streaming

does-fubo’s-antitrust-lawsuit-against-espn,-fox,-and-wbd-stand-a-chance?

Does Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit against ESPN, Fox, and WBD stand a chance?

Collaborating conglomerates —

Fubo: Media giants’ anticompetitive tactics already killed PS Vue, other streamers.

In this photo illustration, the FuboTV Inc. logo is displayed on a smartphone screen and ESPN, Warner Bros. Discovery and FOX logos in the background.

Fubo is suing Fox Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) over their plans to launch a unified sports streaming app. Fubo, a live sports streaming service that has business relationships with the three companies, claims the firms have engaged in anticompetitive practices for years, leading to higher prices for consumers.

In an attempt to understand how much potential the allegations have to derail the app’s launch, Ars Technica read the 73-page sealed complaint and sought opinions from some antitrust experts. While some of Fubo’s allegations could be hard to prove, Fubo isn’t the only one concerned about the joint app’s potential to make it hard for streaming services to compete fairly.

Fubo wants to kill ESPN, Fox, and WBD’s joint sports app

Earlier this month, Disney, which owns ESPN, WBD (whose sports channels include TBS and TNT), and Fox, which owns Fox broadcast stations and Fox Sports channels like FS1, announced plans to launch an equally owned live sports streaming app this fall. Pricing hasn’t been confirmed but is expected to be in the $30-to-$50-per-month range. Fubo, for comparison, starts at $80 per month for English-language channels.

Via a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Fubo is seeking an injunction against the app and joint venture (JV), a jury trial, and damages for an unspecified figure. There have been reports that Fubo was suing the three companies for $1 billion, but a Fubo spokesperson confirmed to Ars that this figure is incorrect.

“Insurmountable barriers”

Fubo, which was founded in 2015, is arguing that the three companies’ proposed app will result in higher prices for live sports streaming customers.

The New York City-headquartered company claims the collaboration would preclude other distributors of live sports content, like Fubo, from competing fairly. The lawsuit also claims that distributors like Fubo would see higher prices and worse agreements associated with licensing sports content due to the JV, which could even stop licensing critical sports content to companies like Fubo. Fubo’s lawsuit says that “once they have combined forces, Defendants’ incentive to exclude Fubo and other rivals will only increase.”

Disney, Fox, and WBD haven’t disclosed specifics about how their JV will impact how they license the rights to sports events to companies outside of their JV; however, they have claimed that they will license their respective entities to the JV on a non-exclusive basis.

That statement doesn’t specify, though, if the companies will try to bundle content together forcibly,

“If the three firms get together and say, ‘We’re no longer going to provide to you these streams for resale separately. You must buy a bundle as a condition of getting any of them,’ that would … be an anti-competitive bundle that can be challenged under antitrust law,” Hal Singer, an economics professor at The University of Utah and managing director at Econ One, told Ars.

Lee Hepner, counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, shared similar concerns about the JV with Ars:

Joint ventures raise the same concerns as mergers when the effect is to shut out competitors and gain power to raise prices and reduce quality. Sports streaming is an extremely lucrative market, and a joint venture between these three powerhouses will foreclose the ability of rivals like Fubo to compete on fair terms.

Fubo’s lawsuit cites research from Citi, finding that, combined, ESPN (26.8 percent), Fox (17.3 percent), and WBD (9.9 percent) own 54 percent of the US sports rights market.

In a statement, Fubo co-founder and CEO David Gandler said the three companies “are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors” and will leave sports streamers without options.

The US Department of Justice is reportedly eyeing the JV for an antitrust review and plans to look at the finalized terms, according to a February 15 Bloomberg report citing two anonymous “people familiar with the process.”

Does Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit against ESPN, Fox, and WBD stand a chance? Read More »

report:-apple-is-about-to-be-fined-e500-million-by-the-eu-over-music-streaming

Report: Apple is about to be fined €500 million by the EU over music streaming

Competition concerns —

EC accuses Apple of abusing its market position after complaint by Spotify.

Report: Apple is about to be fined €500 million by the EU over music streaming

Brussels is to impose its first-ever fine on tech giant Apple for allegedly breaking EU law over access to its music streaming services, according to five people with direct knowledge of the long-running investigation.

The fine, which is in the region of €500 million and is expected to be announced early next month, is the culmination of a European Commission antitrust probe into whether Apple has used its own platform to favor its services over those of competitors.

The probe is investigating whether Apple blocked apps from informing iPhone users of cheaper alternatives to access music subscriptions outside the App Store. It was launched after music-streaming app Spotify made a formal complaint to regulators in 2019.

The Commission will say Apple’s actions are illegal and go against the bloc’s rules that enforce competition in the single market, the people familiar with the case told the Financial Times. It will ban Apple’s practice of blocking music services from letting users outside its App Store switch to cheaper alternatives.

Brussels will accuse Apple of abusing its powerful position and imposing anti-competitive trading practices on rivals, the people said, adding that the EU would say the tech giant’s terms were “unfair trading conditions.”

It is one of the most significant financial penalties levied by the EU on Big Tech companies. A series of fines against Google levied over several years and amounting to about 8 billion euros are being contested in court.

Apple has never previously been fined for antitrust infringements by Brussels, but the company was hit in 2020 with a 1.1 billion-euro fine in France for alleged anti-competitive behavior. The penalty was revised down to 372 million euros after an appeal.

The EU’s action against Apple will reignite the war between Brussels and Big Tech at a time when companies are being forced to show how they are complying with landmark new rules aimed at opening competition and allowing small tech rivals to thrive.

Companies that are defined as gatekeepers, including Apple, Amazon, and Google, need to fully comply with these rules under the Digital Markets Act by early next month.

The act requires these tech giants to comply with more stringent rules and will force them to allow rivals to share information about their services.

There are concerns that the rules are not enabling competition as fast as some had hoped, although Brussels has insisted that changes require time.

Brussels formally charged Apple in the anti-competitive probe in 2021. The commission narrowed the scope of the investigation last year and abandoned a charge of pushing developers to use its own in-app payment system.

Apple last month announced changes to its iOS mobile software, App Store, and Safari browser in efforts to appease Brussels after long resisting such steps. But Spotify said at the time that Apple’s compliance was a “complete and total farce.”

Apple responded by saying that “the changes we’re sharing for apps in the European Union give developers choice—with new options to distribute iOS apps and process payments.”

In a separate antitrust case, Brussels is consulting with Apple’s rivals over the tech giant’s concessions to appease worries that it is blocking financial groups from its Apple Pay mobile system.

The timing of the Commission’s announcement has not yet been fixed, but it will not change the direction of the antitrust investigation, the people with knowledge of the situation said.

Apple, which can appeal to the EU courts, declined to comment on the forthcoming ruling but pointed to a statement a year ago when it said it was “pleased” the Commission had narrowed the charges and said it would address concerns while promoting competition.

It added: “The App Store has helped Spotify become the top music streaming service across Europe and we hope the European Commission will end its pursuit of a complaint that has no merit.”

The Commission—the executive body of the EU—declined to comment.

© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Report: Apple is about to be fined €500 million by the EU over music streaming Read More »

lawsuit-against-prime-video-ads-shows-perils-of-annual-streaming-subscriptions

Lawsuit against Prime Video ads shows perils of annual streaming subscriptions

Priyanka CHopra (left) and Richard Madden (right) in the AMazon Prime Video original series Citadel.

Enlarge / Priyanka Chopra (left) and Richard Madden (right) in the Prime Video original series Citadel.

Streaming services like Amazon Prime Video promote annual subscriptions as a way to save money. But long-term commitments to streaming companies that are in the throes of trying to determine how to maintain or achieve growth typically end up biting subscribers in the butt—and they’re getting fed up.

As first reported by The Hollywood Reporter, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification [PDF] hit Amazon on February 9. The complaint centers on Amazon showing ads with Prime Video streams, which it started doing for US subscribers in January unless customers paid an extra $2.99/month. This approach differed from how other streaming services previously introduced ads: by launching a new subscription plan with ads and lower prices and encouraging subscribers to switch.

A problem with this approach, though, as per the lawsuit, is that it meant that people who signed up for an annual subscription to Prime Video before Amazon’s September 2023 announcement about ads already paid for a service that’s different from what they expected.

And that’s not the only risk people face when opting-in to a yearlong relationship with streaming services these days.

Paying extra “for something they already paid for”

The lawsuit recently filed against Prime Video names California resident Wilbert Napoleon as a plaintiff and argues that Amazon’s advertisements for Prime Video made “reasonable consumers” think that they would get ad-free movie and TV-show streaming for the duration of their subscription.

The lawsuit reads:

Reasonable consumers expect that, if you purchase a subscription with ad-free streaming of movies and tv shows, that the ad-free streaming for movies and tv shows is available for the duration of the purchased subscription.

… however, Plaintiff and class members’ reasonable expectations were not met. Instead of receiving a subscription that included ad-free streaming of [TV] shows and movies, they received something worth less.

Napoleon bought an annual subscription to Prime Video in June 2023, per the court filings. The lawsuit accuses Amazon of falsely advertising Prime Video.

“Subscribers must now pay extra to get something that they already paid for,” the lawsuit says.

The idea of expectations not being met is common for streaming customers. That said, the lawsuit hasn’t gotten far enough yet where we should expect big changes to Prime Video or financial penalties for Amazon. Changing the user experience mid-deal is aggravating for customers, but Prime Video’s terms of use claim that Amazon maintains the right to diminish the value of Prime Video:

Offers and pricing for subscriptions (also referred to at times as memberships), the subscription services, the extent of available Subscription Digital Content, and the specific titles available through subscription services, may change over time and by location without notice (except as may be required by applicable law).

But there’s still a broader point to be made around streaming services trying to lure people into yearlong commitments knowing that the product they offer today might drastically change over the next 12 months.

Amazon, for example, announced that it would bring commercials to Prime Video in September and didn’t confirm when it would introduce ads until December, about a month ahead of the changes. Yet, Amazon reportedly had plans to bring ads to the service as early as June, per a report from The Wall Street Journal that cited anonymous “people familiar with the situation.” Despite these reported plans to alter the user experience significantly, Amazon continued to sell annual subscriptions to Prime Video. For months, people were committing to something that they expected would include commercial-free viewing, which used to be a popular draw of Prime Video compared to rival streaming services.

Prime Video also seemingly didn’t give a heads-up that it was removing Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support unless subscribers agreed to pay $2.99 more per month for an ad-free plan.

Amazon declined to comment on this story. Lawyers for the lawsuit filed against Amazon didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Lawsuit against Prime Video ads shows perils of annual streaming subscriptions Read More »

prime-video-cuts-dolby-vision,-atmos-support-from-ad-tier—and-didn’t-tell-subs

Prime Video cuts Dolby Vision, Atmos support from ad tier—and didn’t tell subs

Surprise —

To get them back, you must pay an extra $2.99/month for the ad-free tier.

High King Gil-galad and Elrond in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Enlarge / The Rings of Power… now in HDR10+ for ad-tier users.

On January 29, Amazon started showing ads to Prime Video subscribers in the US unless they pay an additional $2.99 per month. But this wasn’t the only change to the service. Those who don’t pay up also lose features; their accounts no longer support Dolby Vision or Dolby Atmos.

As noticed by German tech outlet 4K Filme on Sunday, Prime Video users who choose to sit through ads can no longer use Dolby Vision or Atmos while streaming. Ad-tier subscribers are limited to HDR10+ and Dolby Digital 5.1.

4K Filme confirmed that this was the case on TVs from both LG and Sony; Forbes also confirmed the news using a TCL TV.

“In the ads-free account, the TV throws up its own confirmation boxes to say that the show is playing in Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos. In the basic, with-ads account, however, the TV’s Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos pop-up boxes remain stubbornly absent,” Forbes said.

Amazon hasn’t explained its reasoning for the feature removal, but it may be trying to cut back on licensing fees paid to Dolby Laboratories. Amazon may also hope to push HDR10+, a Dolby Vision competitor that’s free and open. It also remains possible that we could one day see the return of Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos to the ad tier through a refreshed licensing agreement.

Amazon has had a back-and-forth history with supporting Dolby features. In 2016, it first made Dolby Vision available on Prime Video. In 2017, though, Prime Video stopped supporting the format in favor of HDR10+. Amazon announced the HDR10+ format alongside Samsung, and it subsequently made the entire Prime Video library available in HDR10+. But in 2022, Prime Video started offering content like The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power in Dolby Vision once again.

Amazon wasn’t upfront about removals

Amazon announced in September 2023 that it would run ads on Prime Video accounts in 2024; in December, Amazon confirmed that the ads would start running on January 29 unless subscribers paid extra. In the interim, Amazon failed to mention that it was also removing support for Dolby Vision and Atmos from the ad-supported tier.

Forbes first reported on Prime Video’s ad-based tier not supporting Dolby Vision and Atmos by assuming that it was a technical error. Not until after Forbes published its article did Amazon officially confirm the changes. That’s not how people subscribing to a tech giant’s service expect to learn about a diminishing of their current plan.

It also seems that Amazon’s removal of the Dolby features has been done in such a way that it could lead some users to think they’re getting Dolby Vision and Atmos support even when they’re not.

As Forbes’ John Archer reported, “To add a bit of confusion to the mix, on the TCL TV I used, the Prime Video header information for the Jack Ryan show that appears on the with-ads basic account shows Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos among the supported technical features—yet when you start to play the episode, neither feature is delivered to the TV.”

As streaming services overtake traditional media, many customers are growing increasingly discouraged by how the industry seems to be evolving into something strongly reminiscent of cable. While there are some aspects of old-school TV worth emulating, others—like confusing plans that don’t make it clear what you get with each package—are not.

Amazon didn’t respond to questions Ars Technica sent in time for publication, but we’ll update this story if we hear back.

Prime Video cuts Dolby Vision, Atmos support from ad tier—and didn’t tell subs Read More »

sony-is-erasing-digital-libraries-that-were-supposed-to-be-accessible-“forever”

Sony is erasing digital libraries that were supposed to be accessible “forever”

one piece

A shot from One Piece, one of the animes that Funimation made DVDs for.

How long is “forever”? When it comes to digital media, forever could be as close as a couple of months away.

Funimation, a Sony-owned streaming service for anime, recently announced that subscribers’ digital libraries on the platform will be unavailable after April 2. For years, Funimation had been telling subscribers that they could keep streaming these digital copies of purchased movies and shows, but qualifying it: “forever, but there are some restrictions.”

Funimation’s parent company, Sony, bought rival anime streaming service Crunchyroll in 2021. Since then, it was suspected that Sony would merge the offerings together somehow. This week, we learned how, as Funimation announced that its app and website would close on April 2, and Funimation accounts will become Crunchyroll accounts. Most of Funimation’s catalog is already on Crunchyroll, Funimation’s announcement claimed.

But in addition to offering video streaming, Funimation also dubbed and released anime as physical media, and sometimes those DVDs or Blu-rays would feature a digital code. Subscribers to the Funimation streaming service could add those digital codes to Funimation and then stream the content from the platform.

With Funimation claiming that customers could access these digital copies “forever,” I could see why someone might have thought this was a reliable way to access their purchased media. For people lacking the space, resources, or interest in maintaining a library of physical media, this was a good way to preserve treasured shows and movies without spending more money. It also provided a simple way to access purchased media online if you were, for example, away on a trip and had a hankering to watch some anime DVDs you bought.

But soon, people who may have discarded or lost their physical media or lack a way to play DVDs and Blu-rays won’t have a way to access the digital copies that they were entitled to through their physical copy purchase.

Funimation’s announcement says:

Please note that Crunchyroll does not currently support Funimation Digital copies, which means that access to previously available digital copies will not be supported. However, we are continuously working to enhance our content offerings and provide you with an exceptional anime streaming experience. We appreciate your understanding and encourage you to explore the extensive anime library available on Crunchyroll.

Regarding refunds, Funimation’s announcement directed customers to its support team “to see the available options based on your payment method,” but there’s no mention of getting money back from a DVD or Blu-ray that you might not have purchased had you known you couldn’t stream it “forever.”

Sony is erasing digital libraries that were supposed to be accessible “forever” Read More »

hulu,-disney+-password-crackdown-kills-account-sharing-on-march-14

Hulu, Disney+ password crackdown kills account sharing on March 14

profit push —

New subscribers are already banned from sharing logins outside their household.

Selena Gomez and Martin Short on the set of <em>Only Murders in the Building</em> on February 14, 2022, in New York City. ” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/GettyImages-1370661621-800×513.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=Enlarge / Selena Gomez and Martin Short on the set of Only Murders in the Building on February 14, 2022, in New York City.

Hulu and Disney+ subscribers have until March 14 to stop sharing their login information with people outside of their household. Disney-owned streaming services are the next to adopt the password-crackdown strategy that has helped Netflix add millions of subscribers.

An email sent from “The Hulu Team” to subscribers yesterday and viewed by Ars Technica tells customers that Hulu is “adding limitations on sharing your account outside of your household.”

Hulu’s subscriber agreement, updated on January 25, now states that users “may not share your subscription outside of your household,” with household being defined as the “collection of devices associated with your primary personal residence that are used by the individuals who reside therein.”

The updated terms also note that Hulu might scrutinize user accounts to ensure that the accounts aren’t being used on devices located outside of the subscriber’s residence:

We may, in our sole discretion, analyze the use of your account to determine compliance with this Agreement. If we determine, in our sole discretion, that you have violated this Agreement, we may limit or terminate access to the Service and/or take any other steps as permitted by this Agreement (including those set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement).

Section 6 of Hulu’s subscriber agreement says Hulu can “restrict, suspend, or terminate” access without notice.

Hulu didn’t respond to a request for comment on how exactly it will “analyze the use” of accounts. But Netflix, which started its password crackdown in March 2022 and brought it to the US in May 2023, says it uses “information such as IP addresses, device IDs, and account activity to determine whether a device signed in to your account is part of your Netflix Household” and doesn’t collect GPS data from devices.

According to the email sent to Hulu subscribers, the policy will apply immediately to people subscribing to Hulu from now on.

The updated language in Hulu’s subscriber agreement matches what’s written in the Disney+/ESPN+ subscriber agreement, which was also updated on January 25. Disney+’s password crackdown first started in November in Canada.

A Disney spokesperson confirmed to Ars Technica that Disney+ subscribers have until March 14 to comply. The rep also said that notifications were sent to Disney+’s US subscribers yesterday; although, it’s possible that some subscribers didn’t receive an email alert, as is the case with a subscriber in my household.

The representative didn’t respond to a question asking how Disney+ will “analyze” user accounts to identify account sharing.

Push for profits

Disney CEO Bob Iger first hinted at a Disney streaming-password crackdown in August during an earnings call. He highlighted a “significant” amount of password sharing among Disney-owned streaming services and said Disney had “the technical capability to monitor much of this.” The executive hopes a password crackdown will help drive subscribers and push profits to Netflix-like status. Disney is aiming to make its overall streaming services business profitable by the end of 2024.

In November, it was reported that Disney+ had lost $11 billion since launching in November 2019. The streaming service has sought to grow revenue by increasing prices and encouraging users to join its subscription tier with commercials, which is said to bring streaming services higher average revenue per user (ARPU) than non-ad plans.

Hulu, which Disney will soon own completely, has been profitable in the past, and in Disney’s most recent financial quarter, it had a higher monthly ARPU than Disney+. Yet, Hulu has far fewer subscribers than Disney+ (48.5 million versus 150.2 million). Cracking down on Hulu password sharing is an obvious way for Disney to try to squeeze more money from the more financially successful streaming service.

Such moves run the risk of driving away users. However, Hulu, like Netflix, may be able to win over longtime users who have gotten accustomed to having easy access to Hulu, even if they weren’t paying for it. Disney+, meanwhile, is a newer service, so a change in policy may not feel as jarring to some.

Netflix, which allowed account sharing for years, has seen success with its password crackdown, saying in November that the efforts helped it add 8.8 million subscribers. Unlike the Disney-owned streaming services, though, Netflix allows people to add extra members to their non-ad subscription (in the US, Netflix charges $7.99 per person per month).

As Disney embarks on an uphill climb to make streaming successful this year, you can expect it to continue following the leader while also trying to compete with it. Around the same time as the password-sharing ban takes full effect, Disney should also unveil a combined Hulu-Disney+ app, a rare attempt at improving a streaming service that doesn’t center on pulling additional monthly dollars from customers.

Hulu, Disney+ password crackdown kills account sharing on March 14 Read More »

netflix,-hungry-for-more-growth,-signals-more-price-hikes

Netflix, hungry for more growth, signals more price hikes

“pay a little extra” —

Basic ad-free plan being ripped from subscribers in Canada, UK first.

Jason Bateman and Laura Linney in Ozark

Enlarge / Jason Bateman and Laura Linney in the Netflix original series Ozark.

Netflix subscribers can expect more price hikes as the company looks to grow revenue in 2024. In its Q4 2023 letter to shareholders, Netflix also revealed plans to eliminate the cheapest ad-free plan available to users.

In the January 23 letter (PDF), Netflix said:

As we invest in and improve Netflix, we’ll occasionally ask our members to pay a little extra to reflect those improvements, which in turn helps drive the positive flywheel of additional investment to further improve and grow our service.

The statement will be unsavory for frugal streamers who have recently endured price hikes from Netflix and other streaming services. In January 2022, Netflix increased the price of its Basic no-ads tier from $8.99 per month to $9.99/month. In October 2023, that same plan went up to $11.99/month. Meanwhile, Netflix’s Premium ad-free plan increased from $17.99/month to $19.99/month in January 2022 and then to $22.99/month in October.

Netflix has attributed its price hikes to added features, like 4K streaming and gaming. But subscription fees remain the biggest source of revenue for Netflix, giving it obvious reason to leave a door open for even more price hikes in the near future.

Netflix has also used price hikes to encourage users to subscribe to its ad tier, where it has made more average revenue per user. Netflix with ads has cost $6.99/month since launching in November 2022 and has seen feature improvements, like moving from 720p resolution streams to 1080p.

Killing off the cheapest ad-free plan

In another attempt to push subscribers into watching ads on Netflix, the streaming company stopped offering new subscribers the aforementioned $11.99/month, ad-free Basic plan. It included 720p resolution, downloadable content, and support for one device. The change spiked the cheapest price for ad-free Netflix 55.06 percent to $15.49/month.

Netflix customers who were already subscribed to the ad-less Basic plan have been allowed to keep using it. But it seems like that grace period will soon end.

Netflix’s letter reads:

The ads plan now accounts for 40 percent of all Netflix sign-ups in our ads markets and we’re looking to retire our Basic plan in some of our ads countries, starting with Canada and the UK in Q2 and taking it from there.

Netflix originally cut the Basic plan in Canada before following suit in the US and UK. Combined with the fact that most of Netflix’s North American users are from the US, it’s expected that Netflix will cut the Basic plan in the US, too.

Netflix’s letter said ad membership grew when it stopped offering the Basic ad-free plan to new subscribers. Ad tier membership grew almost 70 percent quarter over quarter in Q4 2023. The tier has over 23 million subscribers, per Bloomberg.

During an earnings call on Tuesday, Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters noted Netflix’s 2024 priorities as including “pricing optimization” to help improve operating margins and grow revenue and its ad business.

Netflix’s ad business: years of work ahead

Netflix said this week that it has 260.28 million subscribers globally (for comparison, Disney+ has 66.1 million subscribers, Hulu 48.5 million, and Amazon Prime Video is estimated to have about 180.1 million). That’s after adding 13.1 million subscribers in Q4 2023, Netflix’s biggest Q4 yet.

But despite currently besting competitors in subscriber count and cash flow, Netflix faces similar challenges when it comes to wooing advertisers that may be unaccustomed to working with streaming services (which previously had limited advertising opportunities). While Netflix has seen revenue grow from other efforts, like password crackdowns and price hikes, it plans to focus heavily on scaling its ad business over the coming years.

“I’d say we got years of work ahead of us to take the ads business to the point where it’s a material impactor to our general business,” Peters said.

Netflix is already trying to strong-arm customers onto its ad plan. The streaming bundle plan that T-Mobile offers will no longer include ad-free Netflix. Anyone who had ad-less Netflix through a T-Mobile bundle is getting downgraded. Peters said this week that under the previous bundle, “it was hard to make the economics work for everyone.”

Ultimately, the amount of ad dollars up for grabs, including from the declining linear TV networks, is too tasty for streaming services to pass up.

On Tuesday, Netflix announced a $5 billion, 10-year deal to stream World Wrestling Entertainment’s (WWE’s) Raw live on Netflix. The company was able to win a deal out from long-time Raw network USA, which is owned by NBCUniversal. NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service also has the rights to some WWE events. But Netflix’s seizure of Raw illustrates its interest in ad dollars from live sports and its pull and budget compared to aging broadcast and cable networks. Looking ahead, we expect to see Netflix consider additional live events that can appeal to advertisers.

Netflix said this week that it’s not anticipating the same amount of subscriber growth that it enjoyed in 2023 in 2024. But it does expect double-digit revenue growth. That newfound money has to come from somewhere. If Netflix can’t pull it all from new subscribers, it will force it out of existing customers through higher prices and ads.

Netflix, hungry for more growth, signals more price hikes Read More »

it’s-“shakeout”-time-as-losses-of-netflix-rivals-top-$5-billion

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion

Not so great for consumers —

Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.

An NBC peacock logo is on the loose and hiding behind the corner of a brick building.

The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.

Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Comcast and Paramount—US entertainment conglomerates that have been growing ever larger for decades—are facing pressure to shrink or sell legacy businesses, scale back production and slash costs following billions in losses from their digital platforms.

Shari Redstone, Paramount’s billionaire controlling shareholder, has effectively put the company on the block in recent weeks. She has held talks about selling the Hollywood studio to Skydance, the production company behind Top Gun: Maverick, people familiar with the matter say.

Paramount chief executive Bob Bakish also discussed a possible combination over lunch with Warner CEO David Zaslav in mid-December. In both cases the discussions were said to be at an early stage and people familiar with the talks cautioned that a deal might not materialize.

Beyond their streaming losses, the traditional media groups are facing a weak advertising market, declining television revenues and higher production costs following the Hollywood strikes.

Rich Greenfield, an analyst at LightShed Partners, said Paramount’s deal discussions were a reflection of the “complete and utter panic” in the industry.

“TV advertising is falling far short, cord-cutting is continuing to accelerate, sports costs are going up and the movie business is not performing,” he said. “Everything is going wrong that can go wrong. The only thing [the companies] know how to do to survive is try to merge and cut costs.”

But as the traditional media owners struggle, Netflix, the tech group that pioneered the streaming model over a decade ago, has emerged as the winner of the battle to reshape video distribution.

“For much of the past four years, the entertainment industry spent money like drunken sailors to fight the first salvos of the streaming wars,” analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in November. “Now, we are finally starting to feel the hangover and the weight of the unpaid bar bill.”

For companies that have been trying to compete with Netflix, Nathanson added, “the shakeout has begun.”

After a bumpy 2022, Netflix has set itself apart from rivals—most notably by being profitable. Earnings for its most recent quarter soared past Wall Street’s expectations as it added 9 million new subscribers—the strongest rise since early 2020, when Covid-19 lockdowns led to a jump.

“Netflix has pulled away,” says John Martin, co-founder of Pugilist Capital and former chief executive of Turner Broadcasting. For its rivals, he said, the question is “how do you create a viable streaming service with a viable business model? Because they’re not working.”

The leading streaming services aggressively raised prices in 2023. Now, analysts, investors and executives predict that consolidation could be ahead next year as some of the smaller services combine or bow out of the streaming wars.

Warner, home to HBO and the Warner Bros movie studio, has made a small profit at its US streaming services this year, in part by raising prices, aggressively culling some series and licensing others to Netflix. However, this has come at a price: Warner lost more than 2 million streaming subscribers in its two most recent quarters.

The company, which merged with rival Discovery last year, has long been rumored as a potential takeover candidate, with Comcast seen as the most likely buyer. But Zaslav in November hinted that his group wanted to be an acquirer instead of a target.

“There are a lot of . . . excess players in the market. So, this will give us a chance not only to fight to grow in the next year, but to have the kind of balance sheet and the kind of stability . . . that we could be really opportunistic over the next 12 to 24 months,” he said on an earnings call.

The terms of the Warner-Discovery merger barred the group from dealmaking for two years. That period expires on April 8.

Disney, the largest traditional media company, is in the midst of a gutting restructuring that has featured 7,000 job cuts and attacks from activist investors. It lost more than $1.6 billion from its streaming businesses in the first nine months of 2023, during which its Disney+ service gained 8 million subscribers. The company says it will turn a profit in streaming in late 2024.

Bob Iger, Disney chief executive, this year openly pondered whether some of its assets still fit within the company, prompting speculation that he was considering disposals. But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.

Paramount’s shares have risen almost 40 percent since early November as sale speculation mounted. The stock rose sharply after the Skydance talks were reported, but both Paramount and Warner shares fell after news of their discussions came to light.

Analysts said the two companies’ high debt levels were an immediate concern for investors. “We suspect investors will focus on pro forma leverage above all else,” Citi analysts wrote in a note last week. They estimated that an all-stock combination of Warner and Paramount could yield at least $1 billion of synergies.

But Greenfield said merging two companies with lossmaking streaming services and large portfolios of declining television assets was not the answer to their problems.

“The right answer should be, let’s stop trying to be in the streaming business,” he said. “The answer is, let’s get smaller and focused and stop trying to be a huge company. Let’s dramatically shrink.”

© 2023 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion Read More »

debt-laden-warner-bros.-discovery-and-paramount-consider-merger

Debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount consider merger

Game of Thrones

Enlarge / Media firms are looking for allies to help them take the coveted media throne.

The CEOs of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Paramount Global discussed a potential merger on Tuesday, according to a report from Axios citing “multiple” anonymous sources. No formal talks are underway yet, according to The Wall Street Journal. But the discussions look like the start of consolidation discussions for the media industry during a tumultuous time of forced evolution.

On Wednesday, Axios reported that WBD head David Zaslav and Paramount head Bob Bakish met in Paramount’s New York City headquarters for “several hours.”

Zaslav and Shari Redstone, owner of Paramount’s parent company National Amusements Inc (NAI), have also spoken, Axios claimed.

One of the publication’s sources said a WBD acquisition of NAI, rather than only Paramount Global, is possible.

Talks to unite the likes of Paramount’s film studio, Paramount+ streaming service, and TV networks (including CBS, BET, Nickelodeon, and Showtime) with WBD’s Max streaming service, CNN, Cinemax, and DC Comics properties are reportedly just talks, but Axios said WBD “hired bankers to explore the deal.”

It’s worth noting that WBD will suffer a big tax hit if it engages in merger and acquisition activity before April 8 due to a tax formality related to Discovery’s merger with WarnerMedia (which formed Warner Bros. Discovery) in 2022.

A union of debts

Besides the reported talks being in very early stages, there are reasons to be skeptical about a WBD and Paramount merger. The biggest one? Debt.

The New York Times notes that WBD has $40 billion in debt and $5 billion in free cash flow. Paramount, meanwhile, has $15 billion in debt and a negative cash flow. Zaslav has grown infamous for slashing titles and even enacting layoffs to save costs. But WBD is eyeing greener pastures and declared Max as “getting slightly profitable” in October. Adding more debt to WBD’s plate could be viewed as a step backward.

Additionally, Paramount is even more connected to old, flailing forms of media than WBD, as noted by The Information, which pointed to two-thirds of Paramount’s revenue coming from traditional TV networks.

Antitrust concerns could also impact such a deal.

WBD stocks closed down 5.7 percent, and Paramount’s closed down 2 percent after Axios’ report broke.

Of course, these details about a potential merger may have been reported because WBD and/or Paramount want us to know about it so that they can gauge market reaction and/or entice other media companies to discuss potential deals.

Debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount consider merger Read More »

the-best-new-movies-you-can-watch-at-home-right-now

The best new movies you can watch at home right now

internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 905 throw err; ^ Error: Cannot find module ‘puppeteer’ Require stack: – /home/760439.cloudwaysapps.com/jxzdkzvxkw/public_html/wp-content/plugins/rss-feed-post-generator-echo/res/puppeteer/puppeteer.js at Function.Module._resolveFilename (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 902: 15) at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 746: 27) at Module.require (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 974: 19) at require (internal/modules/cjs/helpers.js: 101: 18) at Object. (/home/760439.cloudwaysapps.com/jxzdkzvxkw/public_html/wp-content/plugins/rss-feed-post-generator-echo/res/puppeteer/puppeteer.js:2: 19) at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 1085: 14) at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 1114: 10) at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 950: 32) at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js: 790: 12) at Function.executeUserEntryPoint [as runMain] (internal/modules/run_main.js: 75: 12) code: ‘MODULE_NOT_FOUND’, requireStack: [ ‘/home/760439.cloudwaysapps.com/jxzdkzvxkw/public_html/wp-content/plugins/rss-feed-post-generator-echo/res/puppeteer/puppeteer.js’ ]

The best new movies you can watch at home right now Read More »