Jump to content

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


Errol

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • 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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I'm not sure they ever had a clear vision on Hart. Other than being the only real instrument that could make Roger pay for his actions.
    • Just an actress that truly knows her own character and plays it so real.
    • Thanks for posting. Is any of her soap stuff, especially from OLTL, available?
    • Lol.  Even if the writing has been slightly better I am not going to claim it 

      Please register in order to view this content

      When NuArianna said "OMG, my cousin and uncle are right there" when talking to Doug 3 I had to pause and remember if it checks out.   It did.  Gabi also hilariously said Ari doesn't know any man in this town she isn't related to so they did acknowledge the log jam of Horton/Brady/Kiriakis blend kids.
    • In my fanfic reboot, this would've all foreshadowed Viki finding her daughter Megan.  They could've saved money on all that Eterna mishegoss.  And, given justice to Cathy Craig for being gaslighted by Tony and Joe.  She wasn't always unstable, but the guys she liked always lied to her as if she couldn't cope with the slightest bit of stress.  Meanwhile, she was probably a much more talented writer than Joe.

      Please register in order to view this content

      Side note: It is ironic that Dr. Danny and Megan Gordon were on screen at the same time.  He dated, her lover's younger sister. But, if she was born when Viki was 17, and Danny was born in 1971, she would've been at least five to ten years older than him.
    •   New headshots of felon Haley Pullos (ex-Molly, GH)
    • What a masterclass today was.  Great acting, great writing. Episodes like this (and like yesterday's Days) are truly what soap opera is. And I agree with everybody that every character's actions are defensible in some way.  Giovanni Mazza is still shining brightly. His scenes with Jane Elliot were the best part of today. I'm so looking forward to seeing their relationship grow. And I'm also looking forward to what's going to happen with Brook Lynn and Lois, and how they're going to come back from this. Amanda Setton killed it as well. Plus, this is a much better way to use Lois/RS than that My Fair Lady ripoff that they did last year. And I couldn't be happier that Dante's sudden animosity towards Gio didn't lead to the reveal be dragged out for any longer, because with the way that GH is sometimes, I was really worried that it was going to be. This storyline can go in so many different directions and I'm totally here for it. Hopefully, Gio is kept in the Quartermaine's orbit, as opposed to Sonny and his dopey family. Speaking of Sonny's dopey family, I enjoyed Rory Gibson's scenes with Wiley. He seemed believable as his father. But I also thought that his scenes with Sasha were a little...  ehhh. I won't compare him to Chad Duell though.  Trina and Kai were really sweet too. They're no Sprina, but I enjoy them together. And Kai looked hot too 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And despite the height difference, I'm glad that they didn't have Tabyana tiptoe to kiss Jens. That's a Sprina thing 
    • I was saying that they may not bury gays like other shows, but we never see them kissing or making love in a way that rivals the straight couples on the show. And, it hurts because the opinion of "Helen, the 75-year-old evangelical from Alabama" matters, but our strong gay fanbase doesn't seem to matter to the PTB as much. Probably because they know we will watch no matter what. It feels like P&G is still reacting in its 2000s Nuke and Otalia mode.
    • Just another beat that they missed, and they seem to miss them often.
    • Jane Elliot's nuances as an actor are very strong, yet subtle. She masters text perfectly.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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