Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Says HBO Max is 'Way Underpriced' (theverge.com) 70
An anonymous reader shares a report: Everyone's favorite CEO, Warner Bros. Discovery head David Zaslav, thinks HBO Max is ripe for a price hike. Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia and Technology Conference (doesn't that sound like a fun time?) Zaslav argued that his company's premium output can command a premium price.
"The fact that this is quality -- and that's true across our company, motion picture, TV production and and streaming quality -- we all we think that gives us a chance to raise price," he said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "We think we're way underpriced." The recently re-re-branded HBO Max currently starts at $9.99 per month, including ads, peaking at $20.99 per month for its premium plan, roughly in line with its rivals.
"The fact that this is quality -- and that's true across our company, motion picture, TV production and and streaming quality -- we all we think that gives us a chance to raise price," he said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "We think we're way underpriced." The recently re-re-branded HBO Max currently starts at $9.99 per month, including ads, peaking at $20.99 per month for its premium plan, roughly in line with its rivals.
It's way under priced (Score:5, Funny)
I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
Re:It's way under priced (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
Same for me.
HBO can charge whatever they want. You either pay it or you don't. I don't. Nobody needs HBO. Stop paying them and they will be forced to lower the price. It's that simple.
Already not paying it.
$9.99 with ads is way overpriced. Does this clown honestly think I'll pay them to shove ads at me? I'd maybe consider $9.99 with no ads. I'd certainly be okay with zero with ads, though I probably won't watch it any more than I watch my free-with-Walmart-Plus Paramount+ subscription with ads, which is to say approximately never.
If your service shows ads, I'm the product, and I'm not going to pay you to be the product.
Re:It's way under priced (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
Same for me.
HBO can charge whatever they want. You either pay it or you don't. I don't. Nobody needs HBO. Stop paying them and they will be forced to lower the price. It's that simple.
This is why I have zero for-pay streaming services. Until they offer something compelling for a price I can accept, I nope out. Too many seem to think these are necessary for survival, or at least talk as if they think they are, and they just aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I have zero for-pay streaming services. Until they offer something compelling for a price I can accept, I nope out. Too many seem to think these are necessary for survival, or at least talk as if they think they are, and they just aren't.
There is quite a lot of room in between not getting it, and "thinking it is necessary for survival".
Most people just think "it is something compelling for a price they can accept". They just have different opinions than you of what is compelling and what is a price they can accept.
A month of ad free TV costs about the same as two beers at a pub around here, and less than a movie ticket. For a lot of people it probably don't need to be super compelling before that is a price they can accept.
Re:It's way under priced (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't remember the last time I pirated something from HBO MAX, let alone paid for it. What shows do they even have?
Does Max even have much content? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there much on max that will keep people subscribed?
I imagine that a price hike would just drive more people to become transients; subscribing for a month each year or two to watch the new stuff, and then cancelling.
Of course, that is what I do with all streaming, so that's just kind of how the world looks to me. I realize that many other people watch stuff a lot more than I do, so maybe they will stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. If I had the choice of paying $21 for Max, or $10 for Apple TV, I know which of the two premium services I'd be choosing.
Re:Does Max even have much content? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have AppleTV+.
My only complaint is that they take SO FUCKING LONG to release a new "season" and that seasons are only 8-10 episodes.
But I have that same complaint about all streaming services.
Re:Does Max even have much content? (Score:4, Informative)
8-10 episodes per "season" seems to be the new standard across all streaming services. It feels like a cruel joke to people who knew 26 episode seasons were once a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Drinker just had a video on this topic.
He also covers the way every episode is part of the "grand arc" now, stand alone stories have disappeared.
Re: (Score:3)
My SO and I were talking the other day, and your “Grand Arc” comment mirrors my own question: Do people nowadays even know what a “Mini Series” even is? Hell, do they still have them at all!?
Shows used to run for 26+ episodes a season, always starting in the Fall. So when “Mini Series” were introduced, it was an amazing thing! They were like a really long movie, but unlike the series of the day. they told (a) cohesive storyline(s) across the entire “Mini Series.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, it was a bit before my time but - in the 1960s, some TV series had 30-episode seasons.
Re: (Score:2)
It is. I read a thing on it a while back. Among other reasons, one given was that "newer generations" prefer shorter seasons, so they don't have to pay attention for longer periods of time, such as across 24 episodes. So their dipshit damaged attention spans fuck over everyone else.
Other reasons are things like higher production values require more time to create content, so there less content can be developed within a given time frame, and of course the cost of production.
I get the cost arguments...but ho
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the production costs because how many episodes across however many seasons doesn't really matter unless you treat a "season" as a full story arc (which many do, understandably). Star Trekk, I can't recall which episodes happen in most seasons though I do remember all the episodes. They had a much loser overall arc going on and you had "episode" of the week that could of aired at any time.
Also, it makes sense you would have more episodes per season if your season is Fall/Winter aligned nicely wi
Re: (Score:2)
In the 70's, 80's and (early) 90's you hadn't much HD. Now I have seen a Bluray season of Buck Rogers season 1 recently and the sets look horrible in 4K. Even with 1080p you see so much tarnishes, paint errors, dents and broken elements in the set. Which wasn't a problem on low-res TV. So yeah, production costs has risen by a lot.
You are correct about the myriad of ways to consume content. There are only so much hours in the day to spend on that activity, so it is a lot harder to get "eye-balls" now then it
Re: (Score:2)
So their dipshit damaged attention spans fuck over everyone else.
That's assuming it is actually true in the first place though, doesn't it? Wouldn't just bying into this without question be at the least part of the problem (seeing companies are not immune to bending the truth or outright lying)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like we're moving to the UK model.
Re: (Score:3)
8-10 episodes per "season" seems to be the new standard across all streaming services. It feels like a cruel joke to people who knew 26 episode seasons were once a thing.
I think it's a symptom of streaming services. They want to offer a massively wide variety of shows to try and capture as much of the market as possible, which means a large number of titles. But money and human resources (writers, actors, directors, etc) are still finite, so now they spread those resources across twice or three times as many shows as they used to back in the 24/26 episode seasons. Then multiply this across a dozen different "platforms". So now we get 8 or 10 episodes per "season".
Add to
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming kinda ruined dramatic TV.
Before streaming took off the traditional networks had gone all in on reality TV and scripted television was generally shit. While we could use more episodic shows I'd say streaming saved scripted TV. Even with the streaming companies cutting back on content creation right now I still feel we are better off then we were before them.
Plus, just look at how TV production values have improved since the streaming companies got involved.
Re: (Score:2)
To my understanding there is the "rule" in series-land, around the 3th/4th season, the actors get a lot more say in the series and also more residuals. So, if the series is doing well, but not that well compared to production costs...than it is cheaper for the studio to stop after the second or third season.
I agree with you that the "streamers" were not the blessing they promised to be. But the above is part of the way how Hollywood has done business for many, many years. Even before the "streamers".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I rather have 8-10 good episodes than 26 with a lot of "filler". And in the beginning of this trend that was also the case. Nowadays the drastically shorter seasons also contain more and more "filler". So by now it is the worst of two worlds. For the viewer it certainly is. But I suspect also for the actors/producers/writers/studios I expect the shorter seasons to be detrimental. Storage of sets for series that run only 20% of the year, that must cost a lot. Building and rebuilding as alternative for
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really doesn't. I cancelled a few weeks ago.
if they want to charge more and make better content, or expand their library, and offer their current release movies, I'll think about it. But right now it's shit at any price.
I'll take it for free (Score:2)
The only reason I still have streaming services is that I get them for free with my cell phone and Walmart plans. I might even try them sometime.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't really getting them for free. You are paying for bundled services.
I wish i could decouple Prime video from Prime shipping.
This is the only paid streaming service I subscribe to. The Katherine one is called torrents.
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't that the true.
I may not get any "free" streaming with my cell phone plan, but I also only pay $12.48/month for it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's just great.
No you got me heading over to walmart to see if I can get a reasonable rate for my phone.
I hope you're happy!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm here to serve.
FWIW, I use US Mobile and I have the unlimited minutes and text plan.
Some of their plans have a discount if you pay for a full year in advance instead of monthly, but I don't think mine does.
Flip that and reverse it (Score:2)
FUBD (Score:2)
They're right, it's priceless!
.sig does not apply in this case.
I have it and almost never watch it (Score:2)
There is very little that interests me, and it would be really easy to quit
\o/ (Score:1)
Someone needs to run to the store for more cool aid.
That must be... (Score:5, Funny)
That must be why I recently dropped my subscription. I couldn't take getting such a good deal anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just need you to cover the cost of shipping. And the trophy. Plus a little extra for me so I can continue giving away these amazing prizes. Let's call it $250.
Ad (Score:3)
Is this an ad?
But... this other ad disguised as an article says Apple TV+ is the new HBO!
https://www.wired.com/story/ap... [wired.com]
How can I, as a lowly consumer, make an informed decision and choose the one that's best for me?
Re: (Score:3)
Is this an ad?
But... this other ad disguised as an article says Apple TV+ is the new HBO!
https://www.wired.com/story/ap... [wired.com]
How can I, as a lowly consumer, make an informed decision and choose the one that's best for me?
You need both to survive. If you don't have them, think of how many fun conversations you'll miss out on bitching about how crap the latest episode of tits and dragons was, or how much you hated the twist ending to the latest big producer name made AppleTV series?
Re: (Score:2)
If HBO can't raise their prices, how long do you think HBO will do some cost-cutting and just do dragons with tits?
Well... (Score:2)
I'll always remember him as the man who tried to kill Big Bird because he didn't want to pay residuals.
So this is just stupid (Score:2)
The fact that this is coming up is actually a pretty bad sign for the overall economy and hell our entire society.
More and more we see businesses abandoning the model of selling to as many people as possible and you see the Apple model where you sell at a very very high price to a handful of individuals able to pay.
That's p
No it isn't (Score:2)
They were worth it at 5.99$ without adds (Score:1)
They were worth it at 5.99$ without adds, but only for the first 6 months at 2.99$. I stopped buying streaming services when they started sticking adds in them. 20$ A MONTH for one of these fragmented services, even without adds, is too much.
Question for you people (Score:3)
Suppose there were a service, let's call it "All-In Streaming" that cost $100/month. It provides access to ten content libraries (named below). On the backend, the fees would be distributed to the various content providers, based on their contribution to watch time. For example, if a user spends 20% of their time watching AppleTV+, 50% of their time on Prime Video, 10% of their time on Peacock, etc, then that user's $100 would be distributed accordingly (minus a 10% fee retained by All-In Streaming). This rewards content providers for investing in content people want to watch and avoids services "freeloading" on the quality providers.
All-In requires a 2 year contract/commitment to join, yielding a cost of $2400 over the 2 year period, with payments are due monthly. There is a 10% discount for two annual $1080 payments and a 20% discount for paying $1920 up front. There are no advertisements. All-In Streaming is free to use viewing data for any purpose it wants, including selling it to 3rd parties (in other words, what you watch and when is knowable to anyone willing to pay for that information). You could also pay an additional $250/year to NOT allow access to your viewing data to any party other than All-In Streaming.
The service provides access to the following ten content libraries, with 2 simultaneous streams permitted:
HBO Max
Apple TV+
Disney+
Hulu
Amazon Prime Video
Netflix
Paramount Plus
Peacock
Britbox
Starz
Is this something you would pay for?
Me? I would. And I'd pay the entire amount due up front to get the 20% discount. I would NOT pay the extra fee to keep my viewing data private, as I could not care less if people know what I'm watching.
Re: (Score:3)
I sort of expected you to say 'let's call it "cable"'. Personally, I wouldn't pay $100 for that because each entity just doesn't have enough content to justify giving them $8/month all year round.
While it's a trifle inconvenient, I'm a transient subscriber to most of those. At any given time, I'm subscribing to 2-4 of them (excluding Peacock, which I get for free). So from my point of view, I'm paying ~ $40/month and get to see everything that they offer and I'm interested in.
I do have to admit we are tryin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on transience. That's how I treat some services, like Disney+ and HBO. But I'm a permanent resident on Prime Video and AppleTV+, primarily because they're bundled in with other things I'm paying for.
I look at things in terms of hourly cost.
Fundamentally, what is media-based entertainment worth? Personally, I don't think $5/hr is unreasonable. And mind you, that's for any number of people, not $5/hr/person.
So, at $5/hr, I divide the number of hours watched monthly and if it comes out to $5/hr or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be skeptical that the "no advertisment" claim could be met, and would wait to see if it turned out to be real. Even if it were true for the firrst year, I would worry that the provider of this service would eventually start running ads to improve his revenue. Thus, I would likely subscribe month-to-month so I could cancel if the advertising load became too heavy.
Any movie made during the 20th century is owned by one of the big studios, as are many movies made since. However, there is a lot of mov
Must be collusion somewhere (Score:2)
It seems like each streaming service comes out with a new series when none of the others does in order to string you along thinking that something else good might magically appear.
Is this guy for real? (Score:2)
Well, I guess he'll find out (Score:2)
Didn't the government bailout Goldman Sachs? (Score:2)
Underpriced for under content. (Score:2)
Maybe if they just gave GoT last seasons one more try, or the complete disaster of Last of Us.
Honestly, John Oliver is your strongest content generator, and that is incredibly sad.
And this is what I predicted years ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
I predicted years ago that as every content provider wanted to build out their own streaming service and balkanize everything - eventually they will think that they are worth more than they are, raise their prices (proportionally reducing their subscriber numbers) and end up making less money than they did before the price hike. Eventually they get tired of operating at a loss and shut their service down and go back to licensing to other service operators who can leverage their running overhead across multiple content providers to deliver a better service at lower cost (Netflix).
The writing has been on the wall for a long time, and these people have not learned from the recording industry that did the same stupid shit, and all they did was take money out of their own pockets and increase piracy rates.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... people literally demanded this. Remember "cable unbundling?" "Why should I pay for a package of 1000 channels I never watch, I only want to pay for the ones I do." Well, now you get to pay separately for Disney, and Amazon, and Netflix, and HBO, and...
And no, I'm not okay with this, and if prices continue to climb I will likely end up giving my money to one of those shady IPTV services that are probably run by Russian organized crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... people literally demanded this. Remember "cable unbundling?"
Horseshit.
Asking for more options, more diversity in options isn't necessarily asking for THIS, THIS is a way it manifests itself - but not THE ONLY way it can manifest itself at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part, at least as I see it, is that the big argument about unbundling always came down to sports. I never understood the arguments, but ESPN was at the heart of it. And I still can't get away from ESPN, because the cheapest Hulu bundle is with Disney and ESPN.
Is it overpriced? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So jack it up... (Score:3)
One month a year- for 24 Hours of Lemans (Score:2)
I join to watch the 24 Hours of Lemans, over several days. During that month I may binge a show or watch some movies, then done.
Same with Peacock, I join for July to watch the Tour de France. Their other programming is tremendously terrible (and commercial laden), and who has time for that when the tour is 4-6 hours a day... (great background noise)
Stutter, ads. (Score:2)
Delete those and I'll go another 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
One good show (Score:2)
Hello Pirate Bay.... (Score:2)
Correction (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:2)