JD80
Well-Known Member
There is one flaw in your thinking though because you're assuming people are only subscribed to one thing. How many households have multiple streaming platforms at once? The old model everyone had one cable subscription and that was it. The new market is people subscribe to multiple platforms. Some with ads, some without. Just because Disney had 5% of the streaming time doesn't mean that only 5% of the streaming population is subscribed to Disney +.Because the customers were completely screwed with no options in the linear model. They were stuck and that was that. What other alternatives for them and advertisers?
that’s right…radio…print…vhs cassettes
the internet wrecked that…just took awhile for the tech to break it down.
not just the customers…the advertisers were stuck too, had to buy em.
it’s not the case anymore. Why is google one of the richest countries on the planet?
because they Are the gateway to advertisers. It’s a better deal.
that streaming chart posted above looked “good” for Disney? Because of 5% when combined?
hell no…not when YouTube is more…and that share will rise as the younger generations come to power.
I get why they’re doing this.
and the reason is this: there aren’t any other options for “content generators”
because they don’t have other options…doesn’t make this one a “good” option. Far from it.
their other choice is to sell themselves.