Jump to content

ARTICLE: ‘Days Of Our Lives’: A Peacock Success Story


Errol

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

If the views weren't there, I doubt it would have last 2.5 years and counting as being a solo Peacock property.  

I wouldn't even mind if one of these streamers didn't a primetime soap exclusively on a platform like Peacock that drops an episode a week 52 weeks a year with no breaks.  It would be a good compromise between the old school day time and prime time formats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it's about comparing it to tv but within streaming thats a good number of people subscribing to your service, paying a monthly fee and many with commercials which is even more revenue. 

In the streaming world Days is good value for it's cost. When you consider it's budget and the fact that it drives year round subscriptions, it's a big value to a platform like Peacock which is trying to become profitable and is specifically looking for programming that can drive those year round subscriptions.

Edited by Chris B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. It is really silly how they always report these billions of minutes watched. I would think that having a show of 10 episode watched 2 billion times is better than having a soap opera with 200 episodes watched 3.5 billion times. Of course DAYS will have amassed more minutes watched, if it has hundreds episodes more per year. This metric makes no sense to me.

But hey, if Peacock is happy... 

The guy that I follow for weekly streaming ratings on YouTube always converts these billions of minutes into views per episodes to have a better measure. So for example Traitors sometimes even appears in weekly top 10. 

I can see this logic actually. But I usually never see this mentioned as the reason for its success. Usually all the streamers are just bragging about the billions of minutes watched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem is that the 10 episode series is likely going to cost $50-100 million (more in some cases) and those people will cancel their subscription when the series ends. That creates an unwinnable situation where you constantly have to spend those large amounts to churn out constant hits to sustain subscriptions. That's why all of these streaming services are in so much debt.

Around the time Peacock picked up Days they did mention that their goal was to start trying to drive long term subscriptions. In addition to Days they've really leaned into sports and live programming which can help drive year round traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree that DAYS is probably doing better from the cost perspective. 

But my point was just that I wouldn't say that DAYS is one of the most watched shows on Peacock. Because if it took DAYS 169 episodes to gather 3.1 billion minutes, but it only took another show 10 episodes to take 1.4 billion minutes, it's very clear. By comparison, 10 episodes of DAYS would not even hit 1 billion minutes, not even close. 

Better by cost, but not by views, is all I'm saying

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited by Manny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also - if they're happy with the result, why would they want to invest further? The formula is working the way it is for now, so I don't see anything changing budget-wise, unfortunately. I'm just trying to unspin these disingenuous press releases.

Edited by Aback
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry to come back on this... but I wonder how streamers even count the profitability of a show. On network tv is simple.. you have your budget and then you have the ad revenue. If ad revenue is higher, you are earning money, if it's lower, you lose money (in a simplest way explained, surely there are some other factors..)

But I imagine streamers just have to sum up all the budgets/acquiring costs of all the different programs and then all the subscription profit. Because I just don't get how they would split the subscription profits per show. Because if I pay 10 USD per month, but I watch two shows, do they give each show 5 USD from me? What if I watch 5 episodes (but not the full season) of one show, and a whole season of the other show?

For example, I have had Netflix since 2015, never cancelled my subscription in that period. I watch a bunch of stuff. That cannot possible say anything to Netflix about where to allocate my subscription profits. On the other hand, I pay Disney+ since it began and in the last year, I didn't watch anything there (I know, I'm silly to pay if I don't watch, but that's a different topic).. You cannot assign my subscription to any show on Disney+. 

I just don't get how they can calculate the profit per show.. I assume that shows that earn basically no views are easy to just cancel. But others? I don't know... anyone has ideas?

Please register in order to view this content

 

EDIT: Was browsing now to see what the budgets are for DAYS and Traitors (I am using Traitors as example only because that's literally the only show I know from Peacock). And I found here on SON that DAYS budget until 2023 was 37.5 mil USD. I found online that Traitors budget is between 10-20 mil USD. So even if DAYS budget is cut at Peacock, surely it wasn't cut by 50%. So DAYS is still running a higher cost annually, while Traitors get like 7 times more the viewers per episode. 

I am not trying to ruin this for DAYS fans, really, I was just perplexed how Peacock can claim that DAYS their 2nd most watched show, when it clearly isn't. And again, if Peacock is happy with these figures, great..  

Edited by Manny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're not wrong when you consider none of the streamers are profitable but Peacock has been reducing it's debt each year and seems to be more on track than the other streamers are. They have to find a way to cut costs to be sustainable. You can't just keep churning out these short lived expensive shows hoping for a miracle.

I think the key is affordable programming and also ad supported tiers for additional revenue. HBO Max recently had a big success story with The Pitt which was a modestly budgeted 15 episode series. That needs to be the model. They should be striving for shows with more episodes that can be made for less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recent Posts

    • You make a good point. I just reached for something, unfortunately more & more common & the meds are good & most people have a long honeymoon before any decline. The most obvious thing would be an impending heart attack. That could be played by an immediate crisis followed by fairly ordinary time.
    • I doubt they're going to give Bill Parkinson's considering that it would be something he would have to live with and gradually decline. It'll likely be something they can sweep under the rug eventually (though it wouldn't surprise me if they pull the misdiagnosis trick between then).
    • Odds more likely Parkinsons. Hand tremor is one of the first symptoms, often. Actually it could be any number of neurological issues. Not all are Parkinsons. I think I already posted about Dani's laser focus on her girl. But in case not, this goes double for me! Totally love & also appreciate scenes like these Dani scenes. Showing some layers, she is! Whether its with her sister or her daughter, as long as the subject is family, Dani is down.   
    • 5-21   Have I said how much I like Jacob and Naomi? As the first in-bed couple from Episode 1...and a good guy/good girl couple, I do love seeing their development. Together. And separate. So doing my rewatch, it's great to see them together one moment and making their lives work. And then the next minute, they are off in other stories. I liked the Naomi/Derek scenes. Meanwhile DETECTIVE Jacob is involved in the SilkPress storyline due to Veronica Mars aka Kat on her and Eva's case.    Dani, Dani, Dani. I thought it was a good episode to show her different sides. The outrageous Dani who would kiss her friend in public...and figuratively blow Bill's head off. And then...there's Mama Dani with Chelesa. She is always going to be divisive, ain't she? Sidenote...good to see a bit of sass from Pamela on Vanessa. It's clear they don't like each other. I do wonder if that will turn into a C plot.    Speaking of C plots...well...I still can't believe how invested I have been in the Derek/Ashley mess. And another element in it that I liked this episode was how it was affecting Dani/Andre. Heck, they were all in the montage at the end.   And another speaking of C plots, Bill and that hand. smh. I didn't care for all the Bill/Hayley time, but that hand shake continued. I do wonder where that is going to go. MS perhaps? I believe in rare cases that it can happen to men, but I am probably wrong. Still...a chance to educate.    I loved the Dani/Chelesa scene for sure. I'm sorry that things did not work out for Chels and the girl. But it was nice to see that in the spotlight and something just different for soaps. And it led to such a great talk with Dani.    Mmmmm at the SilkPress/Eva scenes. It was such a visual version of what Eva and Tomas just talked about in the last episode with parents. And SilkPress admitting what she did. I totally missed it the first time around. I live for their scenes regardless. Though I'm starting to think (and the synopsis for this coming week doesn't help), that this A story is about to shift into more of a B story status to focus on the other A stories (Martin's secret and another round of Dani/Bill/Hayley).
    • FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 3/26/73-3/30/73 & 4/2/73-4/6/73:

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Priorities

      Please register in order to view this content

      It really is too bad that Will/Sonny/Paul/ Andrew aren’t full time. John’s death could’ve led to so many storylines for them. 
    • FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 3/12/73-3/16/73 & 3/19/73-3/23/73:

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I had to think about how Tate is related to everyone. First:  major storylines of John and Bo. Tate is obviously grandson of John via Brady Black. Tate is twice-connected to Bo: Bo is Tate's great-uncle via Isabella. Bo is Tate's great-uncle via Kimberly. Tate is separately related to Pandrew: Andrew is Tate's uncle on the Donovan-Brady side. Paul is Tate's uncle on the Black side. Connections to young people in town: Via Kimberly and Roman, Tate is related to Johnny and Will. Will is Ari's father, so Tate is related to Arianna via Will. Via Isabella and Justin, Tate is related to Sonny. Sonny is Ari's third parent, so Tate is connected to Ari via Sonny. I started to diagram out second cousins, third cousins, half-cousins, half-uncles, "once-removed", etc, and then stopped myself, LOL. What matters is that they are extended family to one another.
    • Oh, I See it now! Thanks
    • And proved what a well-placed line of dialog can cover.  Has there been any mention of Claire?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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