The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.

Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Comcast and Paramount—US entertainment conglomerates that have been growing ever larger for decades—are facing pressure to shrink or sell legacy businesses, scale back production and slash costs following billions in losses from their digital platforms.

“TV advertising is falling far short, cord-cutting is continuing to accelerate, sports costs are going up and the movie business is not performing,” he said. “Everything is going wrong that can go wrong. The only thing [the companies] know how to do to survive is try to merge and cut costs.”

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    That “reasonable” pricing needs to cover all of the development of tv and (most of) movies that we have today. This was the entire problem with the Netflix model.

    The netflix experience of old only worked because media companies licensed shows and movies to it like they do to broadcasters in other companies. Paramount in 2011 is as happy to license Frasier to Netflix as they are to the BBC.

    This only works when the media companies are making enough money via their main business, as such that licensing is just extra profit.

    Netflix ate their lunch and devalued the entire ecosystem. Netflix sold the lie that tv can be made on 10 bucks a month instead of 100 like cable was. The economics of that just don’t work, however. So now we have an industry where the bottom has fallen out entirely.

    Maybe you’ll be okay with a 100/month netflix subscription. I doubt most would. But that’s what it would need to be to be the one subscription you have like it used to be. There’s no cable audience to fall back on now.

    • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, so they’re all going to continue to merge until there’s 1-3 mega streamers, then they’ll all add advertising, and we’ll have come full circle.

      Then there will be some new service which streams content directly to your brain and we’ll begin again and continue until we have advertisements in our dreams.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Movies still make most of their money at the cinema. They can’t survive without that. I can accept movies and TV moving to the Super Netflix after six months or so.

      TV is kind of harder, especially for the really high budget stuff.

      They need to have it like music, where you have multiple services but they all have the same content. Maybe some are cheap and cheerful 1080p stereo, and some are more expensive full fat 4K HDR Dolby TrueHD. But everything needs to be on it and stay on it.

      • ryo@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe some are cheap and cheerful 1080p stereo, and some are more expensive full fat 4K HDR Dolby TrueHD.

        Well something is wrong then because on the music side you have spotify with the “1080p stereo” of a low bitrate lossy stream + paying less to artists and then you have high res lossless and atmos on the apple side… for the same price.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The move to streaming has bottomed out the music industry too, small artists can no longer survive as musicians as they make next to zero money from it. No cd sales, awful spotify payouts. It’s not a goal anyone should look to.

      • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I wish. Aside from premium services like HBO, “cable TV” in the US is still full of ads. It’s just not “broadcast tv” (the original OTA channels)

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think Netflix has actually shown that it can be done a lot cheaper. They’ve pivoted to producing way more original content than just about anyone else, and it’s still profitable. They just aren’t paying for big names or marketing for most in house productions.

      If anything, Netflix has shown us that movie stars are obsolete. Casting a “Ryan Reynolds type” saves $100M on production, so you can just do it 20 times and if a few of those productions are hits you’ll make most money.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you have any real numbers to back any of that nice little theory up or is it all just pulled from your ass?