CNN streaming has shut down after just one month, and Netflix is losing members. People will always want serial entertainment of some kind, so, just as TV and cable transformed to streaming (sortof), so too will streaming transform to something else (sortof). But, if they're not going to CNN and Netflix, are they going to CBS and Disney?
distribution Streaming services are losing members.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
This hits exactly on my earlier comment.
I mean, they want a la carte cable, but they want cable. And we have come full-circle.
But there’s a problem with a la carte packaging. Network companies may have a selection of network offerings that includes a couple of successful flagship networks along with a smattering of not-as-well-distributed secondary networks. The revenue from the flagships is what pays for content development on the secondary networks. If viewers pick and choose what they want, we’re going to see a shrinking in the variety of available content. Some may argue that’s a good thing, and in some ways it may be, but it does decrease the development of new ideas, which means that it’s harder for content creators to get into the game
We’re already seeing that create shifts in how network companies get their content. A couple years ago, Discovery Inc. announced a new policy regarding series purchasing: the production companies would be responsible for bearing the costs of production up front, rather than the network buying a show and putting in a down-payment to fund production. The production company only gets paid when the series is delivered to the network, and if the network decides at the last minute that they no longer want the series, the production company is left holding the bag. This makes entry into production very cost-prohibitive for the smaller mom-and-pop production companies that cannot afford to pay for production up-front, and can’t afford to take the gamble that they may be left with the debt.
Last edited:
As far as clickbait news and algorithm push bias, I agree, the newsfeed at large has become a mess, driven by statistically calculated emotional response curves. Basically this is one of the most irresponsible slippery slopes that humanity has ever gone down. The proliferation of a million news services drove headline writers into a competitive frenzy, the end of which was "The Algorithm". If you understand what it's doing, and the effect it's having, you can grasp how this is the beginning of the end. People saw that they could get a competitive edge in a fracturing market by having a computer triangulate in on what news got the most response. Combined with social media's ability to cater news feeds individually, this created a disastrous trend. I don't think there was any malice intended, just people trying to make a quick buck, and not really being smart enough to wield the power that they discovered.
What happened after the algorithm took over is that it discovered that people responded to news most enthusiastically when angry, when polarized, when given an enemy to hate. News that didn't accomplish these things began to fade, and the machine pushed more and more of the content that produced response, the lifeblood of the news media industry. The ability to target information individually got rid of the rails, the balance, that had previously kept news more truthful. There is no longer the truth, there is only your truth. The machine will send a republican an article about how Joe Biden sacrifices babies to Satan so that congress will outlaw the bible. On the same day, the same machine sends an article to the democrat across the street, explaining how every cop shoots an average of three minority people per shift. The machine doesn't care about the people, or the articles, or the truth. But it is measuring how fast they click, how much they click, and how many comments they make. Now social media companies are printing money at record speeds, and people are more divided, misinformed, and polarized into groupthink than ever before. The main takeaway is that there is no one at the wheel anymore. Those that do have control are trying as hard as possible to spin opinion their way, and people they do reach get caught in a confirmation bias feedback loop created by the machine to drive traffic, nothing else.
Here's one chart showing the change on a cultural level -
A lot of this division is based on what social media has told us that the other side thinks. Sometimes it's accurate, but even then, people only started thinking so many crazy things AFTER the machine created the echo chamber. Each year, my dad becomes convinced that the democrats are going to go around door to door and take everyone's guns away, but if you check the records, it's never even been suggested by anyone in government.
And now, a few years later, we are reaching the final stage, an almost full blown intolerance of everyone, by everyone. Even campaigns for tolerance have backfired, making everyone more intolerant, via the algorithm. Here's an informational video about that reality.
And what does this mean for indie film? It means that there is now nothing that you can do that at least 50% of people won't actively hate. Doesn't matter what side you are on, or if your views are more complex than tribe A or tribe B. You know how people hear about films? Social media, which is run by the algorithm.
lol, so true, I would refer you to my thread "the cobra effect"
Humans seem to have difficulty coming up with a cure for something that isn't worse than the disease.
I've seen this same thing unfold a million times, and the pattern seems to be that a new idea is good on day one, but then unravels under stress testing as millions bandwagon on the success of the original concept.
It's like if you came up with a cancer cure, wrote out the molecular composition on a piece of paper, and then people make copies, then copies of copies, then copies of copies of copies, until the formula is so degraded and bastardized that it's poisonous. You can see this trend over time (think centuries or decades) in almost anything that ends with an "ism" suffix. This same process is basically how cancer happens, inferior replication of a perfect form.
What would be great is if people could keep the original GOAL in mind, rather than the original solution. People have a way of ascribing supernatural significance to milestones, and then trying to force the future to fit ideas that worked in the past. I think it's mostly laziness, and sunken cost fallacy thinking.
It's so obvious what's going to happen here. Eventually, we will get a unified streaming service, and it comes over this thing called a cable. lol. The problem is still the same one they were trying to correct back then. It worked for a minute then failed after the pile on, exactly like I outlined.
Edit - just saw acoustic AI's post, great minds think alike I guess
Last edited:
That actually doesn't bother me. I think the great thing about indie film is that you're NOT trying to appeal to everyone.
Leave that to the Marvels & Disneys of the world, and find your niche that you want to appeal to. That's the way I've always approached it.
Good, meaningful art makes people think.
Some people don’t like thinking.
That’s not to say that offending people is what qualifies meaningful art. No all good art offends people, and not all art that offends people is good. However, any time you present a deep topic, there will be haters. Indie film doesn’t have the restrictions of corporate studio heads keeping things from getting deep or introspective, and that’s a plus.
Last edited:
The more advanced tech has become, the harder it is to use - at least, that's been the trend of the past decade.
This article in Deadline today is an interesting follow up, since the Roku Channel is free.
https://deadline.com/2022/04/lionsgate-films-roku-channel-exclusive-streaming-1235009702/
https://deadline.com/2022/04/lionsgate-films-roku-channel-exclusive-streaming-1235009702/
Fellow Indietalkers, the economics of streaming are going to make this the primary way consumers watch their media in the coming years. When movie prices reached a cost of $14/ticket plus parking and $8 for popcorn, the writing was on the wall. Hollywood does not/won't listen and continues to throw their weight behind big budget movies that demand millions of moviegoers. What should be modest dramas still cost $35 mill. once you add Blanchett or Farrell's salaries. Streamers get the economics: to sustain an audience that pays you $15/month for ALL of your content, the production costs have to come way down. I believe the days of $20 million dramas are behind us. Given the low-cost cinema cameras and lighting gear now available, and great editing and post software, we need to lower our budgets in order to survive. I'm speaking to both the indies as well as major studios. $1-5 million is still a lot of money... How about we start making dramas for $500k all-in? The unions will need to be tamed. Everyone is used to "the old days." But Covid expedited what would've happened anyway. We all have 52" TV screens and decent audio in our homes. Why leave to go to a movie theater? The metrics show we are staying home. And cable TV? Ask a young person under age 30 if they subscribe to cable and they will laugh at your face. Streaming and VOD/SVOD are the new ways movies are exhibited. They fit the economics. Unless an amazing new technology emerges to get us back into the theaters again (Cinerama versus television, 1950's), I don't see this changing for the next 10 years.
Having made a drama/comedy for 500k all in (admittedly a few years ago), I agree. For reference: my actors were all SAG AFTRA. My director was not DGA and my DP was not IATSE. A lot of the grips & gaffers were in IATSE but were working a non-union gig at higher job levels than they could do on bigger budget all-union projects (so good experience & resume building for them). I was told at the time that the Teamsters didn't care about projects with budgets under $5 mil and they certainly had no interest in us.