Current Events > why do you guys think streaming services aren't transparent

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://defector.com/steven-soderbergh-says-its-time-to-tear-the-streaming-model-down-to-the-studs

director steven soderbergh was asked about streaming data transparency in this new interview and had these thoughts about never being told anything by netflix or hbo/max, who he has collaborated with quite a bit:

Well, it's just, there are two potential reasons that we're not getting all of the information. One is that they're all making a lot more money than anybody knows and that they're not willing to tell us. The other is they're making a lot less money than anybody knows. And they don't want Wall Street to look under the hood of this thing in any significant way because there'll be a reckoning that will be quite unpleasant. It's one of those two.

which do you think it is

i recommend reading the whole interview which is generally centered on his attempted tiktok tv series, command z, which he ultimately just put on this own website, but also covers barbenheimer, the future of studio filmmaking, ai, more streaming stuff, and so forth

https://extension765.com/blogs/soderblog/command-z

you can watch the series here btw - all money goes to charity

i really hope its the second one because i desperately want streaming to fail

but really i have no idea which one it is

Way lower. Because they know their stocks will TANK if the real numbers got out. Then all the stock & stock options the bigwigs have will lose tons of value.

Cuticrusader09 posted...

Way lower. Because they know their stocks will TANK if the real numbers got out. Then all the stock & stock options the bigwigs have will lose tons of value.

This. It would also explain why the industry insides always treat streaming as some new fad even though its been around for long enough now that the companies know what side is up.

The real answer is they don't share because they don't have to. Good or bad there is no reason for them to share that detail and doing do in either way takes away their ability to control a narrative.

TV stations would be the same way if they could, but Nielsen keeps them relatively in check. And it's worth noting that those figures are not actually public, just extremely easily leaked.

But as to whether stream is doing well, there is plenty of public information that makes it abundantly clear it isn't. Every company that isn't Netflix losing an absolute shitload of money each quarter in their streaming divisions. Now admittedly, "except Netflix" is a pretty notable exception because it's far and away the biggest player in that sphere, but an industry that can only sustain one company isn't a healthy industry.

Netflix claimed Red Notice was viewed by more people than are alive on the planet. Amazon said Rings of Power was like the most viewed new show. They are clearly exaggerating numbers.

They're fudging the numbers one way or another, like with pitching their number of subscribers to shareholders after heavily inflating said numbers in countries where they hardly make anything. Specifically by purchasing streaming rights for certain sports.

The views for these shows and movies arent high enough to justify the costs to produce them. Entertainment companies are afraid of cutting their losses and losing market share though, and even more afraid of their stock prices plummeting if their viewing numbers are made public.

The strikes are a confounding factor here because the most fair way for residuals to be handled is based off views and total subscription income. But the viewing numbers would have to be available first.

The other thing is "views" is somewhat irrelevant to a streaming service. If a show gets a lot of views but no change in subscriber count than it doesn't have the same value as a movie that sells a lot of tickets.

s0nicfan posted...

The other thing is "views" is somewhat irrelevant to a streaming service. If a show gets a lot of views but no change in subscriber count then it doesn't have the same value as a movie that sells a lot of tickets.

In my head I imagine a good model would be residuals are handed out as X% of total subscription revenue for the streaming services (ignoring ad-based tiers for a second). That chunk of money is then distributed between all the shows/movies on that service based off some formula that takes into account both total views for a given show/movie, and views per paid account.

s0nicfan posted...

The other thing is "views" is somewhat irrelevant to a streaming service. If a show gets a lot of views but no change in subscriber count than it doesn't have the same value as a movie that sells a lot of tickets.

though technically this means people are rewatching their stuff on their service rather than doing it with another service, which would be a positive

radical_rhino posted...

In my head I imagine a good model would be residuals are handed out as X% of total subscription revenue for the streaming services (ignoring ad-based tiers for a second). That chunk of money is then distributed between all the shows/movies on that service based off some formula that takes into account both total views for a given show/movie, and views per paid account.

in my head i imagine the best model is

movies = put them in theaters cuz thats how they make the most money
tv = play them weekly with ads or make less of it (like hbo with high quality control) and put stuff in syndication (or lease it to other streamers)

basically what happened before streamers

s0nicfan posted...

The other thing is "views" is somewhat irrelevant to a streaming service. If a show gets a lot of views but no change in subscriber count than it doesn't have the same value as a movie that sells a lot of tickets.

Sorta. Streaming services are looking to do things. Get new subscribers and keep old ones. Getting new subscribers is presumably easy to evaluate. I imagine they can see what shows are watched by new subscribers. That gives a good idea of what shows are getting people to subscribe. But keeping viewers is tricky to measure and viewership is closest approximation you are going to get, mostly in the sense that you can rule out a show with poor viewership as a subscriber draw.

'numbers are way lower and they are covering their butts'

Zithers posted...

i really hope its the second one because i desperately want streaming to fail

Not really fail, but share more.

Just like with games, no one is asking for a billion blu-rays littering the landfills. But just deleting an entire show into the ether isn't good either.

As a publicly traded company, I don't understand how Netflix doesn't have to share those numbers.

Or do they just have to make public money in, money out breakdowns?

bigblu89 posted...

As a publicly traded company, I don't understand how Netflix doesn't have to share those numbers.

Or do they just have to make public money in, money out breakdowns?

They need to share financial information and the support behind them. Viewership isn't a financial metric and doesn't even directly tie to any line of the financial statement.

lilORANG posted...

Netflix claimed Red Notice was viewed by more people than are alive on the planet. Amazon said Rings of Power was like the most viewed new show. They are clearly exaggerating numbers.

Is there a source on the former? It sounds hilarious, but I can't find any outlandish claims like that from a Google search.

EDIT: I have to assume this is either a lie or an exaggeration, because none of the numbers I can find them giving come even close to the number of people alive, or even a 100th of that number.

EDIT: The closest number I can find is viewing hours, which even that is only in the hundred millions.

Roachmeat posted...

Not really fail, but share more.

Just like with games, no one is asking for a billion blu-rays littering the landfills. But just deleting an entire show into the ether isn't good either.

no i want them to fail lol. i hate streaming. i think it has severely devalued the artform.

at best i think streamers can work as a premium cable service like HBO where you can host an entire studio's library + make a very limited amount of original shows/movies that are high quality rather than pumping out """"""content"""""

Sharing info hurts their negotiation position. Good or bad numbers.

The big dogs want to coast on perceived success. And the small dogs definitely don't want people seeing how small they really are.

Cuticrusader09 posted...

Way lower. Because they know their stocks will TANK if the real numbers got out. Then all the stock & stock options the bigwigs have will lose tons of value.

Yeah because they be making so many shit shows

Zithers posted...

no i want them to fail lol. i hate streaming. i think it has severely devalued the artform.

Streaming splinters good things all over the place as well. That is mostly my gripe. On the opposite end, Fionna from Adventure Time is getting her own spinoff likely due to streaming execs greenlighting projects left and right.

Man anyone saying streaming "devalues the artform" is joking. Streaming needs to be reined back, but it's not a bad thing.

A LOT of things simply wouldn't exist without streaming. Anybody saying streaming "devalues the artform" is simply being an elitist for the sake of being contrarian. They're likely the same type of people who complain whenever a superhero movie is made, as if other types of movies CAN'T be made simply because superhero movies exist. It's not that they actually want to defend the artform, it's moreso that they simply want to gatekeep the industry.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Man anyone saying streaming "devalues the artform" is joking. Streaming needs to be reined back, but it's not a bad thing.

StealThisSheen posted...

A LOT of things simply wouldn't exist without streaming. Anybody saying streaming "devalues the artform" is simply being an elitist for the sake of being contrarian. They're likely the same type of people who complain whenever a superhero movie is made, as if other types of movies CAN'T be made simply because superhero movies exist. It's not that they actually want to defend the artform, it's moreso that they simply want to gatekeep the industry.

https://twitter.com/jordan_harper/status/1685789705269657600

also when the $300m superhero/franchise movies are soaking up all resources from studios, causing the midbudget film to die, that is gatekeeping. you have it backwards. i am actually opening the gate and hoping a larger variety of things get made.

Zithers posted...

also when the $300m superhero/franchise movies are soaking up all resources from studios,

Not a thing that's happening.

Compsognathus posted...

The real answer is they don't share because they don't have to. Good or bad there is no reason for them to share that detail and doing do in either way takes away their ability to control a narrative.

Yup definitely. Which you'd think it would be something they'd be legally obligated to share at least for publicly traded companies.

That's really the deal with any corporation and half the time they withhold data that they are supposed to be providing, within or outside the streaming industry.

Zithers posted...

also when the $300m superhero/franchise movies are soaking up all resources from studios, causing the midbudget film to die, that is gatekeeping. you have it backwards. i am actually opening the gate and hoping a larger variety of things get made.

Nope. You're making excuses to defend your own gatekeeping, period. Plenty of different movies are still being made. You're just mad that audiences don't always agree with you and make the things you want to be super profitable... Super profitable. You want to control what audiences see, instead of allowing them to like what they like. You're upset that the mainstream audience disagrees with you, so you want to forcefully take away their options.

This idea that superhero movies are "soaking up all resources" is unfounded. Superhero movies basically pay for themselves, and when they don't, they fail/start to fall off (see: DC.) If anything, the profit made from superhero movies makes it possible for smaller passion projects to exist, where they previously wouldn't have been able to.

EDIT: Blockbusters have always existed. Blockbusters have to exist, or else smaller movies cannot. You just don't like the current trend of blockbuster, so just admit it instead of pretending that you're saying anything profound.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Not a thing that's happening.

i don't think you know what the hollywood ecosystem looked like in the past

StealThisSheen posted...

Nope. You're making excuses to defend your own gatekeeping, period. Plenty of different movies are still being made. You're just mad that audiences don't always agree with you and make the things you want to be super profitable... Super profitable. You want to control what audiences see, instead of allowing them to like what they like. You're upset that the mainstream audience disagrees with you, so you want to forcefully take away their options.

This idea that superhero movies are "soaking up all resources" is unfounded. Superhero movies basically pay for themselves, and when they don't, they fail/start to fall off (see: DC.) If anything, the profit made from superhero movies makes it possible for smaller passion projects to exist, where they previously wouldn't have been able to.

and yet superhero movies whether dc or your favs in marvel have plateaued in popularity or in some cases decreased quite a bit. not to mention other ludicrously expensive franchise films like indiana jones or mission impossible or fast x all being massive flops. are you sure audiences want to see this stuff? especially when barbie and oppenheimer both gave audiences something different that they haven't seen in while and are both going to cruise to way better profits than those movies? what if having a diverse market is healthy for theaters, studios, and audiences? wtf!

you didn't address the point of streamers devaluing visual storytelling so make sure you do that in your next post btw.

Zithers posted...

i don't think you know what the hollywood ecosystem looked like in the past

I do, as much or better than you do most likely.

I also know original movies are still coming out constantly and comic book movies haven't changed that.

Their actual numbers are way lower.

Streaming movies, TV, and games is simply not a sustainable business model. Streaming music might be, but only because they pay artists jack shit and music is cheaper to license.

Zithers posted...

you didn't address the point of streamers devaluing visual storytelling so make sure you do that in your next post btw.

I don't have to address shit. You're the one that made the claim, it's on you to prove it. This is typical troll shit. "I'm going to make a claim, and you have to prove it wrong, instead of me proving it right!"

Fuck off with that.

Zithers posted...

especially when barbie and oppenheimer both gave audiences something different that they haven't seen in while

what??? licensed and historical films have always been a thing. theyre not doing anything different at all. what the hell are you on about?

Im not entirely sure what he's on about. Netflix and hulu are the only ones that are profitable. The other ones outright tell us they're losing billions a year. Does he think everyone's lying on their financial reports to dupe shareholders? Or is he worried about the poor advertisers overpaying...which who gives a shit about them

Oh, I somehow missed that Zithers's examples of "different" films are... Barbie and Oppenheimer. Wow. They really are a troll, huh?

Standard Zithers being insufferable topic #3456454

I'd love to know how Barbie is somehow different than TMNT or Mario or Sonic or any superhero movie. Or how Oppenheimer is different from... Any historical movie prior to it.

EDIT: Like, sure, Barbie has more of a message than any of those, but it didn't sell itself on that at all. It sold itself on... Being Barbie.

RuneterranSnap posted...

I do, as much or better than you do most likely.

I also know original movies are still coming out constantly and comic book movies haven't changed that.

the major studios are releasing less movies than ever tho. their whole business model is make bigger more expensive movies that are super long and soak up every showing in a theater. movies did not used to always be 140+ minutes and cost over $200m.

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't have to address shit. You're the one that made the claim, it's on you to prove it. This is typical troll shit. "I'm going to make a claim, and you have to prove it wrong, instead of me proving it right!"

Fuck off with that.

did you not see the snippet from the new yorker article where streaming execs tell people to make their movies/shows less engaging because the goal is to be "a second screen"?

Ferroseed posted...

what??? licensed and historical films have always been a thing. theyre not doing anything different at all. what the hell are you on about?

StealThisSheen posted...

Oh, I somehow missed that Zithers's examples of "different" films are... Barbie and Oppenheimer. Wow. They really are a troll, huh?

when is the last time a historical drama made $80m in its opening weekend? i'll give a hint: oh wait this has never happened. what is the last film similar to barbie to come out? a studio comedy that is unashamedly pink and girly and artificial. sure, its based on IP - but do you ever look at, like, the aesthetics of visual arts rather than just whether or not something is IP? you would make a good (read: bad) studio exec!

Your troll efforts are super weak. I'm kinda embarrassed I even replied. Won't make that mistake again, from here on out.