VOD : Streaming services news, offers and general chit chat

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The biggest change in this thread is your persistent lowering of the bar in terms of what you expect from streaming services.

You have a very vivid imagination, jfman. I have never said that content displayed on streaming platforms would be there forever.

What are you on?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

An episode being postponed due to a global situation (eg plane crash) is understandable. And streamers culling content is not new. But this is pretty unprecedented with no warnings and with a series (Accused) being dropped mid series. As Geek Town commented:

https://www.geektown.co.uk/2024/02/0...-paramount-uk/

Indeed, OB's contention that it's somehow comparable with short term changes to a linear schedule because of major events is ludicrous.

It also ignores that the world only exists with this binary in his eyes. In reality where there is disruption to schedules content can and will be made available on demand through catch up services in addition to the newly scheduled broadcast slot.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You have a very vivid imagination, jfman. I have never said that content displayed on streaming platforms would be there forever.

What are you on?

Neither did he…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed, OB's contention that it's somehow comparable with short term changes to a linear schedule because of major events is ludicrous.

It also ignores that the world only exists with this binary in his eyes. In reality where there is disruption to schedules content can and will be made available on demand through catch up services in addition to the newly scheduled broadcast slot.

Well of course it is. It's all content and linear is only short term due to the way it works.

Also, remember The Warner Channel that never appeared despite being shown temporarily in the listings? Or the UKTV channels that were taken off Virgin when a deal couldn't be done?

You are creating differences that aren't there to make a point that doesn't exist.

---------- Post added at 08:21 ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Neither did he…

He didn’t say ‘forever’, oh pedantic one, and perhaps he didn’t mean it but he heavily implied it by protesting about programmes taken off the library.

Incidentally I certainly don’t agree with providers taking off programmes mid-series, although cancelling future series is not a new phenomenon that started with the streamers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well of course it is. It's all content and linear is only short term due to the way it works.

Also, remember The Warner Channel that never appeared despite being shown temporarily in the listings? Or the UKTV channels that were taken off Virgin when a deal couldn't be done?

You are creating differences that aren't there to make a point that doesn't exist.

A channel not appearing and a content dispute between a platform operator and channels is a completely different set of circumstances from a rights holder and direct retailer of content wilfully changing their product at short notice (while still owning the rights!

He didn’t say ‘forever’, oh pedantic one, and perhaps he didn’t mean it but he heavily implied it by protesting about programmes taken off the library.

Incidentally I certainly don’t agree with providers taking off programmes mid-series, although cancelling future series is not a new phenomenon that started with the streamers.

Come off it, OB. You know massive back catalogues are a key selling point of these services. If they start wilfully withholding their own content to save on royalty payments, changing the product offer at short notice, end users will understandably be annoyed.

More of the same old goalpost-shifting from OB I see. Of course many posters here will remember him opining that one of the many reasons streaming is superior is because the streamers have vast back catalogues and there’s no danger of ever running out of things to watch. It was supposed to be a fundamental differential between streamers and linear broadcasters. Now, we’re used to the idea that streamers rent other studios’ content for a limited time, but now suddenly they’re removing stuff, without warning, while they still hold the rights to it. They’re removing stuff mid-drop. *

Looks like another aspect of OB’s paradise has gone the same way as ‘streamers will never introduce adverts’.

I’d stick to the day job OB (whatever that is), because your career as a crystal-ball-gazing tech futurologist is not working out.

*Nu Quantum Leap is a bit meh to be honest, but it’s the principle of the thing … I was about 2 3rds of the way thru it. Now I’ll never know if Dr Song’s next leap will be the leap … home

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well of course it is. It's all content and linear is only short term due to the way it works.

Also, remember The Warner Channel that never appeared despite being shown temporarily in the listings? Or the UKTV channels that were taken off Virgin when a deal couldn't be done?

You are creating differences that aren't there to make a point that doesn't exist.

---------- Post added at 08:21 ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 ----------



He didn’t say ‘forever’, oh pedantic one, and perhaps he didn’t mean it but he heavily implied it by protesting about programmes taken off the library.

Incidentally I certainly don’t agree with providers taking off programmes mid-series, although cancelling future series is not a new phenomenon that started with the streamers.

So, in summary…

You said he said something he didn’t say.

I pointed out he didn’t say that.

You admit he didn’t say that, but I’m a pedant for pointing that out.

OK, then…

[buckeye]

Originally Posted by jfman

100% on a like for like basis what I’d pay Virgin for my TV package is more on Stream than TV360. I’m one of these “except sports” viewers remember that plough billions a year into the UK TV market.

I say all of this while subscribing to four overseas streaming services and Now TV.

I'm in the "including sports" category so am ploughing in even more money.
After its initial years of being very much a third class service due to its many technical faults imho Now TV is emerging as the best streamer we have on these shores.
For £30 a month I get sports, entertainment and movies with them and if I so wished I could share that cost with two other people.
For another £5 a month (added to my mobile phone bill) I also get TNT Sports and Discovery+ to add to this.
Of course it remains to be seen if these US owned but UK based companies carry on treating our market differently to the US or they eventually follow the American streamer model of "hook 'em in then raise the price"!

Even though it was only 30 quid for the year I feel a bit of a sucker paying for Paramount+ then finding many of the programs I was interested in being withdrawn with no notice,
USEing the NET I replaced all of their now missing shows in short order but many people don't have options like that and given the way these US mega corporations treat us I may well end up using this distribution method much more than I have for the past few years.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

An episode being postponed due to a global situation (eg plane crash) is understandable. And streamers culling content is not new. But this is pretty unprecedented with no warnings and with a series (Accused) being dropped mid series. As Geek Town commented:

https://www.geektown.co.uk/2024/02/0...-paramount-uk/

Could just be my memory or my parents not wanting me to watch it. Seem to recall shows vanishing mid season in my childhood so nothing really new:shock

[jfman]

Originally Posted by buckeye

I'm in the "including sports" category so am ploughing in even more money.
After its initial years of being very much a third class service due to its many technical faults imho Now TV is emerging as the best streamer we have on these shores.
For £30 a month I get sports, entertainment and movies with them and if I so wished I could share that cost with two other people.
For another £5 a month (added to my mobile phone bill) I also get TNT Sports and Discovery+ to add to this.
Of course it remains to be seen if these US owned but UK based companies carry on treating our market differently to the US or they eventually follow the American streamer model of "hook 'em in then raise the price"!

Even though it was only 30 quid for the year I feel a bit of a sucker paying for Paramount+ then finding many of the programs I was interested in being withdrawn with no notice,
USEing the NET I replaced all of their now missing shows in short order but many people don't have options like that and given the way these US mega corporations treat us I may well end up using this distribution method much more than I have for the past few years.

Apologies I typed my "except sports" referencing a caveat OB makes to the streaming future being different for sports rights. Like yourself and millions of others (generating billions in revenue) sports is a key reason for me to have pay-tv full stop.

I also think Now presents excellent value for those who would prefer to stream.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by jfman

The proposition that some have been peddling, for the best part of a decade, is exactly this though. A seemingly limitless library of content available at the touch of a button.

.

I totally accept that this is the perception , however can ( I am not saying it doesn't exist) any one show where any streamer said that this was the case. Perhaps this is a case of hope over experience. Or just stupidity.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

More of the same old goalpost-shifting from OB I see. Of course many posters here will remember him opining that one of the many reasons streaming is superior is because the streamers have vast back catalogues and there’s no danger of ever running out of things to watch. It was supposed to be a fundamental differential between streamers and linear broadcasters. Now, we’re used to the idea that streamers rent other studios’ content for a limited time, but now suddenly they’re removing stuff, without warning, while they still hold the rights to it. They’re removing stuff mid-drop. *

Looks like another aspect of OB’s paradise has gone the same way as ‘streamers will never introduce adverts’.

I’d stick to the day job OB (whatever that is), because your career as a crystal-ball-gazing tech futurologist is not working out.

*Nu Quantum Leap is a bit meh to be honest, but it’s the principle of the thing … I was about 2 3rds of the way thru it. Now I’ll never know if Dr Song’s next leap will be the leap … home

Both you and jfman are being argumentative for the sake of it. Streamers remain a vast library resource, but I never said that would remain with the same old content supplemented by new stuff. If not enough people are watching it, of course they won't keep it forever. Netflix have been taking out old stuff periodically for years.

As for taking content off mid series, I have said already I don't approve of that, but I have never addressed this point before, so that's not a U-turn on my part either.

Yes, I said that Netflix would not entertain having advertisements, but that was based on what the CEO himself said, and I had in mind that we were talking about premium + ads. Cheaper options with ads were not what we were talking about at the time.

[Itshim]

From geektown ,for those that haven't read it


Home TV News Why Are Shows Vanishing From Paramount+ UK?
TV News
WHY ARE SHOWS VANISHING FROM PARAMOUNT+ UK?
Paramount+ UK removes content from streaming service
written by Dave Elliott February 5, 2024
2 comments 1


Over the past week, subscribers to Paramount+ UK came in for a bit of a surprise, as many booted up the service to discover series which they were halfway through had suddenly vanished from the system… Was this a glitch? Or was there another reason? We reached out to Paramount+ to ask.

The response, unfortunately, was not good. It seems there has been a “strategy shift” at Paramount Global, as the media company attempts to cut costs. The result of this is that they have ditched a number of international acquisitions, along with their own original series.

On the acquisition side, the most notable shows were FOX’s US remake of BBC drama ‘Accused‘, which was only added to the service in January, and still had five more episodes to be added; And NBC’s reboot/remake of ‘Quantum Leap‘. The entire first season of the latter had aired on the streaming service, however, Season 2 was slated to launch later in February, but now no longer has a UK broadcaster. CBC’s comedy ‘Son of a Critch‘ has also gone, despite a 3rd Season recently launching in its home country of Canada.

From their own Paramount+ Originals show, ‘The Burning Girls’, ‘One Night’, ‘The Killing Kind’, ‘The Serial Killer’s Wife’, ‘Chemistry of Death’ and ‘The Doll Factory’ have all been taken off the service.

Here is a list of what we know Paramount+ UK has removed so far:

Accused
Quantum Leap
Minx
Son of a Critch
The Thing About Pam
No Escape
The Killing Kind
The Burning Girls
The Doll Factory
The Serial Killer’s Wife
The Chemistry of Death
One Night
The Sheikh
Death’s Roulette
Rise of the Billionaires
Fever Pitch
Love Rats
Blowing LA
The Gold
Hauntings
Hot Yachts
Strip
Sadly, streaming services pulling content is nothing new, as we saw last year when Disney+ yanked a stack of its original series from the service such as ‘Willow’, ‘The World According To Jeff Goldblum’, and ‘Dollface’ from their service in an attempt to cut costs. WBD’s MAX streamer in the USA also did something similar with a number of its original shows. What was rather shocking with Paramount+ was that the removal came with no warning or announcement, meaning that people who were halfway through watching these series suddenly found them no longer available.

How does removing content from a streaming service save them money?
You might think it saves on paying residuals (i.e. the money actors, writers, etc… get when a show airs) to the people involved, and that is true… Although, as we’ve heard a lot recently during last year’s strikes by the actors and writer’s guilds, the residuals are a tiny, tiny, part of that cost.

The bigger cost is license fees. As ridiculous as it may sound, even if a show is made by the studio arm of a company for its own streaming service – e.g. 20th Television making something for Disney+ – the streamer still has to pay a license fee to the producing studio for the content if it is sitting on the service. Yes, it is essentially stirring money around in the same big pot, but in order to look profitable, and to give the illusion of fairness, that is the way it has to be done.

Look at it this way – if a streaming service got given all its content for “free” by other subsidiaries of its parent company (i.e. Paramount+ getting all CBS Studios content for free because they are both owned by Paramount Global), the streaming service would look to be racking in the cash… But, the studios making that content would be seeing a massive loss as they aren’t getting “paid” for their work.

So, to save money, the streaming service looks at its catalogue of shows, sees what is underperforming (i.e. no one is watching), or, in the case of acquired shows, what is expensive to license, pulls them from streaming, and takes something called an “impairment charge”. That means the streaming service is saying “we don’t think this is worth the money we paid for it” and can “write off” the cost of that show. The show is “impaired” for a specific length of time (e.g. 12 months), where it can not be added back to the service. After that, it could be impaired again or added back on.

So, where does that leave things?
Shows such as ‘Accused’ and ‘Quantum Leap’ are not made by Paramount but acquired from outside producers. With Paramount+ removing them, it seems likely the UK broadcast rights to those shows will revert back to the producers. That means there is potential that the producers/distributors of those shows could sell them on to another UK broadcaster. As to who, when and where? That’s anyone’s guess at this point…

For the Paramount+ Originals which were removed, Paramount could also opt to sell those to someone else, at which point they then subtract the money they make from selling it from the impairment charge. Or they could just leave them in a dark hole never to be seen again

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Could just be my memory or my parents not wanting me to watch it. Seem to recall shows vanishing mid season in my childhood so nothing really new:shock

Not happened to me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, in summary…

You said he said something he didn’t say.

I pointed out he didn’t say that.

You admit he didn’t say that, but I’m a pedant for pointing that out.

OK, then…

I said he implied it. Stop being such a pedant.