Hide BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to check out our fundraiser »

Streaming TV Enshittification Will Continue Until Morale Improves

from the pay-more-for-less dept

We’ve documented in detail how the whole AT&T–>Time Warner–>Warner Brothers Discovery merger process has been a pointless mess, resulting in no limits of layoffs and damage to the underlying brands. What was supposed to be a gambit by these companies to dominate streaming TV, wound up being a very expensive act of seppuku by over-compensated executives clearly out of their depths.

With streaming subscription growth saturated, the market has been forced to get “creative” in order to feed Wall Street its expected quarterly returns. That has meant sagging quality control for streaming services like Max, and a steady parade of price hikes that generally haven’t been worth it.

Speaking on the company’s recent conference call, Time Warner Discovery executives are making it clear that all manner of new restrictions and price hikes are on the way, just in case you were looking forward to more of that sort of thing. Among them will be a crackdown on the diabolical “password sharing” the industry used to view as helpful free advertising:

“During the earnings call for parent company Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for its fiscal Q3 2024, which ended on September 30, WBD signaled that it’s gearing up to roll out its next strategy for growing streaming revenue—charging subscribers extra for sharing passwords—over the next few months. This will start with “very soft messaging” toward Max users before the crackdown intensifies in 2025 and 2026, WBD CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels said.

Wiedenfels admitted that on their own, password crackdowns are “a form of price rises.”

Executives say they’re also exploring, like Amazon, steadily increasing the number of ads paying customers see. And they will, of course, just be rising prices steadily until they see a mass exodus of subscribers:

“WBD also hinted at potential price hikes for Max today. During the earnings call, JB Perrette, WBD’s CEO and president of global streaming and games, noted that although Max has raised US subscription prices twice in the past two years, WBD believes it can get away with even higher prices: “We think the premium nature of our product in particular lends us to be – to have a fair amount of room to continue to push price.”

Except the “premium nature” of the product doesn’t exist anymore. Any cachet enjoyed from the HBO brand has largely been killed off thanks to executives’ prioritization of lower-quality reality TV dreck as they pursue lowest common denominator engagement bait at scale. There’s still occasionally good art on Max; but the heyday of HBO as a prestige production empire is long, long dead.

Meanwhile the kind of things that customers actually want (lower prices, better quality, better customer service) cost money and erode those sweet quarterly returns. The kinds of things customers and labor don’t want (price hikes, sagging quality, layoffs, weird new restrictions on access) are where the current growth and revenue boosting resides. So guess what you’re going to get.

It’s not enough for a publicly traded company to provide an affordable product that people really like. That doesn’t achieve exponential, impossible growth. To get that (or the illusion of that) requires a certain aggressive creativity. And if streaming can’t obtain it via annoying price hikes and restrictions, as Time Warner Discovery CEO David Zaslav has made clear, they’ll achieve it with pointless new harmful mergers under Trump. These folks insist they’re just engaging in the cold calculus of cost efficiency, but you’ll notice that excessive and unwarranted executive compensation somehow always avoids scrutiny.

Again, I suspect what’s next for the industry is a whole bunch more consolidation and mergers to try and minimize any serious price competition and to nab tax breaks. From there I suspect you’ll start seeing a greater fixation on finding creative new ways to “reduce churn,” which will likely (now that the FTC will be lobotomized under Trump) include complicated new tricks to make cancelling services more difficult.

When customers inevitably revolt and flock back to piracy (which is already starting to happen), execs will freak out and blame everyone but themselves for the trend (VPNs! Generational entitlement! The wokes!), and the innovation and disruption cycle will repeat itself all over again.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: warner bros. discovery

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Streaming TV Enshittification Will Continue Until Morale Improves”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
55 Comments
Ninja says:

I share my streaming stuff with my partner. Thing is, because of my stepdaughter education I live in 2 different addresses. Since I’d have to pay added fees for more than one service I decided a vpn was the least expensive way to deal with the issue for now. Customer service was utterly useless to deal with this on all of them.

I already canceled Netflix because of the price hikes and because the content isn’t worth it and from the looks of it more services are joining it soon. I’m already planning some Plex setup for the kid because we all know where this shit is going to.

Anonymous Coward says:

The “premium nature” of the product seems to only be the price.
By this logic, the more customers pay, the more it’s worth. And since every service raise their price, the more the market worth.
But how to explain to customers that they need to pay to please shareholders they don’t even know? Well, just ask Trump to declare that cancelling a subscription is illegal.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

execs will freak out and blame everyone but themselves for the trend (VPNs! Generational entitlement! The wokes!)

Woke decline wasn’t evident until this past year or late 2023 at earliest. The spastic woke energy that erupted after George Floyd’s death was purposefully directed into the institutions over the next 24 months and then plateaued late 2023 to early 2024 and then started on a slight downward gradient until 10/7.

I don’t think Trump will calm things down. But this time I think there are people in his orbit who ‘get it’ and will be very capable and aggressive in terms of how they use the bureaucracy and administrative law.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Woke Bloke? says:

Re:

Is it too “woke” to provide healthcare to pregnant women who experience difficulties during child gestation?

Why is it that so many maga men want to see all women suffer and die needlessly? Is it “woke” to be offended by such hateful actions?

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

No, not unless. If the baby is born, then the legal requirement for care is there. And killing a baby is murder. And not something that typically happens.

If the fetus is aborted by the 12th week, as most that don’t come to term are, it’s not a baby and it doesn’t have consciousness, sentience, a fully developed nervous system, extra-womb viability, or legal rights.

It’s extra helpful when discussing these things if you don’t conflate a significantly different stage of development and viability using vague language.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why do you want men punching women in the face and call it “sport?”

The only reason you give a shit about women’s sports is so you can exclude a mere handful of people from it. You wouldn’t give a shit otherwise. Hell, you don’t even seem to give a shit about the idea of “biological women” playing in men’s sports⁠—and that’s because I’ve never seen anyone who rails against trans women do the same schtick for trans men.

It really is all about penises and who’s “allowed” to have them, isn’t it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

It’s a social construct and always has been.

There are variations in chromosomal makeup, which is what bigots claim are the source of “there are only two genders or sexes,” which they conflate as the same thing, but the variations mean there must be more than two sexes since there are more than two chromosomal makeups. There are also hormonal differences (in that a person with XY chromosomes can hormonally be “female”). There are gonadal dysgenesis syndromes such that a woman assigned female at birth can develop female secondary sex characteristics in puberty, have a womb, and some even can get pregnant, but would chromosomally be considered male due to the presence of a Y chromosome.

It’s been a useful fiction that was close enough for most people to live with and for some ancient societies without scientific knowledge to make up myths about their deities defining sex/gender as binary because they didn’t know any better. The absurdity is that we currently have scientific research that can indicate otherwise, but bigots would rather defer to translated accounts from scientifically illiterate superstitious tribal people from several thousand years ago instead.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Except sex itself isn’t even binary, as I pointed out. If you determine sex by chromosomes, then there are more than two sexes because there are more than two chromosomal makeups.

You might be surprised to learn that people don’t only transition FTM or MTF. Apparently you should do some more research.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Science is the opposite of a cult.

That you think your down home country Victorian era sense of biology is good enough to understand anything would be concerning if it were novel.

As it is, the projection on cult membership is quite amusing.

Good luck with those demons you think are causing your stomach upset.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

You’re confusing sexual orientation with sex and gender. Also, nothing I said would erase bisexual people anyway because none of it was incompatible with their existence.

This also demonstrates your blatant, but clumsy attempt at weaponizing the language of inclusion when you don’t give a damn about the people you weaponize.

John85851 (profile) says:

Why do people put up with it?

In the old days, TV programs were free to the viewer because networks ran ads. We all accepted the increasing interruptions because we weren’t paying for the content.
Then we got tired of ads and decided to pay networks to show up content without ads, which led to cable channels such HBO, Showtime, and so on. Then it let to services like Netflix, which had movies and TV shows in one place.

But now we have to pay for content AND watch commercials? AND the length of the commercials is as long as, or LONGER THAN, networks TV??
How long will it take until people stop putting up with it? Do the executives not realize that pay services are not essential and it’s only a matter of time before people think the service isn’t worth the money?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

We all accepted the increasing interruptions because we weren’t paying for the content.

No; it was accepted because there was no other choice. If you went to a movie theater, you’d see ads (some called “trailers” because they used to run after the movie, till the advertisers realized everyone was leaving without watching them; and since 1990 or so, there are also just regular paid ads). Books would often have ads for other books by the same author or publisher. Magazines and newspapers were full of advertising, and also abused their subscribers by selling their data to postal and telephone spammers. TV shows were only distributed on advertising-supported networks, whether or not you were paying a cable provider for them, and were never sold; same for radio shows.

When networks like HBO and Showtime came around, a small number of people were willing to pay because there were shows they couldn’t get elsewhere; being ad-free was mostly a bonus. Some of the “premium” networks were themselves initially “bonuses” (or forced subscriptions, depending on your point of view) included with cable TV. Similarly for streaming services: they were sold on the basis of being convenient (lots of stuff to watch, no schedules), not being ad-free; and some, notably Amazon, were bundled with unrelated subscriptions.

Add Your Comment

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

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...