Television Too many streaming services: do we need a form of pay-per-view?

[OleBoiii]

My definition of 'pay-per-view' = one time purchase to watch a TV show or a movie. You could for instance have access to the content for a month or two after the purchase.

_______________________________________________________________

How many of you actually subscribe to more than 1 or 2 streaming services(sports not included)? And to those of you that do: do you ever find yourself going several months without using one or more of the services you're subscribed to and essentially throwing money out the window?

I get it: subscriptions are the future. Companies love the steady revenue stream. They love people who sign up to watch a TV show, forget to unsubscribe when they're done and then end up paying 100's of dollars for the experience. But would a pay-per-view solution really stop this from happening? People are still lazy and sloppy. Most people would probably still continue to subscribe just for the convenience. Also, people who watch a lot of TV will probably not save money by switching to pay-per-view, so they will prefer to stay subscribed.

I dream of having a single interface that is connected to all streaming services. I'd gladly triple my monthly spending on entertainment if it meant having everything gathered in one interface and that I only had to pay for the stuff that I actually watch. And I genuinely think that the streaming companies would earn more money this way, as a lot fewer would resort to piracy or passing around login information. Let's face it: a lot of people are not gonna subscribe to a new service just because they were recommended a TV show on there. But if they could watch it after a single payment that is done with a click or two? Many would go for that. And I reckon the combined revenue from these people is greater than the revenue from the ones who subscribe and then unsubscribe after a month or two.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Isn't that what Piracy is?

 

[Hugh Jass]

Some of them bring out dvds of the popular series. I have netflix and amazon prime, but will probably cancel the latter for HBO max if it comes to ireland.

 

[One Night Only]

Isn't this what sky / cable were for?

We've literally took a backwards step, to then go back to the same model we used before, but at what will be a higher price.

I've got now TV with sports, by sport, amazon prime and Netflix.

I cancel prime all the time though. Will cancel BT again at some point aswell, not worth it. Now TV I cancel if I know there isn't much on for the next month or so. It's the good thing about 1 month contracts.

I keep Netflix all the time though cos kids and family use it too, plus there's always something to zone out too in the background aswell.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

I have Netflix and prime. I cancelled Disney plus though. I'm currently watching YouTube.

 

[Drawfull]

Your one time purchase definition doesn't work. iTunes, for example, offers what you wish. There's no sub, and most of the time everything is available.

I think the only ones I don't get value out of are Netflix (randomly, though other family use my account so...) and HBO, which I seem to use as a 'what to buy off elsewhere' guide.

 

[OleBoiii]

Isn't this what sky / cable were for?

I'm not familiar with sky, but the solution I'm suggesting hasn't been done on a large scale before.

Imagine if Netflix released a new app called Netflix PPV(pay-per-view). When you log in, you have the same library as regular Netflix, with the exception that you have to pay for all the content. Let's say 3-5£ for a movie and 5-10£ for a TV series, depending on how much content is out etc. Upon purchase, it will be available in your own private little library for a limited time(let's say 1 month for movies and 3 months for TV shows, depending on length).

Now imagine that all the other streaming services did the same. And then imagine that someone made an interface layer to connect all the streaming libraries(your purchase would still go to the streaming service that owns the content, of course).

And thus my dream has come true: everything gathered in one place, only paying for what you watch, and no company having a monopoly, hence keeping prices competitive.

 

[Mr Anderson]

My....friend says the same about pornhub

Should really have an option to select pay-per-tug instead of all out premium

 

[esmufc07]

I'm not familiar with sky, but the solution I'm suggesting hasn't been done on a large scale before.

Imagine if Netflix released a new app called Netflix PPV(pay-per-view). When you log in, you have the same library as regular Netflix, with the exception that you have to pay for all the content. Let's say 3-5£ for a movie and 5-10£ for a TV series, depending on how much content is out etc. Upon purchase, it will be available in your own private little library for a limited time(say 1 month for movies and 3 months for TV shows, depending on length).

Now imagine that all the other streaming services did the same.

And then imagine that someone made an interface layer to connect all the streaming libraries(your purchase would still go to the streaming service that owns the content, of course).

And thus my dream has come true: everything gathered in one place, only paying for what you watch, and no company having a monopoly, hence keeping prices competitive.

Why would you pay £7-£10 to rent one tv show on Netflix when you can just subscribe for a month for the same price and have access to everything? Unless I’m really misunderstanding what you’re advocating for I think it’s a terrible idea.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

I never binge a series in under a month, so it works very well for me to plan watching something ahead of time and then get that subscription for a month and then either stay on it or switch to a different service if there's anything new there. For example, I get Netflix if they drop a new season of Narcos, HBO if they drop the next season of Succession, Disney+ if I want to watch Star wars over a weekend etc. This works quit well for me and I can't understand people who have more than one streaming service.

 

[OleBoiii]

Why would you pay £7-£10 to rent one tv show on Netflix when you can just subscribe for a month for the same price and have access to everything? Unless I’m really misunderstanding what you’re advocating for I think it’s a terrible idea.

Firstly, the solution is only useful for casual watchers. Think less than 5 hours of TV per week and a movie per month. If the content this viewer is interested in is spread over 3 or more services, then it quickly makes more sense with my proposed solution. Even with as little as 2 services it will make sense.

Secondly, the solution is in no way meant to replace the old solutions. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Thirdly, I wrote: "5-10£ for a TV series, depending on how much content is out etc". Meaning that a new series or a series that only has one or two seasons probably should be closer to 5£, whereas the entirety of The Sopranos(which is 60+ hours of content or something), probably should be around 10£.

 

[The Boy]

There's a site that does this already called Kickass Torrents, it's free and you get the series/movie for as long as you want. But it is bad and illegal and no one should ever go there.

 

[OleBoiii]

There's a site that does this already called Kickass Torrents, it's free and you get the series/movie for as long as you want. But it is bad and illegal and no one should ever go there.

I'm familiar with those disgusting sites Someone I know may or may not use them. Particularly for movies, as they are spread over a million services and sometimes they don't even have the content you want.

I think a lot of pirates would consider paying if the dream app discussed above existed. One interface, all content, no monopoly. That is a solution worth paying for, imo.

 

[The Boy]

I'm familiar with those disgusting sites Someone I know may or may not use them. Particularly for movies, as they are spread over a million services and sometimes they don't even have the content you want.

I think a lot of pirates would consider paying if the dream app discussed above existed. One interface, all content, no monopoly. That is a solution worth paying for, imo.

On a more serious note, I'm not so sure your pricing would suit my family (we have netflix and prime like everyone else here!) but an app that would just search them both and any other streaming service I wanted to add to it's parameters on my apple TV would be very useful.

 

[Sky1981]

I'm fine with Netflix, Disney +, Youtube Premium, and Spotify

The whole package cost me around 20+ quid for the whole family (12 Netflix, 1.5 disney+, 5 YTPremium, 2.5 spotify)

These days I can't even bother to pirate stuff anymore, since most of the time The above would cover most of my needs, probably checking 1-2 niche stuffs on pirate cove if I feel like alerting the authorities on them no good pirates.

 

[OleBoiii]

On a more serious note, I'm not so sure your pricing would suit my family (we have netflix and prime like everyone else here!) but an app that would just search them both and any other streaming service I wanted to add to it's parameters on my apple TV would be very useful.

That is true. I wonder how hard that would be to make...

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Amazon Prime is offering a hybrid of flat rate subscription, as well as the pay per view system you're suggesting. Prime comes with it's own library of stuff that is available at no extra cost, but then also has quite a large library of film and TV which isn't included in the cost of Prime, which for TV shows you can pay for by the episode or series. From the looks of things, Prime's library of non-Prime video is much bigger than the selection of stuff that is available at no extra cost.

 

[OleBoiii]

I'm fine with Netflix, Disney +, Youtube Premium, and Spotify

The whole package cost me around 20+ quid for the whole family (12 Netflix, 1.5 disney+, 5 YTPremium, 2.5 spotify)

What the hell, that is an insanely good price! I'm sure it would cost twice as much(at least) in Norway.

I'd still prefer pay-per-view even with such good prices, though(the exception being if I had kids. Subscriptions are probably better then).

 

[swooshboy]

That is true. I wonder how hard that would be to make...

Isn't that what apps like Just Watch do?

https://www.justwatch.com/

You can search for movies / tv shoes, and it shows you which platform they are available on. You can select which platforms you subscribe to, but it also shows you where you can rent / buy them, and how much (and what quality – 4K or HD etc).

I love it – it's the easiest way to find where something is available – and if it's not included in a subscription like Netflix, it shows you the best place to buy/ rent it. The costs between, say, AppleTV and Prime are similar, but Apple usually has it in 4K, for example, so I would buy that version.

 

[11101]

I'm alright with Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Spotify. The whole lot costs a little over a tenner a month. I'm considering adding Disney+.

I think at some point the bigger streaming services will start merging/buying up the less successful ones. I could see in a few years things like Apple TV and Hulu disappearing.

 

[OleBoiii]

Isn't that what apps like Just Watch do?

https://www.justwatch.com/

Cheers!

@The Boy

I'm not sure if clicking on the content will redirect you to the app with login credentials, but at least you have an app that quickly shows you if you have access and which app to use.

 

[swooshboy]

Cheers!

@The Boy

I'm not sure if clicking on the content will redirect you to the app with login credentials, but at least you have an app that quickly shows you if you have access and which app to use.

You can click right through – you can also download this app on Apple TV, or Firestick etc, so you can use it as the 'front page' of all of your streaming content.

 

[Balljy]

Amazon Prime is offering a hybrid of flat rate subscription, as well as the pay per view system you're suggesting. Prime comes with it's own library of stuff that is available at no extra cost, but then also has quite a large library of film and TV which isn't included in the cost of Prime, which for TV shows you can pay for by the episode or series. From the looks of things, Prime's library of non-Prime video is much bigger than the selection of stuff that is available at no extra cost.

I think the difference with what is being suggested is the ability to rent a series for a month or two rather than buy it outright. I kind of get it, as at the moment you either have to get multiple subscriptions with different series available on each one or buy outright. The latter is pretty expensive with Sopranos going for £15 to £40 to buy a series on Amazon.

Being able to rent just the Soprano's for one month would allow you to watch only what you want to watch and use different services to do that with no subscription. When the rental period is over, you lose access. I still think it would end up costing more though.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

I think the difference with what is being suggested is the ability to rent a series for a month or two rather than buy it outright. I kind of get it, as at the moment you either have to get multiple subscriptions with different series available on each one or buy outright. The latter is pretty expensive with Sopranos going for £15 to £40 to buy a series on Amazon.

Being able to rent just the Soprano's for one month would allow you to watch only what you want to watch and use different services to do that with no subscription. When the rental period is over, you lose access. I still think it would end up costing more though.

You're right. I'd assumed the cost for non-Prime videos was to rent, but it is to actually buy the digital files (or a constant access to them). There are some series that are very cheap on Prime. Sopranos, and other HBO stuff, seems to be much more expensive than other stuff. Seinfeld goes for 9.99 a season. Some individual episodes are very cheap.

I guess the overall suggestion is to pay more for less content, which I don't get. I can't imagine there would be a big demand for that.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I don't think this would be as popular as you think as I suspect most people who have motivation to buy things will always prefer to buy physical media over digital media. It represents better perceived value.

The streaming services only work because they have relatively cheap buy-in. There's a convenience quality to them and you don't feel burned dropping in and out. It's why they cost £10, not £30, as they'd lose a lot of subscribers.

That's part of their limitation too as they typically offer movies and TV shows that suit this type of demographic. It's why you don't find much niche content on them - and neither do they have any motivation to distribute it.

MUBI is an outlier I suppose. MUBI confuses me though.

 

[OleBoiii]

I guess the overall suggestion is to pay more for less content, which I don't get. I can't imagine there would be a big demand for that.

It depends entirely on your viewing habits.

Selective watchers who spend less than 1 hour a day on TV/movies will potentially see the content they want to watch spread out over something like 10 different services. Subscribing too all of them just to make sure that you have access in case you want to watch something would be financially irresponsible. Subscribing and unsubscribing every time you start watching something is a major hassle(and sometimes not even worth it financially).

 

[OleBoiii]

I don't think this would be as popular as you think

This not really my intention either. I don't want pay-per-view to become the new standard. I simply want the option to exist. And I feel confident that the companies would earn more money this way. Most people would still stick to subscribing. This new solution is for the small minority who are picky, busy and frugal.

 

[simonhch]

Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Apple TV+, Disney+, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock Premium, YouTube TV.

I have them all. I get Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, and Epix through Apple TV+ too.

Still cheaper than when I had regular Comcast cable with premium channels, and my ex-wife shares them all for free, and I get them in my office. Save a fortune, have everything

 

[Vidyoyo]

@OleBoiii I got linked to this article and thought of you: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22403782/subscription-boom-fatigue-content

While some argue that subscription fatigue, particularly among streaming platforms, is on the horizon, it raises questions about how often we buy and whether we want to be proactive in that consumption. Some consumers might find passively being billed for recurring services useful, or at least be browbeaten into believing they do. Others just want the product with no strings attached. “I just want to outright buy the shit,” one Reddit user complained in r/rant. “Fuuuuuck all these monthly subscriptions.”

Streaming is so frequently discussed in the vein of fatigue because it no longer has a dominant stronghold on the entertainment subscription model; its platform offerings are not necessarily unique (Friends was famously moved from Netflix to HBO Max, to fans’ dismay), unlike the Xbox Game Pass or even Peloton. Plus, the corporate streaming model is expected to scale; it flatly measures success by the number of subscribers on a platform, with little consideration for fans’ relationship to the product. While the venture-backed platforms and tools that bolster the creator economy are also required to scale, individual artists and creators don’t necessarily need to. So these subscriptions appear more meaningful, making creative patronage feel personalized.

 

[BrilliantOrange]

I never binge a series in under a month, so it works very well for me to plan watching something ahead of time and then get that subscription for a month and then either stay on it or switch to a different service if there's anything new there. For example, I get Netflix if they drop a new season of Narcos, HBO if they drop the next season of Succession, Disney+ if I want to watch Star wars over a weekend etc. This works quit well for me and I can't understand people who have more than one streaming service.

Because we're too lazy to keep track of all this stuff?
Because we watch multiple stuff in the same time period?
Because I'd like to be able to decide to watch star wars on the spot?
Because its all not thát expensive together?

I mean, awesome if changing it up all the time works for you and you plan ahead, but this sentence doesn't really suggest you are able to reason outside your own box: "I can't understand people who have more than one streaming service"

 

[OleBoiii]

I love how this thread illustrates how hard it is for different types of consumers to understand each other

Based on my consumer habits, I have 3 options:

1. Spent 100£ a month on a million subscriptions for the sake of convenience.
2. Subscribe and unsubscribe like a maniac.
3. Piracy.

Even if I easily could afford the first option, it's just fiscally irresponsible. The value of the content I watch on a monthly basis can't be worth more than 20£.

All I'm asking for is a solid 4th option: one interface that covers all existing content across all services and only paying for what you want to watch(with a simple click). For most consumers this is not ideal, which is why it's not meant to replace current solutions. But we should have both options, imo.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I love how this thread illustrates how hard it is for different types of consumers to understand each other

Based on my consumer habits, I have 3 options:

1. Spent 100£ a month on a million subscriptions for the sake of convenience.
2. Subscribe and unsubscribe like a maniac.
3. Piracy.

Even if I easily could afford the first option, it's just fiscally irresponsible. The value of the content I watch on a monthly basis can't be worth more than 20£.

All I'm asking for is a solid 4th option: one interface that covers all existing content across all services and only paying for what you want to watch(with a simple click). For most consumers this is not ideal, which is why it's not meant to replace current solutions. But we should have both options, imo.

Without making too fine a point, isn't this something you get when you buy the DVD/Blu-ray?

 

[OleBoiii]

Without making too fine a point, isn't this something you get when you buy the DVD/Blu-ray?

It's very different for several reasons:

1. You must wait for it to be released on DVD/Blu-ray.
2. You don't get the convenience of browsing through an interface, picking something out at random and instantly getting to watch it.
3. Buying physical copies is much more expensive overall.

There should be a middle-ground between subscribing to a service you maybe only use for a few hours per year and buying expensive, physical copies.

 

[Bosws87]

All i can say is spotify is the only streaming service which has been worth every penny.

 

[Green_Red]

You can do that on Google play store. TV shows are about 1.99 an episode. Sometimes there's deals on box sets. Just add Netflix and use the rest of the freebies.