How are Streaming Services still massive money losers despite mass adoption?

How are Streaming Services still massive money losers despite mass adoption?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    buying / making content, servers & bandwidth (electricity) is expensive and $10 per person doesn't cover it

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      These homosexuals have billion dollar research divisions and the only major TV/movie company who didn't make a streaming service was Sony. What the frick happened? Even counting the pandemic these frickers couldn't just wait it out like Sony did?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        does sony even have enough content to justify their own service? the japanese brains prob did the math and found it's profit to just sell to other streaming services

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Netflix took like 15 years to become profitable with their streaming service and it needed 200 million subscribers in order to do so.
        I think Sony was smart licensing their content.
        These companies are realizing they were better off with Netflix.
        Look how much Disney Plus has lost Disney. HBO Max is a disaster as well.
        Hulu was so bad all the companies were clamoring to be bought out of their stake with the company.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No money from advertisers

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ONE DAY it will give money bro trust me
    that's what they tell the shareholders

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It did work for tech. Some companies have never been profitable and get along from speculation. Uber was never profitable and even Google has had periods of pure death kept alive by speculation. So why hasn't it worked here?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        those were new technologies adapted by society.
        this is a technology adapted by business because society is torrenting. society is still torrenting, regardless of business adaptation.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It did work for tech
        for now. when the crash happens it will be glorious

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tech has been a massive bubble since the 80s with the birth of the computer. You think people will finally say we've reached peak and turn off the cash flow?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Uber works on the promise that once the taxi companies are run out of business they'll ramp up the prices to taxi levels while the shareholders get to take a relatively huge percentage of the new taxi driver's salary while not having to bother paying for insurance and maintenance etc. It's always been "get in on the ground floor now and once we've 'disrupted' the industry (driven them all out of business so people can't choose anyone else) you'll be part of the new landed gentry". That obviously does not work with streaming.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >look at all these new series we've added to the catalog that no one's watching whoops!

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    no ads so they make next to nothing

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I torrent everything I watch, I don't watch everything I torrent.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They all wanted to be netflix. And they all were arrogant enough to think they would come out on top. Now that they've totally dogpilled the streaming industry and ruined it for themselves.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >dogpilled
      Woof woof

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Video streaming websites by itself are super expensive
    Now look up how much they spent on content creation.
    I'm surprised they haven't gone bankrupt yet

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Content creation isn’t the big money loser. It’s the content licensing that is killing them.
      I’ll give you a few examples:
      HBO Max spent half a billion on the streaming rights to South Park. That is a single tv show.
      > HBO Max won a bidding war for Friends, paying $425 million for the streaming rights for five years
      > Netflix bought the worldwide rights to "Seinfeld" in 2019 in a deal that allowed the show to stream on Hulu until 2021. Hollywood trade outlets said at the time that the deal was worth more than $500 million and beat offers from other streaming platforms
      >Netflix splurging on their CW deal for hundreds of millions of dollars

      There’s a reason Netflix only became profitable in like 2019 or so.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's why people thought Disney + would be thee first uber profitable streaming service because it owned all it's legacy content. But it didn't happen

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yup. Even when they “own” their own content, they have creators, executive producers, other production partners, and people scrambling for their piece of the pie.
          Unless Disney has horribly one-sided contracts that cut off everyone from profit participation, they’re stuck with shelling out hundreds of millions for licensing too

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            How the frick did Residuals become so much of an anchor for companies. You didn't see this shit with home releases, reruns and Syndication. Seems like even at the time these deals were long term horrible

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    expensive "original" garbage shows just to fill space

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    test

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cost to much to run then
    and they juke their subscriber stats with trial accounts

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the whole thing actually doesn't make sense from a corporate perspective. To maximise profits, which is all the suits care about right now, you obviously do not want anyone to actually stream anything because that uses up your server usage. So you need to fool people into signing up for a monthly subscription for a service that have as little as possible that they actually want to stream, such as only releasing one watchable movie each month.

    It only makes sense if you're able to buy the rights of old movies and shows cheaply so that you can sell access to them cheaply and still make a profit, partly because you worm your way past the whole business with paying residuals to writers and actors etc. But that won't make the shareholders into millionaires and so you must instead promise them billion dollar profits Soon™.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jews are so rich and successful they have no clue how to live cheaply. That's why those homies always spending 2-300 mill on goyslop movies with terrible CGI, their success has been a catch 22 and will end up destroying them, rich people always go broke in three generations.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    100% money laundering, but unlike hollywood it is way harder to hide subscriber numbers than it is to create fake ticket sales.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >companies are taking over a bil a month in stream subscriptions
    >still losing money
    laundering

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      100% money laundering, but unlike hollywood it is way harder to hide subscriber numbers than it is to create fake ticket sales.

      It’s shitty laundering then cause it’s still burning cash

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *