New Streaming Prices and Disney+ to Introduce Continuous Playlists in U.S.

[MisterPenguin]

There's gonna come a time though where we're being charged 12 and 14 dollars for just the ad supported version which is supposed to be the cheapest of all the tiers across each platform. If that ever happened then you're just better off going back to cable.

1. Cable won't exist then as it does now.

2. Especially in cost. And yet, five years from now, people will compare the cost of streamers then, to what cable used to cost without taking into account that cable costs have also constantly increased, and inflation.

 

[Andrew C]

"That's how they get you!"

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Problem is consumers don’t seem to want streaming services outside of YouTube, Netflix and Amazon.

The problem is that consumers want to get streams for $5 a month and those kinds of prices are untenable with being able to generate a profit.

I think the problem is YouTube is free and has more content than all the paid membership services combined, if YouTube can pay its content creators and still pull a profit solely via advertising I don’t see why Disney and Netflix can’t either.

The streaming services are making the same mistake cable made, you can either charge a fee and not have commercials or you can be free and have commercials, asking people to pay and still have to watch commercials is what originally caused the animosity towards cable in the first place.

 

[Andrew C]

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

We have the cable package that is $19 a month and is just the major network channels, major news channels, and the oldies channels, we probably watch the oldies channels more than the rest combined.

If you’re going to charge for commercials it has to be a reasonable amount.

 

[Serpico Jones]

And it doesn't even include ESPN+.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yes, FAST is big.

But... the pay-for streamers are starting to copy them. And they have access to better content. D+ is about to rollout some FAST channels.

Also, the C-Tier content on Tubi is licensed content. The original studios, many of whom are wedded to a pay-for streamer, are getting their cut.

Also, as this creator mentioned, Tubi has an audience which the big streamers haven't been getting, or targeting -- the never-corders.

Same with YouTube -- it's providing content for a whole different demographic that's watching on a smartphone.

Different content providers are providing for different demographics.... and they're always on the lookout to grab the other guys' consumers.

 

[Tornat]

16 x 12 almost $200 a year . your better off spending $200 on buying the content and having it forever than doing a subscription . these days you can buy movies under $10 and full 7. 8 seasons tv shows under 30 if you wait for sales . and Disney stuff is always on sale now.

 

[Disney Irish]

And watch in a couple years some of these FAST services like Tubi will start to charge a subscription as it becomes harder to make a profit just from the ads.

 

[Serpico Jones]

16 x 12 almost $200 a year . your better off spending $200 on buying the content and having it forever than doing a subscription . these days you can buy movies under $10 and full 7. 8 seasons tv shows under 30 if you wait for sales . and Disney stuff is always on sale now.

Yep.

 

[Disney Irish]

16 x 12 almost $200 a year . your better off spending $200 on buying the content and having it forever than doing a subscription . these days you can buy movies under $10 and full 7. 8 seasons tv shows under 30 if you wait for sales . and Disney stuff is always on sale now.

There will be some that do that for movies. But not all the content will be offered as an "a la carte" option on digital. There will always be exclusives that exist only the services behind the paywall.

 

[doctornick]

There's gonna come a time though where we're being charged 12 and 14 dollars for just the ad supported version which is supposed to be the cheapest of all the tiers across each platform. If that ever happened then you're just better off going back to cable.

I’ve always just assumed that costs will end up similar to cable (though perhaps some more flexibility in terms of picking and choosing different services), just that the method of delivery changes. There’s nothing about streaming that really should fundamentally change the financial structure of at home entertainment and what revenues companies need to be consistently profitable.

 

[doctornick]

Sure, why not? ESPN+ is a minimal service and has little to do with the boatloads of valuable content that (network) ESPN carries. It will be a different story when Venu and direct to consumers ESPN debuts (and ESPN+ will either quietly go away or be replaced with a more robust and much more expensive service).

 

[doctornick]

I think the problem is YouTube is free and has more content than all the paid membership services combined, if YouTube can pay its content creators and still pull a profit solely via advertising I don’t see why Disney and Netflix can’t either.

As a Gen X who doesn’t get it, can you explain what you mean by this type of content? I mean, I watch stuff on YouTube all the time, but y’know a few minutes here or there. I don’t “sit down and watch” anything on there like I would a TV show or movie. Am I missing something? It feels like YouTube is a completely different thing than Netflix or Disney+ etc.

 

[CJR]

The issue for Disney is that people can cancel easily.

We only have Netflix for 1 to 2 months a year now.

I've been purchasing our background shows on Fandango to have ad free and whenever we are without a service. Really, we are strongly looking at only having Disney+ for a month or two annually in the longer term future, just like Netflix.

Shorter term, we'll keep it just because Bluey is ad-free.

 

[easyrowrdw]

I don't need pre-made playlists. I need a shuffle option for Bluey.

 

[BrianLo]

I blame Netflix for this, but this is not remotely historically expensive at all. The media companies need to gradually reprice their content to realistic levels. We used to rent a movie for a night for 5$ which in a post inflationary sense is the same price as a monthly subscription to D+. This “cable” you are all lamenting is still there and everyone is welcome to sign back up for it. Until you realize how garbage the content used to be and how non-consumer friendly 18 minutes of ads in an hour was for two sitcom reruns.

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

The problem is that consumers want to get streams for $5 a month and those kinds of prices are untenable with being able to generate a profit.

Except $5/month is better than $0/month.

I've said it before, but I had the original 3 year deal which was what, like $140 for 3 years? So just under $4/month, no ads.

Then I took the 1 year followup deal which was like $80 for one year. So just under $7/month, no ads. Then when it was time to re-up, they wanted $140 for one year. And I laughed and said peace out, dropped the service. Then they offered a bundle of Disney+/Hulu for $2.99/month for a year. So I laughed again and took it. And will drop it as soon as that promo rate ends.

So instead of keeping me at $80/year, which I would've done again, they're now getting $36/year from me. And soon will go down to $0 again unless they offer another can't miss bundle deal at less than $5/month, which is still less than the $80/year they could've kept me at without dropping it at all if they hadn't suddenly tried to nearly double the price without doubling the value.

So, yeah, more money > less money and any money > no money. And yet they continue to price people out, which is... not good math in my book.

 

[BrianLo]

Except $5/month is better than $0/month.

I've said it before, but I had the original 3 year deal which was what, like $140 for 3 years? So just under $4/month, no ads.

Then I took the 1 year followup deal which was like $80 for one year. So just under $7/month, no ads. Then when it was time to re-up, they wanted $140 for one year. And I laughed and said peace out, dropped the service. Then they offered a bundle of Disney+/Hulu for $2.99/month for a year. So I laughed again and took it. And will drop it as soon as that promo rate ends.

So instead of keeping me at $80/year, which I would've done again, they're now getting $36/year from me. And soon will go down to $0 again unless they offer another can't miss bundle deal at less than $5/month, which is still less than the $80/year they could've kept me at without dropping it at all if they hadn't suddenly tried to nearly double the price without doubling the value.

So, yeah, more money > less money and any money > no money. And yet they continue to price people out, which is... not good math in my book.

I don’t mean this in a nasty way, but if you are that price sensitive and value their content so little, they actually don’t want you. They foolishly hoped to boil you, but you are one of those who were truly price sensitive and not one who came in on the promo and will stay long after.

One of the litany of businesses they are replacing is their home video sales and you are willing to pay them the equivalent of barely an inflation adjusted VHS per year for literally everything.

They don’t want consumers with those type of expectations, because it’s literally unsustainable. For proof - I point to India. Empty subscriber numbers paying pennies per hour of content. There’s a reason they divested. There’s a reason the free trials are drying up.

 

[larryz]

If you’re going to charge for commercials it has to be a reasonable amount.

There is no "reasonable amount" I'll pay to watch commercials. Commercials are the price I pay for free TV.

If I lived in a remote city out of range of any broadcast stations, I'd consider a "remote antenna" arrangement (which is what cable originally started as). But I'm not paying extra for 20 minutes of "content" and 10 minutes of commercials.

Having to put up with 10 minutes of commercials is my quid pro quo for watching your "content."