vulture. Apparently, as a standalone, Acorn TV is profitable. Now maybe they're fibbing but taken at face value, this seems like it could be true. They have a steady stream of content but it's not overwhelming. Plus good licensed older TV. And I do think its base is pretty loyal.

https://www.vulture.com/article/acorn-tv-cozy-mysteries-streaming-strategy.html

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

Yep, dinosaurs at the edge of the tar pit surveying the bones of their predecessors, bitching about those upstart pterodactyls eating without sharing. That photo of Barry Diller alone was a cautionary tale.

Expand full comment
author

EXACTLY. Scary as shit.

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

If this was whack-a-mole, I think everyone in that article gets hit with the "Arrested Development" club!

Expand full comment
author

"And THAT's why you never..."

Ha. And thanks!

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

Just a fantastic post and authorship! Tim at his best…

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, SMC!

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

Hee-larious!!! I’ll be laughing about this one all day.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Megan!

Expand full comment
Jun 27Liked by Tim Goodman

Ah yes - vintage Goodman! Love the classic failure analysis and razor-sharp snark:

"Roberts the Younger."

Perfect.

The bloody winnowing from the early "gold rush" days of streaming feels like the creative destruction/evolution that happens in every new arena. An apt comparison might be the American auto industry, which boasted hundreds of manufacturers in the early going, including electric and steam powered cars ... and look at it now.

According to The Google:

"The number of active automobile manufacturers dropped from 253 in 1908 to only 44 in 1929, with about 80 percent of the industry's output accounted for by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, formed from Maxwell in 1925 by Walter P. Chrysler."

Nowadays we have Ford, GM, and something called "Stellantis," which sounds more like a skin disease than something you might want to drive around in. There's also Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, of course, but those weren't born here.

The current situation feels a bit like the 60s after the Hollywood studio empire, having lost ownership of their theatrical distribution network, had crumbled to dust as a young generation of writers, directors, and actors seized the high ground - and the money - with relatively cheaply-made movies that captured the imagination of the equally young viewing public.

As the ancients have long warned, "The only constant is change" -- and as those old men on their yatchs are beginning to learn, it isn't much fun to be on the short end of that bloody stick.

Expand full comment
author

Sometimes you need to go vintage to get the job done.

And yeah, no lost tears for the John Malone's of the world.

Expand full comment