Strike Ending & Amazon Antitrust - Streaming Services: Power Rankings, FALL 2023

[Zaukrie]

Arguing that a company might not be profitable still in 5-10 years isn't an argument......That's a LONG time....

Snarf has it right when talking about survivability and profits and acquisition vs stickiness.

Also, yes, it is amazingly kind of Apple to give us this much quality while losing this much money. I appreciate it.

 

[Ryujin]

You know if not for the various deals that were done when it was shopped for syndication (which I think is coming to an end based on the comments on its Reddit sub and my own experiences) the whole of Law and Order (seasons 1-20) could put a large bump into the paid subs for Peacock.

Might be worth it to see if I could tell the difference between Jill Hennessy and her twin sister Jacqueline, in Jill's last episode of L&O, after all these years.

Yes, their parents named twin sisters Jac and Jill.

EDIT - Guess I should have put that in the weird facts thread

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Every other streaming company has been operating at a loss, and has been attempting to find some way to get to profitability (with the exception of Hulu, which is its own category, and largely because of the number of ad-supported subscriptions).

If you've got some hard figures to back that up, it would be helpful, though not required.

It seems more correct to say, "based on industry analyst estimates, it is believed that other streaming companies are operating at a loss" - based on what I can easily find out anyway. For example, I can't find anyone claiming hard figures to back up that Apple TV+ is running at a loss, just estimates/guesses from analysts. I would imagine Prime and D+ are also somewhat shrouded.

Also why is Hulu not counted as profitable if Netflix is? I don't really understand your rationale. Is it merely because Hulu is in the process of being acquired by Disney?

he vast majority of shows get more expensive as the seasons go on, and the viewership declines. Which means that for most of the shows, no matter how beloved, juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Like I've said, I'm skeptical as to whether this is a viable longer-term strategy, because you're burning the goodwill of your customers whilst repeatedly ratcheting prices and making your product offering look worse and worse to consumers. But the Suits path looks more like a realistic one, which is for Netflix to stop focusing on pumping out expensive new content, which is of variable quality, and it which it immediately cancels if it's not a truly huge hit, and focus on being a repository for shows that people casually want to watch/re-watch. That's kind of return to how Netflix was, say, a decade ago - or perhaps a middle place between there and the massive content-pumping of recent years.

I think that what we are starting to see is that the streaming services are realizing that there are different types of programming. There is the type of programming that drives new subscribers- this is usually "event programming," like new (and well-known, and much hyped) movies and series, or continuations of new series.

I get that this is/was the "received wisdom", but I'm really wondering how well it actually works, and if it's perhaps declining a bit as a good way to get customers. What would your recent (i.e. 2023) examples be for successful event programming? I mean clearly exclusivity is a thing - if you're the only place to get series X or movie X then that's going to draw some customers, but it feels to me like Suits was more of an "event" despite being entirely outside the control/influence of Netflix than anything else recent. I guess there's Stranger Things? It seems like you really need a massive hit to move the needle here. I guess a more complex question is what's the difference between "event TV" and "building a credible exclusive library". Because Apple TV+ definitely would like be doing "event TV" and kind of got that with Severance, but seems to be fairly content building up a library of definitely high-quality* shows, and the same analysts who say it's currently making a loss predict profitability in 2025 - despite being a lot smaller in terms of userbase than some services. So you mention them "burning money for us", but it seems like the same sources that say that's happening now predict it will pay off shortly.

As an aside, the Suits phenom isn't entirely new. We had similar things happen with The Office (US) and Friends in previous years. Netflix has an advantage here in that it has a large installed user base and it's spread throughout the world, and it does an okay job of generally making shows available in multiple regions. I.E. not just the US or whatever - this wasn't true a decade ago, so it's kind of trustworthy - if your internet buddy is talking about how much he's enjoying Suits on Netflix, you can, despite being in the UK when your buddy is in the US, just turn on Netflix, and there is Suits! So you can join in.

Your L&O comments are interesting. I think you're correct to note they wouldn't necessarily "move the needle" for a service that's got nothing else anyone wants on it, like, Peacock. But for a service that already has quite a lot of subscribers, like Netflix or Disney+? I think acquiring the entire L&O back catalogue would cause a noticeable uptick in subscribers or at least eyes-on-TV time (which ultimately translates to maintained subs), because it's a value-add to an existing service that's already at least "kinda worthwhile", rather than "the only possible reason to sub to this trashfest".

Paramount+ and Max are "pure plays" with libraries, but have not yet even hit the point of profitability, and have pivoted to licensing their content to other streamers in order to maintain profitability; in effect, going back to acting like more traditional Hollywood studios, and less like "walled garden" streamers than keep everything in-house.

Indeed and I think, if we're very lucky, this will continue, and ultimately Paramount+ and similar will return to that studio model, rather than everyone trying to have their own unspecialized streaming service. The lack of specialization is a big issue for people with smaller content libraries, particularly those of largely low-quality material, which is certainly the case with Paramount+ (and I say that as an occasional subscriber). If you had only Paramount+ say, or tried to replace Netflix or Disney+ with it (both of which have much deeper catalogues - D+ I'm talking the worldwide version which has most of the Hulu shows and other stuff on it, not the US version though I heard that was also adding those, I'm not sure if it happened yet), you'd absolutely be weeping because my god it's a bunch of crap even compared to Netflix.


* = In more ways than one, I dunno exactly what technically is going on, but Apple TV+ has vastly better picture quality and noticeably fewer compression artifacts and so on than, for example, Netflix, which looks kinda crap even on the 4K package (I've noticed this across multiple platforms, but as noted in a separate thread some people are more/less sensitive to this kind of thing - hence why so many people have motion smoothing left turned on on their TV whereas when I see it on I am triggered and owned, seething and coping). I wonder if part of the alleged loss Apple TV+ is taking is them being willing to pay for more data than Netflix are, so their 4K stream is perhaps simply less compressed. Or maybe they just have a much better compression algorithm. Who knows? Not me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you've got some hard figures to back that up, it would be helpful, though not required.

It seems more correct to say, "based on industry analyst estimates, it is believed that other streaming companies are operating at a loss" - based on what I can easily find out anyway. For example, I can't find anyone claiming hard figures to back up that Apple TV+ is running at a loss, just estimates/guesses from analysts. I would imagine Prime and D+ are also somewhat shrouded.

Also why is Hulu not counted as profitable if Netflix is? I don't really understand your rationale. Is it merely because Hulu is in the process of being acquired by Disney?

As you may have noted from the fact that I actually have done these posts for a while, I keep up with the Business (as in, the capital "B" Business). You're welcome to do the deep dive yourself regarding profitability. I don't think it's necessary to go into a long discussion about why Prime is not profitable.

As for Hulu, I explained it briefly, but it's pretty simple. First, Hulu has always had a successful ad-supported lower-price tier. Second, Hulu isn't a stand-alone entity, it's always been co-owned by multiple other studios. This has a massive impact in terms of the material it has available and its cost structure. Third, Hulu qua Hulu is only available in the United States, which means that it has always had the ability to pay less for certain content (because it could be licensed to other streamers outside the U.S.) while keeping a high margin in terms of having a wealthy customer base. Fourth, while numbers can't be certain, it is believed that Hulu first started generating profits in 2019-2020; amazingly, that was after Disney+ offered it as part of a bundle, which meant that Hulu was suddenly gaining a lot of new subscribers without increasing its costs. Effectively, Disney+ was subsidizing Hulu's subscriber growth.

You can't really count it, though, because as much as I love Hulu (and I do love Hulu) it's sui generis- the specific conditions it operates in could not last. The process has been operating for some time (this is why it lost NBC content last year) and it will have the benefits, and drawbacks, of operating within the fully integrated Disney+ environment.

Like I've said, I'm skeptical as to whether this is a viable longer-term strategy, because you're burning the goodwill of your customers whilst repeatedly ratcheting prices and making your product offering look worse and worse to consumers. But the Suits path looks more like a realistic one, which is for Netflix to stop focusing on pumping out expensive new content, which is of variable quality, and it which it immediately cancels if it's not a truly huge hit, and focus on being a repository for shows that people casually want to watch/re-watch. That's kind of return to how Netflix was, say, a decade ago - or perhaps a middle place between there and the massive content-pumping of recent years.

I disagree. Streaming is the future, for better and for worse. The problem, of course, is that the future of streaming is increasingly looking like the past.

That means more ads and higher prices.

Those of us who got on the gravy train early remember a time when Netflix was able to license ALL THE CONTENT (well, not all, but it seemed like all of it) because it was the only game in town. But that's not the case anymore.

Then, we remember when Wall Street was signaling everyone and their mother to get into streaming and to simply burn as much cash as possible to throw all of the content at us, as quickly as possible. But that's not the case anymore, either.

If I had to pick a model (and I am loathe to do so), I would assume that we will a shakeout, with the following-
1. Various FAST services. Yay, the future of streaming is ... the past of television.
2. A few "real" streamers. Pricy ad-free options, and cheap ad-supported versions. On-demand streaming, as much as you want, with a large, but finite, catalog that is changing on a monthly basis. Expect that they will have some live sports, with additional options to pay for additional sports. How many real streamers? Less than we have now. Charging more.
3. Other programs (the "long tail") will likely be available on POD. You'll have to pay to watch them. Because streamers want to keep a semblance of a back catalog (to keep the eyes) but don't want to keep too much (to avoid costs).
4. Finally, there will be a few specialty streamers and/or sports services available to cater to niche interests, either as stand-alone or as optional up-charges to the real streamers (or both).

Am I going to be correct? Don't know. This is just an opinion. Lots of things could change and alter this, such as government action to end cross-subsidies by Amazon (especially) or Apple (perhaps). Or new technology. Or a change in the residuals model for older shows that allows streamers to continue to keep them in the rotation regardless of viewership. Who knows?

Then again, fifteen years from now, maybe we are all watching custom shows created by NetflixAI. Heck, maybe everyone will just be watching TikTok. Life is weird like that.

I get that this is/was the "received wisdom", but I'm really wondering how well it actually works, and if it's perhaps declining a bit as a good way to get customers. What would your recent (i.e. 2023) examples be for successful event programming? I mean clearly exclusivity is a thing - if you're the only place to get series X or movie X then that's going to draw some customers, but it feels to me like Suits was more of an "event" despite being entirely outside the control/influence of Netflix than anything else recent. I guess there's Stranger Things? It seems like you really need a massive hit to move the needle here. I guess a more complex question is what's the difference between "event TV" and "building a credible exclusive library". Because Apple TV+ definitely would like be doing "event TV" and kind of got that with Severance, but seems to be fairly content building up a library of definitely high-quality* shows, and the same analysts who say it's currently making a loss predict profitability in 2025 - despite being a lot smaller in terms of userbase than some services. So you mention them "burning money for us", but it seems like the same sources that say that's happening now predict it will pay off shortly.

The actual metrics are a closely-guarded secret. It's also questionable (given the changing conditions) as to how valuable shows are that drive subscribers are, as opposed to shows that keep subscribers ("sticky" shows). After all, a show that brings in a subscriber for only a month doesn't do much compared to a show that keeps a subscriber that you've had for the past year (the stickiness issue is also why services are offering discounts to year-long plans and/or auto-renews).

That said, new content tends to be the driver of subscriptions (at least, from what people can glean). For various reasons, people today assume that old content, even old content that they want to see, will be available; if not now, then later, if not on this platform, then another platform at another time. Old content (such as L&O, or Suits, or Friends) might be really sticky, and bingeable, but it's not usually a great driver of new subs. New movies that people want to see, new series (or new seasons of hyped series) - those tend to drive new subs.

* = In more ways than one, I dunno exactly what technically is going on, but Apple TV+ has vastly better picture quality and noticeably fewer compression artifacts and so on than, for example, Netflix, which looks kinda crap even on the 4K package (I've noticed this across multiple platforms, but as noted in a separate thread some people are more/less sensitive to this kind of thing - hence why so many people have motion smoothing left turned on on their TV whereas when I see it on I am triggered and owned, seething and coping). I wonder if part of the alleged loss Apple TV+ is taking is them being willing to pay for more data than Netflix are, so their 4K stream is perhaps simply less compressed. Or maybe they just have a much better compression algorithm. Who knows? Not me.

The reason AppleTV+ is taking a loss is because it's a hobby, and Apple makes money off of hardware.* They offered generous free trials (six months!) with the purchase of new hardware, they had the lowest prices around (started at $4.99, now at $9.99), they don't have advertisements, and they are shelling out a metric ton for content, from big-budget movies (Scorcese) to shows (yes, See cost $15 million (!!!) per episode, and Foundation was not cheap either), to sports rights ($2.5 billion for MLS, plus some type of deal with Messi, ~$600 million for MLB, although really only $380 million or so if the ad guarantees are met).

Personally, I appreciate their plan, and think it's a great way to build a service. Spend money on quality content. But most streamers can't afford to do that, because most streamers aren't being subsidized by, well, Apple.


*No longer strictly true. Their services division, which includes the money made off of the iOS store and music and app purchases, is a serious money-maker for them now, accounting for 25% of revenues. But 75% is hardware, and they consider themselves a hardware company.

 

[Parmandur]

Various FAST services. Yay, the future of streaming is ... the past of television.

Not that I disagree particularly, but having grown up in the 90's without Cable, FAST still seems pretty futuristic to me, what ai always imagine Cable might be like.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not that I disagree particularly, but having grown up in the 90's without Cable, FAST still seems pretty futuristic to me, what ai always imagine Cable might be like.

I mean, I can't argue with that!

That said, as someone who has become particularly used to the whole, "Watch any awesome show you want, whenever you want, with no ads" model ... I can't say that I am particularly happy with the FAST model.

To quote a lyric-
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise and put in a bunch of ads.

 

[Ryujin]

Not that I disagree particularly, but having grown up in the 90's without Cable, FAST still seems pretty futuristic to me, what ai always imagine Cable might be like.

I've had cable since something like 1972, when "the future of television" was a box similar to this one, cabled to another box, that was cabled to the TV. We're pretty much getting old TV + VCR, with a new delivery method and increased cost.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Snarf Zagyg first off thanks for the thoughtful and in-depth response!

Then again, fifteen years from now, maybe we are all watching custom shows created by NetflixAI. Heck, maybe everyone will just be watching TikTok. Life is weird like that.

Honestly I tend to think it's more likely to be something like this 15 years from now than the shakeout you suggest.

Not because that shakeout is inherently unreasonable - it definitely isn't, it's logical, even, and it's kind of already happening to some extent - but it's a sort of a projection of unchanging technology and culture, and nigh-infinite acceptance of FAST or low-cost AST (LCAST?), and whilst I'm obviously not an industry analyst (though they don't have a great record here), my impression is that it would be very easy for FAST/LCAST reach levels where everyone willing to watch that is watching it, and everyone else has pissed off to other forms of entertainment. I think a lot of the push in that direction is the realization by streamers that that can actually be more profitable than "honest subscriptions" (a partisan term but for want of a better one), for example as you pointed out Netflix ad-supported sub is more profitable than the actual lowest cost sub. I'm skeptical how much of it is audience demand/desire. I notice that with UK FAST services, a lot of why people watch them is because they have shows that aren't available on paid streamers and/or even POD - so exclusivity is the driver, not being free (being free obviously negates the cost-of-entry barrier).

I mean, there was a view, and I don't think an entirely inaccurate view that TV was kind of on the way out as entertainment before the rise of streaming, and I think it would be very easy for many streaming companies, in the rush to maximally please shareholders, to create a situation where TV was increasingly less favoured as a mode of entertainment. It does have far, far more serious competition for entertainment, including passively watched entertainment than it did, say, 15 years ago. We joke about returning to the cable era, but you know what I remember the latter part of that era? People increasingly dropping or reducing cable/satellite TV (satellite was bigger in the UK and a lot of the world, but essentially similar to cable in real functionality), before streaming services really became a thing. And I could easily see the streamers painting themselves into the same sort of corner.

POD I really hope you're right about expanding, because right now it's absolute crap. If a show isn't a on a streamer, and never was, the odds are extremely good it's also not on POD. In many cases even if it was, it's simply not legally available anywhere! An awful lot of movies from before 2005-ish aren't available either, particularly non-English-language ones - absolutely including some famous ones by famous directors, which just blows my mind. Money is being left on tables, and I don't think it's even small amounts.

I'd love to see the residuals model improve for everyone, but sadly I suspect that's unlikely with both streamers and Hollywood being rather silly about the situation. That said, given how Spotify operates, I'm not surprised both sides are leery.

yes, See cost $15 million (!!!) per episode

Oh my god. Well I guess even Apple can't win 'em all! A terrible show on every possible level (particularly the conceptual) except visually, where it was rather attractive in a certain muted way. Not as big of a miss as Invasion, which the winner of "show most inexplicably getting a second season" this year.

For various reasons, people today assume that old content, even old content that they want to see, will be available; if not now, then later, if not on this platform, then another platform at another time. Old content (such as L&O, or Suits, or Friends) might be really sticky, and bingeable, but it's not usually a great driver of new subs.

I do wonder if this assumption is in the process of changing, because absolutely that was my assumption and I think almost everyone's assumption a few years ago, but it seems to be increasingly challenged by the reality of streaming services! What it seems like - and this is feeling not fact - at least from a UK perspective, is that after various "new contenders" like Paramount+ arrived, fewer old shows are actually available on any streaming service or POD, rather than more, especially as belts are tightened and less watched shows cut. There is definitely phenomenon where, if you know something is available and thus "safe" you might not bother subscribing right now, but equally sometimes you just want to watch some stupid old Law & Order episodes, and you don't want to pay like £12 for each season (even though, realistically, you might be paying about that to a streamer you were watching it on, depending on how fast you were going - also you can't even get all the seasons, not even from Amazon POD, which usually does better than other POD services), and in the UK literally no-one is currently offering any of it on streaming, even though 5 years ago, IIRC, it was all on some service or another. Anyway, I'm maundering on but my point is I think that this particular aspect might be being underestimated at the moment.

Re: sports - yeah that definitely is a huge driver for a lot of people, but I feel utterly unqualified to comment on the issue, because I'm just not that into it. It's weird - I'm not a "sportsball lol"-type person at all, I don't mock or disparage these games or people who like them, on the contrary, I quite enjoy watching team sports when I'm actually watching them with other people and can temporarily get quite into them (I also love knowing about the histories and weirdnesses of various team sports), but under my own power I would literally never seek out any of them and don't follow any of them, and am slightly amazed (again, not in a judging way, just surprised) by just how much some people will pay to watch them live.

EDIT - Re: FAST, I do wonder if some streaming services should consider a model a bit more like those of paywalled newspapers, i.e. you can watch 2 episodes per month (and movies are entirely behind the paywall) without paying or entering into some formal contract, but it says "please subscribe to view more" after that. This is just spitballing and I'm not sure how practical it would be, especially given how many hyped shows actually kind of suck - and it might be just too easy to evade - but it feels like there's another model out there. The question will any streaming service be willing to try it? We are kind of seeing a bit of this with certain shows putting their first episode or two on YouTube or whatever.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I can't argue with that!

That said, as someone who has become particularly used to the whole, "Watch any awesome show you want, whenever you want, with no ads" model ... I can't say that I am particularly happy with the FAST model.

To quote a lyric-
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise and put in a bunch of ads.

Oh, I'm woth you there, too. I don't watch any FAST channels, just the big streamers. But I can't help but look at the concept and execution and think that if they rolled that out as recently as, say, 2009 it would have seemed like the coolest thing.

 

[nevin]

One feature of conversations we often have here on EnWorld about geek media is that they get sidetracked into conversations about the various streaming services that are currently offering the content, instead of being able to talk about the content. So while you want to have a conversation about whether or not the special animated crossover episode of Strange New Worlds was the coolest thing ever, or just as cool as the musical episode, you instead end up discussing Paramount+. Or instead of being able to chat about the best Gary Oldman performance you're not watching, Slow Horses, you end up debating the merits of Apple+.

Therefore, as a public service, I have decided to create these series of threads - for talking about the relative merits of streaming platforms, to discuss industry news and stuff, as well as to allow people to provide their own power rankings of the platforms. This is the sixth post on the subject.
The original post in August 2022 is here.
The second post in November 2022 is here.
The year-end 2022 rankings are here.
The first 2023 rankings are here.
The summer 2023 ranking are here.

I apologize but these posts are going to be US-centric. That's because I am reasonably certain that the 'Murika is the only country, and that every time I have flown "outside the US" I have actually only ended up in 'Murikuh's hat, which is a lot like 'Murikuh, except with more Tim Hortons and a complete inability to win the Stanley Cup.

As usual, the POWER RANKINGS are an excuse to talk about something in the news. I have held off doing a new power ranking until after we could see a little daylight with the WGA and SAF-AFTRA strikes, so ... good news!

How are power rankings determined? They are a completely subjective mix of my opinion as to how the service is doing currently, along with my belief in how the service will be doing in the future. In addition, I will provide a trend (up, down, steady).

First, the strike news- For those of you who don't know, the AMPTP (that's the trade association for the studios/streamers etc.) and the WGA (Writer's Guild) have reached a deal! While it still has to be ratified by the membership, and this is not a completely foregone conclusion ... it's going to happen. Just as importantly, it also puts forth a framework that should allow the actors (SAG-AFTRA) to reach a deal, which should happen fairly soon. In addition, although it will take some time for the full ratification vote, it appears that the WGA will allow people back to work pending the ratification.

Still, it was a long strike. A lot of shows and deals were cancelled in the meantime. A lot of things were delayed. The unexpected and massive success of Barbenheimer at the box office could not be capitalized on, and more importantly, the strike hit just as "peak TV" appeared to be ending as most streamers were cutting costs. So we are looking at an uncertain future.

To give you an idea .... in 2009, there were 210 original scripted shows. In 2022, there were almost three times as many (599). Most people expect that number to decline precipitously, perhaps to the low 400s, perhaps a little lower. With all of that in mind, here's the power rankings!!!!


1. Netflix. (2022: 1, Apr. 2023: 1, Summer 2023: 1)
Netflix has been number 1 since I started these rankings, and I'm not sure what it will take to dislodge them from that lofty spot. The strike hurt everyone, but hurt everyone else much more than Netflix. Netflix remains the only streamer that actually makes money from streaming. It is also the only fully diversified streamer, in terms of having a well-thought out presence in terms of streaming in international markets, as well as producing international shows. While most people are aware of its large and growing selection of Korean shows, how many of you were aware that it had an original Saudi show that was the Saudi equivalent of Black Mirror on the platform?

That said, Netflix's gain may be your loss. As Netflix has grown more and more popular, it has invested less in what we commonly think of as "prestige TV." After all, why spend all that money on shows like sense8 and The Get Down and Altered Carbon when you know the vast majority of your viewers are happy just plopping down and watching Suits? Sure, if a show is a bona fide hit (Stranger Things, The Crown) it will keep on, keepin' on ... but THE ALGORITHM knows what you like. And let's face it ... you like trash. It's okay. But Netflix is going to be servin' it up.



2. HBOMax (2022: 8, Apr 2023: 2, Summer 2023: 5)
Max gets knocked down, but gets up again, you are never gonna keep Max down. Max drinks a whiskey drink, Max drinks a vodka drink, Max drinks a lager drink, Max drinks a cider drink, Max cancels the shows that remind you of the good times, Max cancels the shows that remind you of the better times!

Ahem. Look, I honestly don't know what the heck to do with Max, which is why it is bouncing around so much. Most of the time, it feels like He Who Shall Not Be Named (HWSNBN) spends more time acting as if he is auditioning for the role of "Incompetent Bond Villain" than he does, you know, running the company. "Look everyone, here I am at Cannes while the little people starve! Muahahahahahaha! Did I mention that I changed my compensation scheme so that I can make more millions even while the stock tanks? Muahahahahahahaha!" Also, Max? C'mon.

All that said ... HWSNBN was not totally wrong; he just made the mistake of being first to acknowledge that streaming wasn't the golden paradise that Wall Street had been led to believe. The debt load still has a massive and outsized effect on operations, and the strike did them no favors, but ... Max continues to have an outstanding library. Between the movies, the WB catalog, and the premium HBO content, the overall library is arguably the best of all the streamers. And while many of us might mock the integration of the Discovery content, the fact is that people watch reality TV, and that plugged in a large gap that Max didn't previously have.

I am still not sure what HWSNBN is doing; is he cleaning up the balance sheet for a merger or sale (perhaps to Comcast/Peacock)? Is he just apportioning the money- half to light on fire, half to go to his bank account? WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN, especially THAT GUY. But facts are facts, and Max has a great library, just added a tier of live sports, and is chugging along.

Heck, I think that HWSNBN managed to open his mouth the other day without changing feet. Baby steps!



3. AppleTV+. (2022: 3, April 2023: 3, Summer 2023: 3)
AppleTV+ is a weird duck. It doesn't have the most subscribers. It's just started to really expand internationally (inking a deal with Canal+, for example). And a lot of people just don't care about it. So ... what gives? Why is it number 3?

Because Apple, the company, isn't in the business of selling you content. This is just a sideline for them. Apple is content to sell you their iPhones and Macs and iPads and Airpods, and just funnel money to win Oscars and Emmies. Did the strike hurt them? Eh, whatever.

Which brings us to the second point. AppleTV+ has a small library, but they are following the HBO model. It's sort of like real estate, except what matters to them is Quality, Quality, Quality. Not every show and movie on AppleTV+ is great, but they consistently put out out quality shows. Whether it's Silo or Slow Dogs, Hijack or Pachinko, Mythic Quest or Severance, Shrinking or Shmigadoon ... if it's from Apple, it's probably pretty good, and it likely starts with an "S".



4. Disney+. (2022: 2, Apr. 2023: 5, Summer 2023: 2).
Why the fall for D+? Well, in the summer they had similar negatives, but everyone else was doing even worse. But before getting into the negatives, let's try and examine the positives looking forward.

In 2024, they will add Hulu. That's a positive. Also? With ESPN, they have access to live sports. Some people care about that. Also, if you have children, they like Disney. And ... that's about it.

Now, the negatives. The strike hurt D+, badly. For adults, the main selling point is the occasional drop of movies (you know, Disney movies) and the occasional new series (which mostly seem to be MCU or Star Wars). The strike has disrupted that pipeline.

We also can't ignore the quality. The last MCU series, Secret Invasion, was ... not good. In general, it would seem that there are diminishing returns on the Marvel part of the D+ experience. And as for Star Wars, the shows have either been "uneven" or have been very high quality, but not watched by a lot of people (sigh, Andor).

And this brings us to the bring problem- the parent company. If you're not aware of it, Disney is struggling right now with a variety of issues. They have been funneling money into streaming, and Wall Street has been unhappy about that. Just as importantly, the movies have not been producing the profits that they used to. Meanwhile, the parks, which are big money makers, need investment. Finally, the cable networks (such as ESPN) throw off cash, but these are diminishing assets given that people are switching from cable to streaming. Oh, and they have to pony up A LOT of money to buy out Comcast's stake in Hulu next year.

In short, there are a lot of simultaneous business issues going on with The Mouse, and no clear path forward right now.



5. Prime. (2022: 6, April 2023: 6, Summer 2023: 4)
Why is Prime at 5? Because I can't rank it below Peacock and Paramount. It's kind of like when you see a state ranked #49 in something ... there's always Mississippi.

Let's start with the good. Prime will continue to be funded by Amazon. Prime also has an international presence and the second-most subscribers after Netflix.

Now, the problems. Most people with Prime don't use it a primary (heh) option. They have it because it's a "free" addition to Amazon Prime Shipping. While it is possible to pay for Prime (technically, Prime Video) as a standalone service, no one does. In fact, starting next year, Prime will be adding advertisements unless you pay an additional $2.99 a month.

Next, while Prime does have a large library (they paid for the MGM library, for example, although they overpaid since they didn't realize that there were rights issues with it), they have a bad tendency to spend a lot of money for little results. The Rings of Power, regardless of what you thought about the quality of the content, looks like a loser in terms of ROI. The Citadel? Don't even. It's not that Prime can't make good shows, it's more that they spend outrageous amounts of money with very little to show for it. And while this flew under the radar for a long time, it appears that this may finally be coming to an end.

Which brings us to the last issue; as you might have heard, the FTC and numerous states just brought an antitrust case against Amazon. While the claims are too numerous to go into, a major part of the complaint is about ... wait for it ... the overall Prime service. Including the fact that Amazon bundles its video service with Prime, and makes it nearly impossible to get Prime Video on a standalone basis. So, at a minimum, you might expect a little less blatant subsidization of Prime (Video) for a while.


6. Peacock. (2022: 7, Apr. 2023: 8, Summer 2023: 6)
Stop trying to make fetch happen.

Well, in this case, with enough money, and enough time, and enough live-sports rights (Olympics?), maybe Comcast will make Peacock happen. I still think it is more likely that at some point, Peacock will end up merged with another player, but we'll see. In the history of ever, has someone said, "Hey, let's watch Peacock tonight?"

Poker Face is a good show.



7. Paramount+. (2022: 6, Apr. 2023: 7, Summer 2023: 7).
Paramount+ maintained its (last-place) position, so why is it red?

Look, I love Paramount+. Why? Because I love Star Trek. And by Star Trek, I mean Beavis and Butthead. But also? Captain Pike's dreamy eyes. Unfortunately, Paramount+ was hurt by the strike worse than any other streamer, because it's a "studio pure play." It doesn't have a massive company backing them. It's not a money maker (like Netflix). It doesn't have a massive subscriber base.

If you're a fan of Star Trek, you likely love the firehose of content that Paramount+ has been producing. But unfortunately, Star Trek isn't enough. Paramount+ is in a precarious position, and all the alliteration in the world won't save them.



REMOVED FROM THE BOARD UNTIL 2024: Hulu.
This pains me, because I have to admit ... Hulu might have some of the best TV series out there. Mostly because of FX, but still. If you like good TV, you can spend all your time on Hulu. From The Bear to Atlanta to The Great (ugh, cancelled after three seasons) to Legion to What We Do In Shadows to Reservation Dogs ... it just keeps going.

But sometime at the beginning of 2024, Disney will purchase Hulu outright. We are already seeing the beginning of this, with Disney trying to force the bundle on you. Since it has no future, I can't include it in the rankings.

I'd like to add to the prime that as the service gets older Amazon keeps screwing with the search engine. They are pulling the grocery store marketing trick of moving stuff around forcing you to browse through more and more junk that you aren't looking for. Amazon has the only search engine in any streaming service that gets worse every year.