The Vortex of Streaming Services

The Premise

Netflix. Hulu. Amazon Prime Video. HBO Now. Disney+. YouTube Red. HBO Max. This and that, these and those. 

It seems like everyone and their mothers are making their own streaming service. We’re getting SO many options, so… that must mean more shows. Like TV in the old days.  More streaming services means more options. More options means more shows. More shows means more “good”, right?

The Background 

Well, no. I certainly don’t think so.

With television, sure, TV programs were all abundant, but you had no control over it. You were a slave to the time slots. In some ways, it was nice. You planned your days around it. It’s certainly nostalgic to think about. Saturday morning cartoons. TGIF Sitcom specials. Midday soap operas. Evening game shows and dramas. Late night TV. And of course with cable TV, programs ran 24 hours on all kinds of channels.

Though, it seems that audience members have migrated away from that format in droves because of the simple, but crucial factors of convenience and affordability. From videos on demand to streaming services, it was the logical next step in movie renting and creative media consumption. Netflix, not initially a streaming service, sought to compete against the famous Blockbuster for movie rentals via DVD mailing service as their selling point. 

Fun Fact: in 2000, Netflix offered itself for acquisition to Blockbuster for $50 million, but Blockbuster declined. 

Eventually, Netflix reached a turning point and became the leading streaming service that provided a large selection of titles at a low cost, and no late fees. Now, you could do your movie browsing at home and without concern of the choice being sold out. Watch whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, and for however long you wanted. Hell, this type of service made way for the binge-watching cultural phenomenon.

Though, it appears that we’re reaching another turning point.

The Problem 

On the surface, it seems like there are more options. Many other companies are wanting a piece of the streaming-service pie by starting their own version that one may initially analogize it to having more channels. In reality, our options are being limited even though the market is becoming over saturated. One need only look at Netflix’s dwindling roster of third-party content and subscribers.

What made Netflix so great in its heyday was that it was a focal point for all the best TV shows and movies past. It provided a conveniently accessible digital library of licensed content from a variety of major production companies and third parties. It was SO easy! But now, all of these companies want their shit back, and they want it back with a vengeance.

The very thing made to protect content creators’ work is now being utilized as a market-shaping tool against us: copyright.

Copyright laws were made so that content creators have full authority over their intellectual property while keeping out others from easily plagiarizing their work and profiting. Utilizing that rule, the major studios are reclaiming their original content and using it for their respective streaming service, thus no longer licensing their content out via Netflix.

Hulu and Amazon Prime Video were already direct competitors for Netflix in terms of streaming service and they essentially had their own titles and different content. Some others include Youtube, Vudu, even Sling. Though, even with these in existence, more are priming to start.

• With the advent of Disney+, Netflix lost/loses any Disney movies and TV shows along with Marvel movies and TV shows. On top of that, Disney already owns part of Hulu. 
• Warnermedia’s upcoming HBOMax will rob Netflix of major hits like Friends and any content that is on the CW, TNT, TBS, Newline, and Turner Classic Movies.
• NBCUniversal is getting ready to start their own and the beloved show, “The Office” is slated to be on their new streaming service. The popularity of “The Office” increased in popularity significantly because of its availability on Netflix.

It would be no surprise if other major movie companies such as Amblin, Dreamworks, Fox, Lionsgate, etc, decided to jump on this bandwagon, further dividing the content and holding the reins on how it’s streamed or shown.

Consumers are already finding workarounds for this variety by sharing accounts, but I can’t imagine large companies being chill with not cashing in on every consumer per capita, so they’ll probably start finding ways to tighten login access. Or, they’ll just allow this oversight for us peasants to continue sharing accounts as a means of “good will.”

Ostensibly, the streaming service market appeared to be an oligopoly with the big 3. However, with the new additions, the term “competitor” isn’t accurate itself. Lines are being drawn here and it is not any closer to becoming a “competitive market.”

A competitive market would be something like “Blockbuster” vs. Hollywood Videos vs. “Redbox” vs mom-and-pops local rental stores, etc. Each of these companies carried the same product or a niche material. They had different qualities like VHS to HD-DVDs, different selling points (like Red Box’s vending machines) and they added perks to their services. 5 day rentals. Rent 2, get the 3rd free. Free tube socks with rental.

With the way things are headed, it can be projected that content will no longer be cross-platform. Third-party streaming services will disintegrate as major media companies withhold their content.  All the major studios and production companies will lock down their own subscription fee respectively for the content they own. It’s devolving back to how things were in the golden age of cinema.

Prior to 1948, major movie production studios would buy out popular movie theaters and release their own films there, and only their films. This allowed them to have full control over the movie industry. Price minimums were made on tickets (ahem, subscription fees for content only viewable on that service), independent producers couldn’t fit in their own movies (ahem, no cross platforming or third-party content), and enforced block booking (requiring people to get not-so-popular or unwanted titles in order to get good titles… ahem). Blast from the past.

I mean, there’s the possibility that it’s all copacetic and everyone will welcome the idea of subscribing to different services like buying each individual TV channel. Maybe people will be cool with just subscribing to one service… and something like the game console animosity will start up. There’s also the possibility that the market will implode, swirling in on itself in a sea of failed subscription plan. I don’t know. Whatever IS going to happen… can’t say that I dig it.

The Solution 

Well, we COULD pirate everything.

Chances are, more people will do this to avoid the stacking of prices, if they haven’t already (along with “free” streaming outlets).

A better, LEGAL solution would be to re-evaluate how we could employ antitrust laws as they were intended and see how they work in today’s digital landscape, especially with exclusivity for intellectual property. We did it with music. What’s to say we can’t figure this out? We all love a free market, right? But even “free” has rules. 

Let’s take the analogy of the good sport of soccer. The fundamental point of the game is to score points by getting your ball into the net on the other side of the field. Seems straightforward enough.

If there were no other condition or rule other than getting the ball to the other side, what’s to stop me from deciding on crippling my opponent by giving him a swift kick to the side of the knee? Or giving him a quick shank to the side? Or throwing a rabid animal onto him?

Now that I’ve severely crippled my opponent and I got the ball to the other side, I win. Sure, but… is it really “soccer” anymore? I’m just breaking joints and flinging feral animals while arbitrarily making balls fit into nets. There’s nothing balanced, competitive or “soccer” about that.

This is why Antitrust laws, or Competition laws, exist. They are in place to prevent entities from completely preying on the playing field at everyone else’s expense. It gives people a chance at the pie without being completely crippled or ruled out in the first place.

In 1948, a landmark US Supreme Court antitrust case known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 (United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,) ruled that the method of exhibiting and distributing movies by major movie studios were in violation of antitrust laws. 8 major movie production companies had conspired to illegally lock movie prices and monopolize theater markets and distribution (Sounds an awfully a lot like what’s happening now).

This case has significantly shaped how we watch movies at the theaters. Major motion picture companies make fewer films, but they make better funded and better quality movies (arguably, nowadays). We see different movies from a variety of movie studios in one location. Independent production companies have a chance and no one is being stone-walled (more or less).

If we had something along these lines, this would divvy up the “exclusivity market” that’s going on with streaming services and make it a more competitive market. I understand that initially, it probably won’t seem profitable, but life, uh… finds a way.

While profits did suffer after the case in 1948, it did find its way back up shortly after, with better profits and better quality movies. It would provide the impetus for companies to innovate and improve on what we have now for streaming services (not just additional titles). I mean, when Netflix first started off with the DVD mailing service, Blockbuster jumped on that type of service too in order to compete.

Intellectual property (IP) would still be owned by the proprietor, and they could do whatever the hell they want with it, but…

I don’t have all the answers and what I give may not be the best, just throwing out ideas what I think could work.

Streaming services should retain “original” shows designed for their respective platforms to stand exclusively as their front runners. They should also (continue to) license out their other IP to other platforms and accept third-party content, too. For the smaller companies, this could provide niche content to have its place in the market, promoting growth. We all gotta start somewhere. Major companies can continue to profit. It still leaves open the opportunity for them to “nom nom” small companies, assimilating them into theirs one day, as it seems to be common practice.

Then, whatever streaming service can include innovative add-ons that would provide a unique selling point to their already LARGE roster. I mean, I love Netflix, but their algorithms that suggest what I may like is garbage. It pulls up content heavily unrelated to my interests or things I’ve ever watched. Get it right, Netflix!

Ideas to add to their services could be something like… including limited behind-the-scenes access and interviews, or even something like VH1’s Pop-Up Video that offers unique trivia (could get annoying – best to have the option to turn it off). Theatrical releases and director’s cuts. Fixing the suggestions algorithms. Promote communities. Honestly, the comments section that Netflix used to have may have been filled with venom and trash, but there were some gems and I think people often prefer word of mouth over some heavily refined description.

Those are just the easy ones off the top of my head.

More convenience means more consumers. More consumers means more money. More money means more production. More production means more innovative products. More innovative products mean… you get the point.

The Conclusion (tl;dr)

Companies starting their own streaming services to compete in the market with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Videos should probably rethink their policy and allow for more cross platforming content otherwise it will most likely alienate consumers from subscribing to their services.

A large number of people already share accounts, so giving more options in this market isn’t really going to encourage people to pay for subscriptions to a dwindling and limiting roster of content. Who in their right mind is going to pay $10+ for one or two shows across twelve different platforms? If anything, it’d lead to more piracy.

Companies should allow for cross platforming and find other means to promote their selling point. Antitrust laws exist for this purpose to make sure the playing field is level, like the crucial 1948 case of U.S. vs. Paramount Pictures. But these entities are trying to monopolize whatever they can which would likely drive people away. The point of this service was that it was easy for people to get into. This is doing the opposite.

So… in so many words: keep licensing content out to Netflix, all right?!
(That’s really why I wrote this article).

What do you think? How do you feel about the situation regarding the number of streaming services? Are you looking forward to subscribing to different services for a handful of shows? Am I just making a big fuss over nothing? Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. Leave a comment below!