Jump to content

NBC to launch streaming service in 2020


dragonflies

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

These networks are so craven.  They will eventually over-monetize themselves down to nothing.  People are already making choices in how they spend their dollars and not every service can make the cut.  I already detest CBS All Access and refused to consider it from the very beginning because I knew where it would all lead. 

Also, these dumb networks are making their content much more accessible to the pirates, many of whom are far more advanced in the use of technology than the traditional media broadcasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Basically Comcast is going full steam ahead on scripted at its cable networks including Bravo, even if they tank in the ratings, because they want a deep bench of content for subscribers to watch on their new streaming service. Hence all the Girlfriends Guide/Odd Mom Out/Imposters bullish!t that no one watched on linear TV but could find renewed life as bingeable content digitally.

 

Variety just released a very in-depth piece about how the top media companies are accruing all this debt to secure their places in the digital future currently led by Netflix and Amazon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for posting that Variety article @Faulkner

 

That quote that you posted speaks to some of what I mentioned upthread about people being very discriminating about what services/streamers they subscribe to because there is only so much money to be spent on something that is not an absolute necessity like food, shelter, clothes, etc.

Also from what we're seeing, the younger the generation the less likely they are to want a bunch of monthly expenses. Most people under 50, in fact, appear to be scaling back where subscriber services are involved, it happened with cable and looks poised to happen (eventually with pay streaming services).

 

From what I'm currently seeing, the television industry is ripe for a shift toward the space that that music industry now occupies and has occupied since the advent of music streaming-- a situation that the music industry has never been able to shift back from-- the iTunes situation (ironically, some articles are starting to come out that question whether iTunes is on its last legs). 

The comparison between the music industry and the television industry is notable because the music industry was once run by corporate behemoths but has been reduced to operating on a far more modest scale than it was before the debut of Napster.

 

These huge television companies have strayed far from their roots of antenna television,  household brand advertising paying operating costs and executives with more modest salaries (I'm looking at you, Leslie Moonves!

Please register in order to view this content

) and morphed into huge corporate behemoths that constantly have to be "fed" by huge corporate profits amid shrinking viewing audiences and more competition. The attitude seems to be similar to the banks' "Too Big To Fail" mantra, except unlike banks, TV studios cannot finance roofs over people's heads or spaces for businesses to operate.  In an era of mega mergers of entertainment companies, many may have gotten Too Big but they certainly will never be "Too Big To Fail" because their services are not an absolute necessity, the way a roof over one's head is. So, over-leveraging could prove fatal for some of these companies because I don't see any being able to finesse a 'bailout' the way the banks did.

 

Two very interesting concepts discussed in that article.

1.) A number of companies are looking at selling assets, which may be a wise move, unless you make the mistake of selling off a division or company that is very profitable, like what Sears was stupid enough to do...twice.

2.) By their comments, some of these companies seem to be anticipating and preparing for a recession.  Can't say I'm surprised, as I've been reading about the possibility of one for months and it's been on my mind.  It is interesting though, that these corporations are anticipating one and formulating financial strategy based on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • GH on Hulu, their Top 15 list, now for the second consecutive day ... #1.
    • From PKWaddle, ex-soap journo & fan & one known only to give good intel, in a post on my FB soap group: #1 Peacock shows 10 of the past 12 weeks DAYS in their TOP 3. #2 DAYS is now more ahead, currently at 10 months & 1 week.
    • Just a little nod, Today would've been Bill Hayes 100th Birthday! He was almost the first Centenarian On A Soap
    • Kevin Kline's description of soap fans makes me laugh.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Not to ramble too far off topic but it happens a lot with comics too, especially only wanting to keep cheap talent around and pushing out creative voices. There are some patches where creatives can go to start their own worlds...wish that was true with soaps, but who knows, maybe it can happen someday. I never thought we'd get a new soap this year.
    • Very true & also at least in the case of stand-out HWs, it is fraught with exhaustion & burnout.
    • Plus we are never going to have a Shonda Rhimes, a Dick Wolf, or a Chuck Lorre of daytime -- a single brilliant person who could come in and change the genre -- because Shonda, Dick, or Chuck would only be able to work on one soap opera at a time, not three or four at the same time as they do in primetime.  As long as TPTB insist on the 60-minute format, we will never have another super influential individual like Phillips, Nixon, or Bell.  They simply would never have time to do more than one soap opera at a time and that would stifle their influence overall. Thanks. So maybe this is happening to some degree in other entertainment genres.  I don't keep up with the particular franchises you mentioned, so I was unaware.  I appreciate your perspective.
    • I think it's become more common in other genres in recent decades, as the industry as a whole has collapsed - these are complaints that have been made about creative talents in the MCU, Star Wars, Doctor Who, etc.  The MCU is in that place now as they burnt so much goodwill that even when their new movie got strong reviews, the audience didn't show up - similar to how AW got some praise for their 89-93 material compared to some of the barren years beforehand, but viewers just weren't coming back.  (I know they did return, somewhat, in the JFP run, but not enough to make up for the big budget she used)
    • I mean I really hope so. Still kinda amazed though that it would get by Standards & Practices. A pair that was talked about that I could see it was Jacob Young & that guy who kept changing what name he went by Someone Martines at least part of the time, but at any rate Jacob was playing Lucky & this other guy was playing Nikolas.
    • Excellent explication. That doing it in these two examples, is not like doing it in other similar genres or franchises, so one could easily postulate that the people who hire do not generally consider "newbies" but instead insist upon experienced people, which leads to rehiring rather than hiring from "outside" which is what your closed system is all about.  When you think about it how many people can you name who did soaps who came from outside? I can only think of 3 HWs : Pete Lemay, Hogan Sheffer & Michael Malone. For EPs only 2: Wendy Riche & Linda Gottlieb    
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy