Peacock is a Nightmare For NBC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2024
- This video is sponsored by Brilliant. To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/midnight or click on the link in the description. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Peacock is NBC Universal's streaming service, featuring everything from The Office to Twisted Metal. And it's not doing well! In this video, I go over where Peacock is worse off than Netflix, Max and Paramount Plus, as well as why they're all in trouble.
Music by Epidemic Sound (www.epidemicsound.com)
Follow me on Twitter: / midnightcap
Follow me on Facebook: / midnightcap
Special thanks to Andrew Elliott (Stalli111: / stalli111 ) for editing this video.
![Rank High in Arena using F2P Anti-Meta units [AFK Journey]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zBOMb3ciS8c/mqdefault.jpg)
What's your most used big streaming service?
To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/midnight
Midnight Edge made a fantastic Live on streaming with some expert. The loses, the future, etc....
Some streaming looses 7 millions per day. Disney+ losses billions per year.
"Universal Losing $7 Million a Day on Streaming?!? George Lucas To Return To Star Wars? & More"
You are realllllly undervaluing how important the WWE is to Peacock. I know many ppl who bought peacock just for wrestlemania
Peacock crushes the rest in terms of what I watch. Netflix has a boat load of nothing most of the time. Max and Amazon I only ever watch for big shows like Reacher, The Boys, Last of Us, HoD, etc. and once the season ends I go back to rarely using the streamer. I’ve cancelled Paramount bc other than football I was never watching it.
@@dr.wolfstar1765 That's the only reason I ever subscribed for the short time I did to Peacock, so I could watch some old NWA matches.
I cancelled all of them. Only resubscribed to Amazon because of Fallout and stayed because The Boys is coming soon
The beginning of this video just seems like the setup to a 30 Rock episode. "Good news, Lemon. Peacock only lost $639,000,000 in Q1. We'll be breaking even in 25 years."
then they end up inviting shane gillis for TGS with will smith.
there's a reason that show ends with General Electric selling NBC to the cable company.
@@SavageGreywolfuh.. There was like 2 seasons after GE sold it.
@@nothanksguy Wasn’t NBC a subsidiary of the Sheinhardt Wig Company?
I was gonna say we really need 30 Rock today but u know what, our culture and politics are actually beyond parody at this point.
That Law & Order decision is mind baffling. It’s audience is primarily older people who still watch network TV
And last I checked the ratings were good for that show so it doesn’t make sense to move it
They're trying to infuse (force) the service with new users. Some of these people will be converted but most will just go see something else
@@Hunter818The train of thought was "This show has really good ratings for us. If we move it to peacock the audience will surely follow!"
Exactly they want them to switch to streaming. A good amount of people that age don’t even think about ten a month.
What they fail to recognize is a lot of older people won't try streaming. I don't want to sound like I'm using the "old people hate technology" trope, but whenever I go to the library, there's always at least one older person who needs to print a resume or apply for benefits who doesn't even know how to use a mouse and they don't act embarrassed. If anything they act proud that they can't use a computer because technology is the downfall of civilization or something. You're just not going to get them to subscribe to Peacock. They'll just check out older seasons on DVD at the library, and I don't blame them.
The sad part is that Peacock has some great shows on it like Poker Face. But it lacks a brand identity to help the platform stand out.
I like Peacock! That nfl game was some bullshit though. (On the NFLs part)
Great show.
That's how I feel about Peacock.
Like Poker Face is great. It has some fun reality TV shows on it like The Traitors and Deal or No Deal Island.
Resident Alien was a fun show to randomly bump into that I would have never found.
I watch Chucky on it.
And it has better interface to use than Paramount Plus which is awful.
Very true. For the most part, I only watch it for WWE stuff and Sunday Night Football. The model for streaming services seems to be gobble up as much content as possible, operate at a loss for a while, then make it up long term with increased subscribers. Turns out people only have so much time to watch tv and don't want to pay for like 4-5 streaming services.
Poker Face is super slept-on. Same for Killing It. It was that one-two punch that made me actually want to keep the service and check out other offerings.
Another thing to note is that because Peacock hasn’t been released in most international markets especially in Latin America some of the Peacock originals are now being put into other streaming services.
I was thinking the same, people outside of the US don't even know such streaming exist while most of their competitors are profiting abroad
Technically, they are available in many international territories, like the UK, they're available through their sister network Sky Max through their NOW TV platform, so yeah, there's that, too! And they've made deals with other streamers in other territories to carry their original shows, and it's worked, so why not maybe try that here, too? That might work out for them, so hopefully they do that soon!
@@taejasper1343what are you talking about
I think is because a lot of the content of NBC and Co never was bring it to Latam in first place and so is pointless put a streaming service with content that nobody know
Actually what they have done is to put Peacock content in "regular" cable channels distributed in LatAm, rather than just entering the market. "Poker Face" is being broadcasted in Cable channel Universal TV; I knew it because I saw a big banner on the street promoting it. That ain't helping in my opinion
I think the problem is that, even in the broadcast era, three-letter networks didn't really have fans even if their shows did. At best, they could create some brand-identity for programming blocks such as NBC's Must-See TV or Fox's Animation Domination, but nobody really gets excited about a new show just because they hear it's from NBC, which is a problem for a streaming service that tries to make having all the NBC content its selling point. Even Disney, which has a much stronger brand identity, is struggling in the streaming game.
HBO had that kind of clout, but that's kind of a cable thing.
@LimeyLassen the top cable channels did very well in that aspect. You didn't see people state they were fans of NBC or CBS, but there certainly were professed fans of HBO, MTV, Nickelodeon, Discovery, etc.
I really loved NBC back in their prime, as a brand. If they were getting a new show, I would come in pretty positive on the idea, even when it didn't work out. It's been a while since that was the case though. There hasn't been anything I've been excited about on the broadcast networks in years.
While i mostly agree, growing up in the mid to late 2000s, me and my family were fans of NBC for comedy. They had 30 rock and the office, so when later comedies such as Community, parks and rec, superstore, etc. came out my family was more willing to try and watch them. granted all of those shows were successful and well made TV, but my family was definitely an “nbc” family
I think the problem with streaming also, is that brand identity is such a thin line to walk, where it's either too restrictive, or the service just doesn't have any major draw. For example, with Disney Plus, they have a really good back catalog of older Fox and ABC content, but everything new they create has to fit neatly into one of their boxes. It really feels like it's missing a series that's high budget that isn't just Marvel or Star Wars, especially with how "fatigued" we all are with these properties.
With Peacock, they have a ton of Network series I'd love to revisit, and to their credit, some great originals, but overall, I don't feel like there's anything I just have to see. Part of that is probably just due to the small subscriber base. When a new season of a big Amazon or Netflix original is released, I feel like conversations around it are everywhere, in real life, and social media, but with a Peacock original, if I follow the creator on social media, I'll see they have a new series, want to watch, but then just forget about it.
As a traditional antenna tv watcher and fan of Law & Order: Organized Crime, I was so bummed to hear it was moving to Peacock exclusively.
Join the 21st century
@@NA86737 get laid
@@NA86737 get laid
Bros a senior citizen
the fuck is an antenna?
I think Abbott Elementary is a good example that episodic shows can still be done and have a dedicated audience. It’s won a ton of awards, beloved, and sticks to a traditional network format. It’s renowned for its dedication to its characters and being grounded. It’s still a model that can work, people just need to give it the opportunity
YES! It was also not too expensive to make.
I'm not going to lie; I never heard of this show before, until I saw a Captain Midnight video mentioning it a few minutes ago. Back in the day "succesful" US tv shows caught international acclaim a lot faster. That's also a sign of the times I would say
@@gadget00
Well yeah. Cos back in the day tv was your ONLY option. Nowadays there’s way WAY more options to choose from
@@Werewolf.with.Internet.Access I believe syndication has been woefully neglected nowadays; many “successful” TV shows barely leave american markets. Back in the day syndicated shows were a evergreen cash cow, snd thats why tv shows like Kojak, Knight Rider, Baywatch and MacGyver were revered worldwide. nowadays maybe it isn’t that good of a business? I don’t know
the ONE TIME IN HISTORY when a monopoly was a good thing for everyone... was Netflix, 10 years ago. absolutely crazy!
It’s probably a situation where streaming consumers only want to have to buy a couple of them
If Netflix remained a monopoly to this day it'd definitely be hot garbage tbh. It would've gone down the same route as modern youtube
@@fortynights1513 no. ONE. and only one.
It was in Phase One. Check out Cory Doctorow's theory of enahittification
It still would have been a similar situation where once they had enough market share they would have raised the price. Netflix has the most ridiculous DRM requirements, is charging people serious money to watch 480p TV in 2024. It is certainly not only not immune to enshittification. What we miss are those lower prices and lack of ads but Netflix doesn't have those lower prices anymore. And frankly like at least with Paramount Plus you get 4K with the $12 a month plan you don't need to actually spend 20 or whatever it is.
All the other ones let you use password sharing to, I don't know I don't think Netflix is top dog at all anymore.
But all of them suck in the wrong ways which is why I think the best approach is to just rotate. Pay for no more than one or two streaming services in a given month. Watch the s*** out of things you want to watch and then cancel them replace them with something else...
And if it's something like you're paying 15 bucks a month for Hbo max because you like Starbucks or you're paying it for Paramount Plus because you like Star Trek. Or ANC because you like mad Men... Just cheaper to buy the DVDs or blu-rays at that point. The idea of paying $240 a year to Max just seems ridiculous to me
Peacock actually bumped their prices just in time for the Olympics 😅
Not if u get it during Black Friday for the whole year for .99 cents/month ;)
@@nomadicoloursthat's the single reason they have over 8m subs lol
A hybrid of both styles? Like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Stargate SG-1, or Babylon 5. They all had long term story arcs. The characters grew and changed...but it wasn't overly serialized. Episodes were still allowed to be episodes with a beginning middle and end. Not everything was a cliff hanger for next week. Sometimes the episodes just allow you to see a different side of the characters, go on a wacky adventure, or expand the world. Scifi TV of the 90s can show us the way!
Hell yeah
This is the way. Also, I'd like it to be a bit more "PG" or "PG-13-lite" in style (eg. Star Trek, SG1-excluding the Pilot ep). A lot of streaming content likes to push the envelope with the type of content they show. Hopefully there is still room for those who prefer one or the other.
Those shows were great. I really loved Babylon 5.
Didn’t watch Babylon 5 I think I’m gonna have to find out where streamer and watch it. I watch the rest.
@@erniejones5008It is streaming on the Roku Channel and also Tubi at present
When you have 30+ million (presumably paying) users and you still loose hundreds of millions of dollars. What are we even doing? Remember when being good at business meant you made decisions that made money? When it was a simple as producing a product, people pay for product, make money from said people, utilize the profit made to reinvest? This is unhinged. The corporate elite have lost the plot.
Well most streamers lost money for a long time.
My assumption is that the total number of subscriptions may include people who have it automatically bundled into a cable bill for "free". My wife and I got Peacock for free when we had Comcast, but rarely watched it; I would guess a decent proportion of users are like that.
Many subscribers get it for free with comcast subscriptions. Any many have it at a discounted price. I only have it because I got a $20/yr promo 2 years ago.
@mojiiOkay, that’s because most streamers are losing money in order to grow. They eventually do have to make money. Netflix eventually shifted from growth to profit as investors needed to see profit at some point.
Two of the other biggest things killing Cable TV are both about money:
First, (where I live) Cable costs like $60/month (CAD)! That's at least 4 streaming services.
Second, there are So. Many. Ads!
How is TV more expensive than streaming, with more ads, and less quality? What are they spending all their ad revenue on?
i’m in the us but it’s pretty much the opposite here.cable is still overpriced and shit, but streaming is so much worse. at least with cable you get live tv, on demand, and access to different network’s programming. with streaming, you’d have to pay a couple of hundred to watch a handful of shows from different networks bc they all have their own streaming networks
Who does that ^ ? Subscribe, binge, cancel, repeat.
Cocaine for the execs
Executive salaries…
They're spending all their money subsidising their streaming services.
I LOVE that Peacock plays all the commercials before you watch a movie.
I HATE watching ads on platform that I pay for....
@@scottymacdewder5229 you pay but you just don't pay enough
@@scottymacdewder5229you realize that you would pay for cable as well?
@justintrujillo8483 NBC is broadcast television... the whole point of cable was originally ad free channels... you don't want to spend money , watch commercials and pay with your time... you don't want to spend your time watching commercials, pay money... now I'm paying money to spend time watching commercials... the American revolution was fought for less.
@@justintrujillo8483you realize streaming was created to avoid all the bs cable has?
As a Brit, it's interesting to see how differently British and American TV networks have reacted to streaming. Over here, all the major free-to-air channels do have their own streaming services, but they're free services and pretty much every original show from those companies is still broadcast on TV as well as being on their streaming platforms.
As a result, while the big American streamers are certainly very popular here, the long-running British broadcasters (and even the actual viewing of linear television, to an extent) have managed to maintain some degree of relevance. That's why it's bizarre to me that every American network seems to have fragmented their viewership by having some shows go out on broadcast TV and others exclusive to paid streaming services, especially now that many people are fed up of forking out for so many subscriptions.
Good take and completely true
Forgive me if my question is dumb but don't you have to pay a hefty annual licence for TV in the UK? Does some of that money might be making your system work better compared to the US / World current system?
@slowtrigger yeah TV licenses are a thing, however there super easy to avoid paying it's usually the older generations who still pay as they still watch basic TV
Like on BBC app it has asks "do you have a license?" You click "yes" and then that's it, you're in
A lot of it just comes down to geography, and more bluntly, size. Britain's pretty small, with nice compact population centers, so a few broadcasting towers are really all you need to get nearly 100% coverage for your viewers. Meanwhile in the US, our urban sprawl has been out of control for most of a century so every time they build a new tower, they have to crank the juice all the way up to 11 just to make sure people are getting more show than static.
So when NBC introduced Peacock, it wasn't just a way for them to get more viewers, it was a way to provide their existing viewers a way to watch their shows without having to worry about if the weather was going to let them see it. It doesn't matter if they're losing hundreds of millions on streaming, because they're also saving hundreds of millions on the building, maintenance, and powering of a broadcast system that hasn't seen a major overhaul since the 80's.
@@slowtrigger Yes, there is a licence fee which funds the BBC. That's why BBC channels and iPlayer (its streaming platform) have no ads, and it also funds other BBC services like radio and websites. It's a controversial system but I think it does allow the BBC to maintain a good level of quality, and you may be right that that's contributed to its continued relevance. Having said that, other UK channels are just funded by adverts and most of them are still reasonably popular.
The reason why alot of those old franchises have the staying power they do as opposed to streaming boils down to one word: Syndication.
The reason why shows like Suits or Law and Order are popular is because stations will buy them up to fill up the mid-day/weekend hours that network TV doesnt own, or speciality channels like your Paramount Networks or your Bravos will buy them up to fill up the same time.
Streaming platforms arent selling their TV shows into syndication, so the only place you see a show like Wednesday or Twisted Metal is if you're already subbed to those services.
Netflix got away with it because for a while they were the only game in town for streaming. Everyone was watching Netflix. Now everything is broken up so bad that if you want to watch anything, you have to be subbed to everything. This is killing not just Peacock, but Max and Paramount+.
Only thing I hate about Peacock is that, and I constantly complain to them about it is if you stop watching a show for over a month, you can't pick up where you were. You have to figure out where you left off. You can w/ Prime and Netflix. You can stop watching for YEARS w/ those 2 and it's still recorded.
I haven't had that issue with Peacock. It will resume where I left off, when watching shows and movies. They might have lost the rights to the show you were watching 2 years ago. I've lost the ability to watch a couple shows on Amazon Prime for the same reason. It was frustrating when I was on season 5 of Stargate SG-1 and they popped a message up saying it will be leaving in 5 days. It's not possible to watch 4.5 seasons of that show in 5 days. lol
Council of Geeks recently made a great video related to this topic called "Streaming's Future isn't Good (and we're still stuck with it)". A point she made that's stuck with me is how the disruption model needs to be profitable, because once it usurps the old way of doing things, there's no going back. Unfortunately tech companies focus very little on this, and you can see how that's an issue in the age of streaming where TV and film are treated as tech ventures.
Well idk the fact that streaming services pretty much killed 90% of the revenue streams of movies/tv, and pretty much made it so that their only profit is a fixed subscription rate regardless of what movies/tv shows they make is miserable. There is so little incentive for them to make good stuff and much more incentive, like Netflix, to just cram their catalogue with content and force ppl to watch that becuz its more convenient. I mean movies used to have box office, dvd rentals, tv reruns with ads that made so much cash, now all they have are viewership numbers on streaming services with no ads. So except for flagship shows that might convince subscribers to move from one service to another, there’s just so little profit or reward especially for the artists making a show/movie whether its popular or not or well-liked or not.
@@GuineaPigEveryday Yeah what’s esp depressing about it is how there’s no clear path out of it. Really wish tech companies would stop opening Pandora’s box like a a pantry door.
@@GuineaPigEverydaythere is far better content produced for “tv” today than 20years ago. Overall quality didn’t go down, it went up if you look only the top 30 programs. If Netflix produced 300 programs and the other 270 sucked, it doesn’t matter to you so long as your costs are lower and you have better shows at the top to watch
@@frauleinfunftoday is so much better than 20 years ago though.
there are an increasing number of free with ads services and peacock may eventually go that way if they “lose out” to Netflix max Amazon Hulu
There will likely be two models at some point: paid subscribers (that may offer reduced costs with ads) and FAST (free ad supported tv).
@@frauleinfunfwe’re now dealing with generative ai everywhere
Great video. I still don’t understand the thinking behind moving the soap opera Days of our lives from NBC to Peacock. I don’t watch this show but it seems like it is meant for an older audience, so why would you make it more complicated to watch? I would imagine that a large percentage of the audience didn’t move when it went to Peacock.
I'm guessing there's two things. Firstly, and most obviously, Peacock needs content, but the apparently Peacock staff don't know their audience since only '80s nostalgia (and Cineverse acquisition "Samurai Pizza Cats") has been doing well for them.
As for why "Days of Our Lives" specifically, that has been NBC's mainstay soap opera since it first premiered, and Universal's stratagem for Peacock seems to now be "move NBC's mainstays". However, the soap opera genre is mostly dead because of reality TV's screaming matches (yet those same people will rail against men fawning over violence, hmm...), wives going to work, and cleaning appliance and soap advertisers not wanting to support romantic dramas anymore.
@@Code7Unltd Another thing to note is that in the time slot that Days of Our Lives used to air in on NBC (1-2pm), they now air NBC News Daily. In that same time slot, ABC airs GMA3: What You Need to Know. It seems like part of the reason why Days of Our Lives was moved to Peacock was to counterprogram the 1pm hour to try to compete with ABC.
NBC has been in trouble ever since Friends ended. That was when they lost their ratings dominance. Sure, they still had successful shows like The Office but they kept falling behind. Even great shows like 30 Rock, Parks & Rec, The Good Place, etc. never did that well in the ratings. 30 Rock was actually pretty close to being canceled and was only saved because it won a lot of awards so NBC kept it for the prestige. Many of those shows only became popular on streaming.
If we go by physical viewers, NBC in the late 2000’s and early 2010’s was doing very badly from what I remember.
They are doing better now, but as he said, live sports are one of the few things people go to linear television for, and NBC Sunday Night Football last season was so highly rated that they had twice the rating of second place NCIS a couple years ago.
Most contemporary broadcast series can be found on streaming services shortly after they debut I believe, and if so, then why would anyone go to linear television for those if they don’t use linear television normally?
yeah I remember a 2010s Family Guy episode saying "If there's anyone who knows what America wants in the 1990s, it's NBC"
@@frauleinfunf Funny, my family watched more ABC shows in the 90s and Friday night was TGIF.
@@lainiwakura1776 Probs bc that was the Family Friendly block. Can’t imagine parents settling in with their kids to watch the episode of Seinfeld where they make a bet to not masturbate.
@@lainiwakura1776ABC was typically second place to NBC in the 90’s as far as primetime ratings went.
We're living through a bizarre moment in broadcast history. The supposed revolution streaming was supposed to be turned out to be false and financially unsupportable. Turns out most just people want comfort food shows with predictable plots to put on at the end of a long day. Remember watching TV with your parents and siblings? Feels like a thing of the past, especially now that every member of a family has their own screen (kids and their iPads!). Peacock needs to make shows that families can watch together on the couch in the living room. They need more crowd-pleaser, 4-quadrant stuff.
Also, it's worth noting that Taylor Sheridan is, in my opinion, responsible for Paramount's growth. Paramount is a weird test case because they've managed to succeed in a way that Peacock hasn't. They release mostly serialized shows that audiences appear to love.
I also think there's a way to turn shows like Pokerface into a more episodic, approachable show without watering down the quality. Like, why can't they make 20 episodes per season? Easier said than done, but it's at least something to aim at.
I like the term "comfort food shows", sometimes after a long day of work, i just want to relax and watch something interesting, yet comforting. I noticed that shows like StarGate SG1 and its spin-offs give me that adventurous, comfort feeling I look for in other shows.
Bluey is the perfect comfort food that families can enjoy as well as the perfect antidote for Gen Alphas. I've seen a few shorts on Instagram where kids are depicted in a way that isn't what you normally expect from Gen Alphas who have their eyes glued on IPads which is like a drug to them as they quickly throw tantrums when it gets taken away from them. To quote Sonic "That's no good". I just hope it doesn't get worse and more and more parents use social media wisely and in a way that it doesn't negatively affect their kids. Again, Bluey is the go-to for those families who just want to watch comfort shows on TV.
Technically Peacock is doing better than Paramount + and able to release more content. However there are rumors of a merger between the two
I know it's kind of horrible to say, but I actually kind of miss the stations telling me what I can watch. I'm not sure why, but I think it's just because most of the time, I'm not looking for an 'experience,' I'm just looking for something to distract me from time to time when I'm doing housework, or sketching, or eating, or being hungover, or whatever. We've turned what used to be an extremely passive spectating experience into a do-or-die active skill. I'd much rather mock something terrible I'm being forced to watch, than face the shame of watching something mediocre, knowing it's entirely my fault I'm doing so.
@@danielgehring7437 Yah, we all know that feeling of being "too tired to think about what to watch." Sometimes i like to turn to a decent channel with known fine content and leave it on.
I work at WWAY-TV which is a ABC/CBS/ CW affiliate in Wilmington, NC. My job relies heavily on Broadcast television.
how will this be different from internet ott platforms. if ott platforms get licenced and taxed in every country they operate in, will your company shutdown? if i understand this correctly, you broadcast licensed content from the channels you mentioned. what's available on hulu is obviously not going to be available on paramount plus. what kind of partnership do you have with them? they provide content for your channel, you provide viewers that pay? who is the advertising partner?
@@GoldyC OTT platforms just like Cable and Satellite have to either pay his company to show there local feeds of the channels they broadcast or his company can request to be carried by those companies, which they would have to do. Most broadcast companies have made around 30-60% of there revenue over the last few years with carrier fees. If they aren't charging carrier fees they have to survive off just ad revenue same as there OTA broadcast. Local broadcasters like his usually have both national advertising (usually shared revenue with main content partner) as well as local advertisement providers where they work with local businesses and sell them advertising spots.
At this point, I could see the streaming/TV industry ending up like the gaming industry. With a small handful of streaming platforms (Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime for this example) with other companies like Paramount, NBC, etc acting as third party developers making products for each respective platform (or exclusively for a specific platform). Much like how Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Steam are the big fish in the gaming company and all games for published through one platform (or multiple platforms) I could see the same happening for these other production companies struggling with making a streaming platform for THEIR exclusive content.
Look at what happened with Sega, in the 90's they were part of the top two in gaming (rivaled only by Nintendo) but as the years went on and the competition grew they struggled to stand out, eventually announcing that they would stop console development and become a third party developer for the other big names in the market. And while they aren't the biggest name with most of their games being only moderately successful when compared to Nintendo or Sony first party games, they are still around in the industry over 20 years after they became third party.
These companies all want to be the next Netflix, the biggest name in the industry, but they are struggling to stay afloat, and in 15 years time, it seems unlikely that many of them will survive that long if they keep up these current plans. The industry needs to band together instead of competing. I'm sure people will decry the monopolization where there's only two or three choices when selecting which platform to watch, but it's already going that way, the only difference is whether or not these companies with nearly a century of experience and story telling will be around to see it. And I hope they will still be around, while I'm not the biggest sitcom or procedural show watcher, streaming NEEDS these types of shows, because much like modern day gaming we need a variety of smaller budget titles to balance out the HUGE budget titles that are made every year. The industry can't survive on big, expensive, miniseries and if every show is like that then the audience for them will get bored. They need cheaper shows to balance that out. Because if everything is a big AAA product, then when one bombs, it becomes a huge loss, but smaller "indie" titles still have their place in the industry and when one explodes, it can become a huge win for the people behind it.
Agreed. Especially since these shows THRIVE when they get on Netflix. Friends, The Office, and now Suits are thriving specifically because it's something on Netflix that Netflix can't make. NBC could just license out these shows to Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and Apple for a TON of money.
I used to watch Peacock, mostly for their classic shows. There is just so much good free content that Peacock is just not worth it.
Their decision to not let xfinity internet user’s access peacock for free killed the platform for good. Comcast makes so much money from internet it was nothing to allow their customers peacock for free yet they got greedy and basically killed any chance for word of mouth
“There’s so much good [x]” is the reason why Hollywood and the networks needs to calm down. Slow down, make something REALLY good, and release.
@@Turtlpwr They really don't know when something is going to become popular
@jayman, that's so true. Especially when I can watch some of the same older shows licensed out to Prime, Freeve, or Roku. I'd like to watch Poker Face but I'm going to wait until there's something else I want to catch up on, pay for a month, and then unsub
@@LuisSierra42 of course, but they can take more time to focus on the projects rather than mass producing low quality, poorly scripted, lazily produced bs
"...i like a lot of those old shows..."
"...what (network TV does best), but not aimed at your parents or grandparents."
My dude, who was watching those shows when the networks WERE making them, then?
I might be in the minority about this, but my reason is simple- its a terrible name. Every other streaming service leverages the name of their parent company- Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Netflix, Disney, HBO Max. Nothing about the name “Peacock” conveys this is the network thats home to heavy hitters like Spongebob, Sonic, Mario, The Office, Kung Fu Panda, and Illumination projects. It doesn’t even sound like a streaming service. The name is so foreign to everyday conversation- “hey did you catch that new show on Peacock” will never be said. Comcast has to ditch the name imo
I actually love the name. But then I'm old. The NBC Peacock is iconic. By contrast, HBO Max is no longer HBO Max. It's just Max. I think it was a mistake to throw away the name HBO because that, like the NBC Peacock, says something about the service. Max sounds like an energy drink or something.
They should shorten it to "The Cock."
The peacock is the NBC logo. Therefore, Peacock=NBC. It’s really not that difficult.
I always thought established networks having streaming platforms was nuts. It undercuts your actual cable channel, where you are already making money from ads. Just about all the content they have on Peacock could have been broadcast on their network channel with little to no tweaking. All they are doing is hurting their ratings by having their "good stuff" behind a paywall, that no one particularly wants to pay for. Streaming ad revenue is peanuts compared to network ads.
To be fair, at least for now, the numbers don't really back that up. If you're using a streaming network as the reason for finally cancelling your cable, it's just a convenient excuse. Most people who didn't like cable already abandoned it and just watch RUclips instead. The people who are used to cable are still watching their shows there, and probably will until they die, because it's what they're used to. So the two don't overlap all that much even though they should, and it's not something that's going to stop an established channel from adding their stuff to streaming to catch new viewers who don't do cable.
Of course who knows how much longer that'll last? All it's gonna take is one really big shake-up, for either cable or streaming, to make people rush to the other.
@@danielgehring7437 True in general. But these networks have channels on regular TV and should be putting their content there. People who cord cut are watching Hulu, YT, Netflix..etc. Just like failed CBS streamer, as you stated, the two platforms do not overlap. People who want streaming are not interested in another streamer from a network, and people who would watch NBC content want it on their TV, not paying for something they now get for free.
@@timreeves8937If I’m not mistaken isn’t their content on linear television, then moved to streaming after premiere?
@@fortynights1513 No. They have shows only on peacock
Howso? I wouldnt pay a dime for an ad on broascast tv
There’s also Abbot Elementary as one of the exceptions to the notion that most all network TV is safe, generic and bland.
It's also a low budget show that has stayed very popular!
When older shows are the most popular outings on a streaming service I have to wonder if that's:
1) Because a show with 10 seasons means that viewers can watch one to two hundred hours compared to the six hours of a new show.
And
2) Because these are nostalgic re-watches, on in the background or while the viewer is on their phone or whatever, and therefore not an accurate representation of what viewers want in a _new_ show. I don't know if data exists on how many people watching Suits on Peacock had previously seen it on TV, but you can bet that the high viewership of Friends and The Office on streaming was mostly re-watches.
My point being that the popularity of older network style shows on streaming isn't necessarily indicative of the popularity of the format itself and might not work if replicated in a brand new show without nostalgic value.
For me, watching older shows does have nostalgic value, but it also feels connecting, as if I'm visiting with old friends. I'm not usually tuned out doing something else when I watch. I'm relaxing with a cup of hot tea or cocoa with my cat in my lap. I don't know how that would translate into a new show unless the makers of the new show took time to build likable characters that grow over the timeline of a story. One of the reasons I don't like Netflix is that there are just a few episodes, and then it's gone for a very long time. There's no time to build friendship.
Community and Arrested Development were well received shows but weren't very popular, and got cancelled before the creators wanted to end it. Yet both shows are now seeing a huge revival. Unlike The Office, these shows (especially Community) didn't have huge ratings. But people are now rediscovering these shows.
The success of Abbot Elementary shows that there's still a demand for low budget sitcoms.
In the US, high speed internet used to run about $20/mo for browsing level and downloading of larger file. TV was still readily accepted as a service delivered by a cable or a satellite service, if not by an over-the-air antenna. So, maybe, a household would spend about $40/mo between an internet connection and cable TV. Then, Netflix transitioned to a streaming platform and that service, along with their eventual competitors, demanded faster broadband connections. Very quickly, that ticket to access the internet grew to twice and now about triple the original cost, and more if you wanted to retain the last vestiges of live television content. Oh, do you want to access the new TV shows? You better sign up for at least 5 separate streaming services on top of your already inflated broadband service. What was once $40/mo for all of what the internet and television had to offer is now in the range of $250/mo or more and it's only getting more expensive with each new "deal" launched to attract new subscribers.
Where the hell is my Poker Face season 2?! I want it now! And give us proper seasons, and start working on the next one as soon as you wrap filming. Create proper longterm writers' rooms where people can grow on the job, become invested in not just the main characters but all of the world building. I guess I just have to watch Burn Notice all over again while waiting...
If the networks didn’t want to sell shows to Netflix or Hulu, they should have come up with a clearinghouse for ALL their stuff and worked together to make a viable, single alternative. And yes, they need to have ads and ad revenue, there’s no choice. On-demand streaming is still expensive to operate and will probably be that way for another couple decades.
There’s a reason why every studio in Hollywood DIDN’T start a tv network when tv became a thing. It’s expensive. Paramount wanted to do it since the 70s at least, but weren’t able to launch until the 90s, plus they failed and had to merge with WB.
This
I got this for free. Went to watch Oppenheimer. Saw commercials before the movie started and closed the page. The end.
If my services started doing that I would instantly unsubscribe. I pay to not having to deal with that bull.
@@Renoistic Peacock has two tiers. One of them is ad-free. You just pay a little more for it.
Have you never been to a movie theater? Tons of ads play before the movie that you've paid for a ticket to see. The fact that Peacock gives you a few minutes of ads BEFORE the movie -- just like theaters -- rather than interrupting the film at various points in the middle is brilliant, actually. But if you're really so affronted by pre-movie ads that you won't stick around to watch the movie without commercial breaks, you can always upgrade to the ad-free tier and then you won't have the ads before the movie.
It's the perfect time to go to the bathroom or make food. At least they aren't interrupting the movie itself.
It's 2024. Use ad block. Problem solved.
The whole model of "spend a ton of money to get subscriptions" was always a bad idea. Subscription based models don't work unless most people pay but don't use the service (e.g. gym memberships). Add in that very few people pay full price. They get it through their internet or cell phone provider. They take advantage of deals (e.g. Black Friday). They watch what they want and cancel when the promo period ends.
Amazon seemed to have the right idea, using it as a throw in with free shipping, but then spent a billion dollars on Lord of the Rings for no conceivable reason.
One reason that I think Paramount+ is superior in to Peacock is that all CBS/Paramount content is self contained in the Paramount+ app.
On the other hand, NBC/Universal has the Peacock App, The NBC App, the NBC Sports app, the NBC News app, the USA Network app, the MSNBC app, The Today Show app, the Voice App. That is 8 different apps for one Network/Production company.
most of those apps are just their respective TV Everywhere apps you use to watch on the go with a cable provider log-in. CBS has one themselves ever since All Access was relaunched as Paramount+
Why don't they just merge them
I mean CBS still has multiple apps too
Paramount has CBS, BET+, MTV, the Nick App, etc as well
@@Dave102693 actually.....
They shuttered most of those apps not too long ago, with the apps for CBS (the network, Sports, and News) as well as their O&O stations still being available
I feel like streaming is the reason why so many shows on tv get canceled
It happened long before streaming, friend. And it was every bit as painful. At least now there is a tiny chance a streaming service will pick up a canceled show with a cult following.
every time I talk to someone about series I am watching and I get "where does it stream on?", and I am reminded how shitty it is to not be a pirate nowadays.
where does it stream? dunno i just watch it online for free
I definitely think the increasing unavailability of media will compel more people to look to piracy, in which case big corporations will have to either commit to playing whack-a-mole or learn to adapt to consumers. This has been a debate in the sphere of video games for years. I just started a new playthrough of Pokémon black 2, and spoiler alert it wasn't from a storefront Nintendo doesn't sell the game from on a broken DS that no longer works.
Piracy is so easy nowadays that I don’t pay for a single streaming service. I just have three reliable websites I use
I really made a good faith effort to pay for streaming, Netflix, Hulu, Crunchyroll, and more, but in every case the service was just bad and a hassle to use. There was times I'd literally pay for it and then pirate it anyway for the convenience of having it on a media file.
I tend to mooch off of relatives for whatever they’re paying for, and if it’s not on those big 5 + paramount and Crunchyroll, then I will pirate it and feel no guilt
Its so funny that they thought that people would come over to their platform if they brought over the office, but in reality, people just said whatever and moved on
One of the reasons I chose to never subscribe actually, and actively root for its downfall. Same thing with Epic Games Launcher. Do your own thing, that's cool. Actively take content away from me and make me pay extra for it, I'm never using your service.
They just bought The Office on DVD lol
@@KnightOfNewColuthat’s what I did 😂 I just bought my own copy.
You could tell Peacock would fail as soon as they announced the name. I spent my teen years watching NBC shows like The Office, Community, Parks and Rec etc., watching Sunday Night Football most weeks, while my parents watched NBC as their main source of news. None of us even knew what their logo was until I googled why the hell they were calling their streaming service Peacock. We all just called it "the weird rainbow thing" Not saying it would have succeeded if it was NBC Plus or something, but branding is kinda important.
Jeez, you didn't know that the NBC logo was a peacock? That's insane. I was born in 1997 and knew that.
To Comcast's credit, I'm glad they didn't go the Disney copycat route where every streaming service is called "+". It's just lazy.
I'm sorry but I find that impossible to believe. Anybody over the age of 35 knows at the peacock logo.
@@michaelcorcoran8768 well I'm 34 so...
Gawd . I knew it was a owacock 40 ywars ago when i was 4
I enjoyed Peacock until they added that 2-tier premium bs.
That completely turned me off to it.
As a genXer, broadcast TV was formative to my very being and growth as a TV loving human. I would have been and actually am amazed that i can just watch what i want when i want, back in the day you couldnt even buy shows on VHS and early DVDs until late in the game (the 90s).
I’ve personally really enjoyed watching these billion dollar companies transition to an unsustainable model of entertainment and start losing money out the ass
Unfortunately it hasn’t been fun for me because I can barely find any work in my industry and now I have to rethink my entire future and livelihood. But I guess that’s life
Whenever people tell me I need to watch some thing on Peacock I just laugh.
Broadcast tv is victim of itself, 20 years ago, the best shows were on HBO, showtime etc….some of the best new shows are on streaming
I work at a broadcast news network (I've worked at 2 so far in my career, one being under a massive media name), and I have to say it feels bleak. We've known for a long time the end was near, but right now we're at a point where networks simply can't afford to ride out the waves of change. They wanted to adapt and survive, but it's becoming clear that it might not be possible. On the flip side, I feel like we could see a shift back to standard cable formatting soon, but who can say really.
I think a lot of the good shows from Peacock like Ted, Pokerface, Mrs. Davis would probably get more talk and way more eyes if they were on places that way more people have, like Hulu, Netflix or Prime. Pretty much the way things were prior to the start of the streaming wars when all the major studios put up walled gardens and started holding content there. But then again that was a different economy, I think the platforms themselves needed content to fill their platforms and a bunch of other little details and points i'm forgetting right now.
I feel the only thing keeping them afloat would be the WWE part of the app. WWE and it's parent company can always move to another streaming service after it's contract with NBC/Peacock is done.
Imagine where they would be without the wwe
I think the entertainment industry as a whole shot it self in the foot with streaming.
I only have peacock because it replaced the WWE network and it didn't even do a good job of that. Netflix securing the rights for WWE Monday Night Raw is interesting because that currently airs on USA network until the contract runs up. It would have been fantastic to be able to watch it on Peacock instead of needing Netflix.
Peacock is easily my favorite streamer for existing shows. The Office, Parks n Rec, Suits, Psych, Monk, That 70s Show, Modern Family, White Collar… so many good shows. Also really enjoyed some original shows like Ted, A.P. Bio, One of Us Is Lying, The Resort, etc.
They have modern family on peacock? Interesting given it's a fox produced ABC property. I would assume Disney would keep it only for themselves given its popularity.
Just gonna need Peacock to stay afloat long enough to film the Community movie
Its gonna be dogshit either way
@@technobladeleakedclips1827 Well now Technobladeleakedclips has said so that must be the case
7:23 (Citadel)
oh yeah, i think i remember seeing ads or signs for that show at one point. Thanks for bringing that memory back.
I don't think i ever watched that show. I remember it existed. But don't think anyone in my social circles watched it. and the ads really didn't catch my interest. It felt like it was in that same class of high quality program or movie that seemed just ok, but not sure if i'd watch it after the hype period point.
ex) 6 Underground, Red Notice, The Gray Man (Netflix), Ghosted (Apple)
I could be wrong about the examples i put here and they could be really good. But I'm not really sure they stood out for me personally and i could be in the smaller minority that doesn't count for these sort of things and doesn't really tip the scale.
Love this RUclips channel.
As one of the 6 indycar fans left, i pay for peacock to have the ability to watch those races, and have actually really enjoyed much if peacocks library. I think they could do something if they worked hard.
I respect that, I feel that way about Paramount+
I’ll tell you why Suits was the most streamed last year:
Sometime last year, Suits “shorts” started showing up all over my RUclips/Facebook stuff.
I asked several friends who confirmed the same. They were seeing them, liking the shorts, and then watching the series.
2:14 Don’t forget about abbot elementary.
that's a really nice show
I loved S1, but S2 fell off for me
@@ilznidiotic Try to give S3 a chance.
Woke garbage show
Bring back some blue sky-isk USA shows (psych, burn notice, royal pains)
Don’t get me wrong I love a show that makes me think/invest time in but the majority of the time I want to not have to think when the TV is on
An entire video about Peacock and not a single mention of Psych... Which may get a 4th movie soon, so it would have definitely been worth discussing as another avenue to revive older shows or keep those shows' audience subscribed to the service. Didn't they release a Monk movie this year, too?
Psych is the only reason I have a peacock account.
Elsbeth has a similar setup like Monk, and I love Monk, but Elsbeth is so different but fun! The Monk Film on Peacock was great, too!! - Luke
I was looking for a place to stream The Nanny, which left Max a while ago (this was a big mistake if you ask me but I digress). I saw it’s on Peacock now and I was like “never mind.” Like it’s not even worth it for me to sign up for Peacock just to watch this show, which is one of my favorites. I got Hulu because it has The Golden Girls but keep it because it has plenty of other stuff I want to watch. The only other thing I watched on Peacock (through a free trial I cancelled the moment I finished the program) was Chris Fleming’s comedy special Hell. I wish he’d signed with another streaming network to distribute it because it’s not going to reach the audience it deserves.
They Also Ruined Megamind
Calling it was sequel was insane, it was feature length pilot for the crappy show. They hyped it up too much.
Really puzzling to me that peacock can have WWE (which encompasses… basically all American professional wrestling from
The 70’s up until the mid 2000’s thanks to buying up all the competition) and still manage to have such small numbers!
NBC breaks into song: "Those were the days, we had Friends, We thought they'd never end..."
I rather prefer TV shows made to have episodes aired weekly that can be both their own thing while also building on top of a larger plot, this Netflix approach to 6 hour long movies is tiresome, binging a show in a single sitting is difficult at times but can be sickening also makes a show being forgotten in a matter of days instead of having a season of a show running for months, and TBH I really love to come back from work and prepare something special to dinner and watch the new episode of my favorite show, that is a way better feeling than being a couch potato doomscrolling on you phone when you're 4 hours in a very long movie
The aspect of seasons feeling like longer films, and of episodes feeling like going to a scene selection screen on a DVD menu is a byproduct of streaming itself.
As well as perhaps major studios being hesitant to release mid budget films in theaters. If so, then what were mid budget films could theoretically have been stretched out into eight to ten hour highly serialized streaming series.
What do you think?
It really depends on the narrative. Stranger things could not be done in an episodic format but something like orange is the new black absolutely could have and probably should have.
Just throwing this out there, but I'd LOVE for you to do a video on Columbo at some point.
I still feel like that in the end there will be like 5 major services like the old broadcast networks. It'll be Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Disney (Hulu will merge into that) and then a fifth one (whatever wins between Max/Peacock/Paramount+). Then HBO Showtime, Starz, AMC, MGM+, Crunchyroll, etc will be add ons for each like on Prime Video and like how there were premium channels on cable.
I Like Peacock, but NBCU undermines It’s library. If NBC Just crack down on content licensing And Just adds ALL of It’s library To Peacock, maybe they’ll get further, Same with Paramount+.
Speaking of Paramount+..
Now That It COULD be Folded into Paramount+, This is just WILD.
wait Peacock isn't that the streaming behind Megamind 2 where just am I wrong ?
yup, that's them.
The Megamind 2 movie and the TV show that followed it.
@@TwinRiver100 oh ok
Yeah, Comcast owns both NBC and Dreamworks (via their ownership of Universal)
They might as well have called it the office streaming service. One dish does not a restaurant make.
That's totally how it was marketed at the start as "a home for The Office." Their pricing packages specifically mentioned if they included access to The Office or not.
Similar to how Disney+ at this point is just the Bluey streaming service.
I think the reason old programs hit so much is because people leave the TV on while they do something, or sometimes my wife and I watch stuff when we don’t feel like looking for something new so we put on Seinfeld or The Office.
You didn’t always watch TV that was 100% engaging. I’m from the Cable generation where TBS and FOX would show reruns of Seinfeld, the Simpsons and Friends… there’s no new content replacing that and my generation needs that void filled.
I'm to the point in life in which I just avoid NBC shows altogether because I can't deal with the 5 minute load time for everything on Peacock. Sometimes I think my internet is just crapping out on me but then I switch to literally anything else and its five times the speed. You watch one episode of anything on Peacock and it takes forever and a day to load the next episode.
Idc if peacock is a financial nightmare for a multibillion dollar corporation I like the Ted Show.
I put up an antenna, dropped cable, and digitized all of my Blu-Ray and DVDs so I could put them on a home LAN. Now, we watch old movies and TV series that we already own and don't pay a penny for it. My wife loves going to garage sales and has picked up many old DVD movies and TV series for very little cost. We dropped Netflix and all other TV over 10 years ago and don't miss any of it.
You have made several great points here. Yet I feel a little perplexed because I have noticed that you, and several other people covering this topic, seem to gloss over two issues that are specific to Peacock. If the company doesn't address them soon, it won't matter what they do with their new content.
The first thing is that their app is buggy and unreliable. The search feature doesn't work particularly well, and for those of us who are blind or visually impaired, many of the buttons and controls are not labeled. Comcast has these working perfectly in its own app, so I know they know how to do this. The app crashes a lot, and it doesn't play particularly well with voice control on the iPhone or with Siri commands. This just doesn't make sense to me if they want to compete with the big boys.
The other aspect I think you may be missing is that Peacock isn't selling older people what they want to buy, just like it isn't selling to young people. Peacock is tone deaf to all its generations, and that is what will destroy it in the end. It's not the only service doing this. Paramount isn't doing so well in this area either.
I should be the perfect customer for both Paramount and Peacock. I like a lot of both networks shows from the 1960s until around 2012. Equally, I despise the new shows being made by Netflix and Amazon Prime. So I am smack dab in the Target audience for someone who should sign up with one of the traditional broadcasting networks' streaming service. But they don't want my money.
streaming services seem to be heavily focused on the young, while many of us who are 50 and over our cord cutters as well. I have noticed that networks have given away rights to older shows so that I can expect to find shows like Little House on the Prairie on a different streaming service than its original network service. I'm 52 years old, and I generally know which network carried which of my favorite shows since the 1970s. So I sign up for that streaming service, do a search, and don't find my show. Then I find it on another network, and I have to decide whether I am going to subscribe to both streaming services now or ditch the first one so I can actually watch my show. This is Annoying, and as the streaming services fragment further, there will be losers.
For now, my generation and the younger baby boomers Still have more disposable income than younger people. We could subscribe to an extra streaming service, but a lot of us don't think we should have to since Little House on the Prairie should just be on the proper network.
Since I primarily prefer to watch older shows and don't really enjoy anything Netflix is doing these days, I am getting close to making the decision to just buy the shows I like on DVD, rip them, and make my own streaming server with the shows I like. It would be a one time cost and some little time, but I wouldn't have to go round and round looking for each show that I want to watch, subscribing to a service For a month so I can watch something and then subscribing to something else next month because it has the other show I wanted to watch. It would save me a lot of frustration and aggravation, and I don't think I am alone and thinking it's time that there is some consolidation and some common sense needed in the streaming space.
I’m shocked you didn’t mention the WWE PPVs (PLE now) being exclusive on Peacock.
I work for NBC. My office is literally next to where they run all of Peacock. They are doing amazingly, much better than NBC hoped. The reason? Live sports. Esp. The premiere league. They aren't actually trying to be Netflix.
Question. Why are you losing billions of dollars?
The difference is that your company has cash because of cable and the parks, no one else does. So to say Peacock might have a future is quite possible.
I only use Peacock for US Figure skating nationals. As Figure Skating fan they only store replays for 48 hour for each decipline. All the GP series I can get on RUclips with no expiration. I cannot wait until their contract expires with Comcast because they are awful at broadcast /streaming spots
The citadel TV show is so frustrating to me because it could've worked if they had the old model of more episodes just so we had time with the citadel to see what it was all about but they expect us to care that this organization is falling apart when we have no idea what it is
The only good thing on network TV these days is Abbott Elementary.
And bobs burgers!
9-1-1 and Ghosts are good too
Everyone it’s cheaper to buy the content you binge watch than subscribing to multiple streaming services. Especially when you can get it on sale
I hate how streaming shows are only like 8 episodes AND you have to wait 2 years for the next season. And often times they find ways to have filler episodes despite only having 8 episodes.
They fired all the writers. Then they increased the number of commercials. Now they expect you to pay them again for this crap on a streaming service. We have better ways to spend our time.
I keep Peacock on my que because of WWE.
Same.
Same
One of these days, one of the big networks is just going to hit the nuclear option and go “Hays Code, Shmays Code - we’re allowing full frontal nudity on basic cable, so don’t touch that dial!” Think of the ratings! The press! The sheer amount of attention people will pay them!
@grfrjiglstan
Actual Lee: The Hays code has been defunct since 1968.
@@justindenney-hall5875 True, but it's legacy still defines American TV and movies.
@@kfcnyancat
Julien Winfield: I DON'T REMEMBER ASKING YOU A GODDAMN THING!
And it will get worse for Peacock losing the wwe ppvs in the international markets and wwe content moving to Netflix.
Given how popular Columbo is with youngsters, I think you're right on the money. If they can figure out a way to step back a bit and bring their old magic to the fore today, they could rake in serious growth, especially by offering producers safety and control that Netflix doesn't. I think they stand at a crossroads where working with Netflix is so stifling and often random that the promise of *not* doing data-driven cancellations could lure the showrunners back into their camp if they know how to play it.
Too much copaganda on NBC and every other channel.
Cope
Gotta love the terminally online buzzwords
That's because old people love it and old people are the only ones using cable at this point
_Blue Bloods_ is elite tier
🙄
Everything peacock does as a company tells me that their thought process behind all of this is "were too big to fail, so either the customers do what we want them to do, or they can suck it."
What I don't get is that they have two major channels in MSNBC and CNBC. Why they are not part of peacock is shocking.
They purposely leave assets off peacock which makes it less of a value
Also some of their premier League games are not on peacock either and only on cable. It's becoming less valuable.
You have to factor in licensing abroad, most of Peacock's original shows are on either Prime, Netflix or other services here in Mexico for example. There's still a hold on the culture.
Streaming services devalue their content by keeping it behind a pay wall. I used to watch 30 Rock on Netflix. I haven't even thought about it since they moved it to Peacock.
Peacock is the only streaming service i really am happy paying for. It has The Office, Parks and Rec, SuperStore, New Girl, 30 Rock, Brooklyn 99, Rutherford Falls, Community, The Middle, Psych, and Scrubs
Just because you used a clip from it, I wanted to mention that I thought the Quantum Leap relaunch was actually really good and underappreciated!
I got Peacock only for WWE PLE's. Once WWE moves to Netflix next year, goodbye Peacock. Though I appreciated your day 1 release of the Five Nights Movie.
Just Raw is moving to Netlifx in the USA. Netflix mostly has the international rights for WWE
Idk why all these companies are obsessed with becoming a streaming service. The business model is far from ideal. Extremely high budgets with little to no profits. They would have been better off licensing their content for more popular streaming services. You know how much money they were making from Netflix off the office and friends alone? IMO removing that content for this peacock move hurt all parties involved
From what I understand the biggest thing they lost was their exclusivity contract with WWE, which is their most popular content. It's like how Disney+ lost a ton of it's revenue when they lost exclusivity for Cricket Matches in India.
They actually haven't lost that yet.....
The WWE's new deal with Netflix only covers RAW (it may be moving from NBCU's USA but they are actually getting SmackDown from Fox to replace it) and international rights to the special streaming originals and the pay per view events and such...
Peacock still has those here in the states until 2025 and it will likely be renewed unless the WWE wants it all on one platform (then that will be the time to panic)... It's kinda like how Max in the US streams the Studio Ghibli catalog while overseas rights are with Netflix
One thing to note when comparing Peacock subscriber numbers to Paramount+, is that Paramount+ is included in Walmart+. And Walmart plus has over 60 million members, so a great portion of the Paramount+ subscribers might actually just be from Walmart. Now of course Paramount gets something from that deal, but these subscribers are not paying anything directly to Paramount.
im curious what the streaming wars will look like by the end of the year (or lack there of)
Poker Face was such a good show. It's a shame it was on Peacock because it got no attention... But yeah, I agree that network TV channels should focus more on those comfort TV shows. They should stop trying to create the next Lost and focus on creating the next Community or Seinfeld. Those types of shows that really benefit from longer seasons and more time to develop. It really is a loss for them to try to become the next Netflix. They probably could make so much money just by leasing out their hit shows