It would be difficult since Pulitzers are generally for written work. They might get Peabody Awards though. 2020 Peabody local staton honorees were WETA, KING-TV and KNXV-TV (according to Wikipedia).
Will there ever be one dominant streaming service?
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
Even if local papers did the initial investigative journalism, local TV stations have always been an important outlet for raising the visibility of local scandals broken by those papers. And most stations had at least some investigative resources.
Well maybe it's the market I've lived in but I never remembered hard-hitting investigative journalism from local stations in the Bay Area market.
They haven't often done multi-segment reports either, something that might span at least a week, like 5 minutes on each newscast, to delve into a topic.
They haven't often done multi-segment reports either, something that might span at least a week, like 5 minutes on each newscast, to delve into a topic.
Man, when was the last time you watched local news. That used to be part and parcel of the local news gig.
That's how local news Anchors got on National news shows. Lester Holt for example did years in Local news and even as an Anchor did on location reporting across the globe for WBBM in Chicago. And then there's Carol Marin who made it to 60 minutes based on her investigative journalism in Chicago.
I use Chicago, because I know it, but I'm sure the Bay area had similar reporters. I know for a fact that Sacramento area reporters have done multi-segment investigative journalism.
That's how local news Anchors got on National news shows. Lester Holt for example did years in Local news and even as an Anchor did on location reporting across the globe for WBBM in Chicago. And then there's Carol Marin who made it to 60 minutes based on her investigative journalism in Chicago.
I use Chicago, because I know it, but I'm sure the Bay area had similar reporters. I know for a fact that Sacramento area reporters have done multi-segment investigative journalism.
Warner, Fox and Disney are going to offer a combined sports streaming service this fall.
variety.com
Notably missing would be NBC Sports, which offers Sunday Night NFL games and English Premier League soccer games, Amazon Prime which owns the rights to Thursday Night NFL games. Also no CBS, which has Sunday NFL games as well as some other sports like Champions League soccer.
Well nobody who has cable TV package or a digital live TV package like YTTV would subscribe unless they could get only the non-sports channels from cable or YTTV.
But for people who've cut the cord or would if they could get sports, this service could be another enticement.
Regional Sports networks, which broadcast local games for MLB, NHL and NBA would also not be included so you'd still have to subscribe to cable TV to get those.
Depending on how they price it, it would be a hard-sell because some people may want all NFL games as well as local MLB, NHL and NBA games.
But they're going to try to recoup some of the fees they're losing from cable TV as cord-cutting grew. So they won't price it too low and then of course, every year they will increase prices.
Warner, Fox, Disney to Launch Streaming Sports Joint Venture
Warner Bros. Discovery, ESPN and Fox Sports will join together in a game-changing streaming outlet that will put all their sports offerings together.
variety.com
Notably missing would be NBC Sports, which offers Sunday Night NFL games and English Premier League soccer games, Amazon Prime which owns the rights to Thursday Night NFL games. Also no CBS, which has Sunday NFL games as well as some other sports like Champions League soccer.
Well nobody who has cable TV package or a digital live TV package like YTTV would subscribe unless they could get only the non-sports channels from cable or YTTV.
But for people who've cut the cord or would if they could get sports, this service could be another enticement.
Regional Sports networks, which broadcast local games for MLB, NHL and NBA would also not be included so you'd still have to subscribe to cable TV to get those.
Depending on how they price it, it would be a hard-sell because some people may want all NFL games as well as local MLB, NHL and NBA games.
But they're going to try to recoup some of the fees they're losing from cable TV as cord-cutting grew. So they won't price it too low and then of course, every year they will increase prices.
The first thing I looked at in the article, and it doesn't appear to be covered-- it doesn't say they will STOP distributing those via other means. That does not appear to be happening. Likewise I don't see indication of those going away for oldschool cable subscribers-- yet at least. Most of the people I know who have not cut the cord are not cutting the cord because of sports.
It's probably a win for consumers if they're already paying for ESPN+, but we'll see how the legal threats shake out. Amazon and NBC still hold valuable sports properties that won't be include as well as a few other, more specialized sports networks not included.
Honestly this is a step closer to the dream of a better TV landscape from the 90's 'hundreds of cable channels' era-- those companies placed content verticals across multiple tiers to get you to subscribe to higher level packages. You might have ESPN on basic cable, ESPN2 on and Fox Sports on tier 2, tier 3 brings Fox Sports regional channels etc. when all we really wanted were packages of similar interest. Give me all of the sports channels or (nearly) none. Give me all of the science/history content or none, etc. Pay for your interests and don't pay for things that you don't want. Hulu+ is a lot more similar to traditional cable in that regard and priced like it.
We'll see if this is the step too far. I think they've been careful with how this particular deal is structured. Rolling Fox Sports and ESPN/ABC under the Disney umbrella was already a far bigger deal for competition. It might be the 'ok that's too much, let's break you guys up' event.
Disney + lost 1.3 million subscribers in Q4, when a big price increase came into effect along with reducing password sharing.
But with higher prices, they reduced losses in the streaming unit by $300 million.
Disney is also planning to launch a standalone ESPN streaming service by fall 2025, that’s in addition to the joint venture they announced with Fox and WBD.
But with higher prices, they reduced losses in the streaming unit by $300 million.
Disney is also planning to launch a standalone ESPN streaming service by fall 2025, that’s in addition to the joint venture they announced with Fox and WBD.
Wait isn't the existing ESPN service stand alone? I mean, I've never actually downloaded the app or signed in even though technically I get it, but I thought the whole point was it is stand alone.
ESPN+ is standalone, but it's separate from the ESPN channels that are on cable (1/2/deportes etc) and doesn't show the sports/events that are on the main channels.
Last year was the most time spent on streaming, even topping the pandemic year of 2020.
The most viewed show was Suits on Netflix, which is a library show that NF licensed.
In fact the top 10 most-viewed shows were all library shows.
Read in The Hollywood Reporter:
Mod edit: redirect removed
The link has charts.
The top movies were also library movies:
Those Disney movies being at the top makes sense, kids watching the same thing over and over again.
But why are adults watching old shows in such huge numbers?
The most viewed show was Suits on Netflix, which is a library show that NF licensed.
In fact the top 10 most-viewed shows were all library shows.
Read in The Hollywood Reporter:
Mod edit: redirect removed
The link has charts.
The top movies were also library movies:
Those Disney movies being at the top makes sense, kids watching the same thing over and over again.
But why are adults watching old shows in such huge numbers?
Last edited by a moderator:
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
Please do not use redirectors that hide source urls like bit.ly, t.co or apple.news. Provide direct links to articles.
Likely because they didn't watch their original runs.
I've noticed that a lot of social media accounts now share some short clips from some of these shows which have definitely peaked my interest. These accounts look like organic ones, but I'm positive they are actually marketing.
I've noticed that a lot of social media accounts now share some short clips from some of these shows which have definitely peaked my interest. These accounts look like organic ones, but I'm positive they are actually marketing.
Part of the reason they're at the top of the list is that there's multiple seasons available, and are probably put on as background noise. For a viewer who watches all 134 episodes of Suits over 9 seasons, you'd need 15 people watching an 8 episode series like Fall of the House of Usher, or 12 viewers of Rings of Power to have a similar "minutes watched."
Also because for a lot of people, they're the television equivalent of comfort food. For me, there's a set of older shows where I've seen every episode dozens of times, if not more. Doesn't make me like them any less. I'm not always interested in diving into something new—sometimes I just want to watch something I know I'll like.
Not to mention, there's something deliriously enjoyable about being able to watch your favorite episode of a favorite show any time you want, as often as you want, when you grew up in the era of having to wait a week to see a new episode, or months for a rerun.
To me, this has always been what Netflix got right and why Disney+ took off like a stabbed rat: Invest heavily in things that are new, but make sure your library is deep. Conversely, this is why I personally find AppleTV+ so uninteresting. Because if their new shows don't resonate (as none do for me so far) there's literally nothing else to watch, and nothing to justify the $x a month while waiting for something else new that might capture my interest across a short 8 or 10 episode season.
For any streaming service, new shows are what make it compelling, the archive, however, gives it value.
Not to mention, there's something deliriously enjoyable about being able to watch your favorite episode of a favorite show any time you want, as often as you want, when you grew up in the era of having to wait a week to see a new episode, or months for a rerun.
To me, this has always been what Netflix got right and why Disney+ took off like a stabbed rat: Invest heavily in things that are new, but make sure your library is deep. Conversely, this is why I personally find AppleTV+ so uninteresting. Because if their new shows don't resonate (as none do for me so far) there's literally nothing else to watch, and nothing to justify the $x a month while waiting for something else new that might capture my interest across a short 8 or 10 episode season.
For any streaming service, new shows are what make it compelling, the archive, however, gives it value.
Last edited:
I have been watching some PlutoTV lately. Some of the older shows.
Saw an analyst talk about HBO Max and WBD on CNBC this morning.
Here are the points I recall:
1. WBD must renew their TV deal with the NBA. They're at risk of NBC/Comcast taking it away and if that happens, they are not only out of the mega-sports streaming deal, they lose dozens of hours of programming for the 6 months of the NBA season.
2. The branding from HBO to HBO Max to Max has been a failure. HBO diluted and Max doesn't have the same branding halo that HBO used to enjoy.
3. Max has lost about 2 million subscribers, either in the last year or 2 years (I forget which). It lost 500k subscribers in the last quarter of 2023 alone. IIRC, that is when they pushed through big price increases.
They talked a bit about maybe WBD can focus more on being acquired. Probably another 8 or 9-figure compensation package for Zaslav if that happens.
Analyst also said Netflix is the only one able to sustain high spending for original programming.
Here are the points I recall:
1. WBD must renew their TV deal with the NBA. They're at risk of NBC/Comcast taking it away and if that happens, they are not only out of the mega-sports streaming deal, they lose dozens of hours of programming for the 6 months of the NBA season.
2. The branding from HBO to HBO Max to Max has been a failure. HBO diluted and Max doesn't have the same branding halo that HBO used to enjoy.
3. Max has lost about 2 million subscribers, either in the last year or 2 years (I forget which). It lost 500k subscribers in the last quarter of 2023 alone. IIRC, that is when they pushed through big price increases.
They talked a bit about maybe WBD can focus more on being acquired. Probably another 8 or 9-figure compensation package for Zaslav if that happens.
Analyst also said Netflix is the only one able to sustain high spending for original programming.
Didn't Netflix just announce they were cutting way back on original programming?
It still boggles my mind the notion that only Netflix can sustain high spending for original programming when, that is all WBD, Disney, Paramount, NBC Universal DO. That is literally what those companies have done for 100 years. Spend money on original programming.
He meant in the context of streaming original programming.
Sure those bid media companies own studios which produce many movies a year. But I think only a few are big hits, profitable enough to sustain losses on some other projects.
But now, some TV shows have 9-figure budgets for a season.
Those studios don't just do movies, they do scripted and unscripted TV too. They run the gamut. By rights it should be cheaper for them compared to netflix. They have infrastructure netflix can only dream of.
Well...that's the thing though, right? Doesn't Disney break out streaming from movies and TV? So all of their original programming in those divisions also help the streaming division.
Right, I think the real issue is that streaming doesn't make as much as traditional venues and so maybe they need to shift models some.
Disney currently has 3 movies that were released only on streaming during the pandemic in theaters. I don't think they're doing huge numbers, but it basically cost them nothing. Turning Red is currently at 1.4 million from 3 weeks in release.
Disney currently has 3 movies that were released only on streaming during the pandemic in theaters. I don't think they're doing huge numbers, but it basically cost them nothing. Turning Red is currently at 1.4 million from 3 weeks in release.
They couldn't afford it if only a few make money. You can't keep losing hundreds of millons of dollar as you don;t have enough money to do teh enxt film. Hollywood is littered with movies companies going out of buiness becasue of this.
Take Disney for example. They basically printed money for about 100 years. Over the past few years they had so many flops from movies to TV that they are starting to feel the effects of it and "recalibrating" by basically firing all the writers and directors that didn't produce. The MCU was a money printing machine, now it's a trainwreck with flop after flop after flop and all the problems with Jonathon Majors that there is talk of a complete reboot.
They can't have movies with 9-figure budgets fail at the box office.
But if one or two of those 9-figure blockbusters gross over $500 million, they can subsidize several 8-figure budget movies which may only gross $100 million or maybe even some that don't hit even high 8-figures.
I don't think studios expect that every movie they release in a given year will all be in the green.
But if one or two of those 9-figure blockbusters gross over $500 million, they can subsidize several 8-figure budget movies which may only gross $100 million or maybe even some that don't hit even high 8-figures.
I don't think studios expect that every movie they release in a given year will all be in the green.
It's become Moneyball, edition Hollywood: strike-outs and homers only, no one cares about hitting singles and doubles.
That's been the case for decades.
I recall a British documentary about Hollywood, it was in the '90s or maybe even earlier. May have been BBC.
But they interviewed studio execs and said they'd rather pay a big box office star like Arnold Schwarzenegger $20-25 million for a movie which would have a total budget of $200 million than invest say in 10 or 20 small films with either $10 or $20 million budgets, without any stars in the cast.
They said investing in the blockbuster was a lower risk than those dozen smaller films with a fraction of the budget.
But Disney has theme parks which normally make money hand over fist and counter the variability of box office grosses and streaming money.
The issue there is the pandemic ate into profits big time.
The issue there is the pandemic ate into profits big time.
Sure, they have cruises and also own TV networks.
ESPN was a cash cow for a couple of decades but with cord-cutting, those linear TV license fees are drying up. So they have to try to transition to ESPN streaming.
I would assume the number of visitors to Disney have recovered to pre-pandemic levels or are going to. But I thought they announced big price increases too, so the theme parks are like a once in a lifetime visit for many families. Hell my parents took us to Disneyland only once and that was decades ago. We didn't particularly ask to go back or anything though.
Disneyland has always been a day park for Southern Californians, a once or twice a year park for Bay Area/Norcal with a side of vacationers.
Their annual pass system used to always dominate because people went so often. once a month or sometimes more.
Florida is a travel destination, but with the advent of the Vacation club timeshare, they moved from once every 5 years to yearly for many.
I'm wondering how the DVC sales are doing now. They recently built new DVC at Disneyland, but I haven't heard of anything beyond that recently.
Their annual pass system used to always dominate because people went so often. once a month or sometimes more.
Florida is a travel destination, but with the advent of the Vacation club timeshare, they moved from once every 5 years to yearly for many.
I'm wondering how the DVC sales are doing now. They recently built new DVC at Disneyland, but I haven't heard of anything beyond that recently.
I think it also hurt in another way. So many people got upgraded TV/audio and got used to streaming such that there is less desire to go to the theater to watch something and just wait for it to come out on streaming because the audio/video is really good at home. I think this plays a large part into a lot of "bombs" at the movies. I have spoken to a bunch of people and people are definitely less likely to go see a movie at a theater now versus before the pandemic. They will still go, but now reserved for special movies.
I think a lot of people don't want to pay $20/person to watch an average movie, and theater chains have priced themselves into "event movies" only. The demise of dollar theaters showing second-run movies hasn't helped either.
Yeah, I paid $45 for 2 matinee tickets a box of popcorn, an abyss boy soda (smallest size besides kids) and a box of Milkduds the other day. To see MIGRATION! with my 10 year old which was, a fun movie, but not sure it was worth it.
They've moved to recliner seating, have much better food options to complete with Studio Movie Grill et al...and because the theaters only make money on those ancillary sales, but still, it was ridiculous.
They've moved to recliner seating, have much better food options to complete with Studio Movie Grill et al...and because the theaters only make money on those ancillary sales, but still, it was ridiculous.
Excellent point about dollar theaters. I used to go to one a lot, but its lease ran out and they kicked them out and torn down the building.
It definitely is a one-two punch...tons of people upgrade their home watching setup during pandemic (I mean you can get a 75" 4k TV for around $500), and movie prices and concessions are up. You can have one or the other, but both...kills theaters.
I saw today that the trial period is over and Hulu is now fully integrated into Disney+. New pricing:
Disney+ with ads, $7.99
Disney+ w/o ads: $13.99 ($139.99 annual)
Disney+ and Hulu with ads: $9.99
Disney+ and Hulu w/o ads: $19.99
Netflix with ads: $6.99
Netflix w/o ads: $15.49 (on 2 devices, 1 person who doesn't live with you)
Netflix with ads: $22.99 (on 4 devices, 2 person who doesn't live with you)
Interesting comparison.
Disney+ with ads, $7.99
Disney+ w/o ads: $13.99 ($139.99 annual)
Disney+ and Hulu with ads: $9.99
Disney+ and Hulu w/o ads: $19.99
Netflix with ads: $6.99
Netflix w/o ads: $15.49 (on 2 devices, 1 person who doesn't live with you)
Netflix with ads: $22.99 (on 4 devices, 2 person who doesn't live with you)
Interesting comparison.
So get this shit. I had Hulu and was paying I think $17.99. I go to hulu to sign up for the duo...I see how I can just add disney+ to my Hulu for $2 which would make it $19.99...cool...I'll just do that. Now...here is the kicker---that was Disney with ADS! So I was going to be paying $19.99 for Hulu no ads and disney with ads! Why? Why? Why? So I have had to cancel it all so I can sign up through disney to get both for $19.99 without ads.
Stupid Disney.
Reason for all of this is that we re-evaluated out streaming. Cancelled SlingTV. Downgraded Netflix to HD from 4K, and upped Hulu to bundle (basically getting Disney+ for $2 as we watch a fair amount of Hulu and didn't want to cancel it).
We'll probably cancel Paramount+ after Amazing Race is over.