Streaming Services Are Facing Identity Crisis, Research Shows (advanced-television.com)
- Reference: 0176830027
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/03/26/1518225/streaming-services-are-facing-identity-crisis-research-shows
- Source link: https://www.advanced-television.com/2025/03/17/research-svod-services-struggling-for-identity/
Fewer consumers (37% in 2025, down from 41% in 2023) report signing up for services to watch specific shows, while many can't correctly identify where signature programs like Game of Thrones or The Bear can be viewed. While 58% know Stranger Things streams on Netflix, less than half can properly place other major titles.
[1] https://www.advanced-television.com/2025/03/17/research-svod-services-struggling-for-identity/
There's no difference. All are product of greed (Score:2)
There's no difference. All of them are the product of greed.
They saw what Netflix was doing and wanted that slice of pie for themselves, so they took their content and made their own streamers... which are now bleeding cash hand over fist.
But to be fair, there's one streamer that's head and shoulders worse than all the others, and it's HiDive.
Re: (Score:2)
> HiDive
Why do you say it's worse? I was just contemplating a subscription for DANMACHI dubs.
Re: (Score:2)
the UI for appleTV has been a mess for years, and an update 2 years ago broke it even harder.
Then, that disease spread to all the other HiDive "apps" for Roku, TVs, gaming consoles, etc.
The only thing that "kinda" works is the website, and even that has trouble remembering where you are in any given ep, has trouble with subtitles..
It's like AMC doesn't care.
Er how? (Score:3)
Netflix has the best UI.
Every other streaming service has a shit UI, because every other streaming service seems to be focused on their upsell.
Re: (Score:2)
> other streaming service seems to be focused on their upsell
You mean like the big fat "game on mobile" that we see on Netflix while using a PC, covering the whole window, where you have to scroll down to start seeing the actual streamable shit? Or the fact that Netflix usually does not show stuff that you marked as "not interesting" but still does it for games?
> Netflix has the best UI.
Is that because of the simplified lists that only show what Neflix believes you might be interested in (you just watch a WWII movie, let me fill half the lists with other WWII movies), without allowing you to
Colbert and daily Show (Score:2)
These two are on paramount plus
Shouldn't be surprising (Score:2)
This shouldnt be surprising as original content is pretty much the one thing that makes most streaming services unique and most streaming services are scaling back on their original content. It's the same thing with TV channels, if all they're doing is showing what everyone else is showing then what's the difference?
If they want to stand out from the crowd they actually have to do something to do so.
It isn't an "identity crisis" (Score:2)
They all know pretty well who they are.
What they lack is something else and it is called "product differentiation". It is also very easy to explain why.
All hold (or lease in some form from the holder) a portfolio of the so-called "intellectual property rights", which has to be monetized. This puts a rather high barrier to any creativity that might want to try to grow through the big icons.
There are only a few big names who act as if they own everything, which limits competition severely. So, no fresh player
Old? Jaded? (Score:3)
I must be old and/or jaded. I don't want to watch most of what I find on streaming. I don't want to have 5 services to watch the 5 shows I might be interested in - looks like cable all over again. We need shows a-la-carte, not channels.
Re: (Score:2)
> We need shows a-la-carte, not channels.
Good news: both iTunes and Amazon still sell many of them in this way. Not all of them, of course (infuriatingly, Apple still won't sell episodes of For All Mankind as episode downloads, despite the existence of Blu-Ray releases...), but many can still be purchased this way.
Re: (Score:2)
I think buying a season of a show on Amazon costs as much as a month of streaming service, not a great value.
Exclusive broadcasting deals are idiotic (Score:2)
I will pay for 1 and only 1 streaming service, with the exception of Amazon prime where I am paying for free shipping and get TV and movies as an perk. But straight up paying for service, one company and one company only will get my money. If someone wants me to watch their content legitimately, put it on that service or either don't get it watch, or I'll watch it for free in ways that piss them off even more than demanding it be on a service they aren't on. These are non-negotiable statements.
Lesson from the music industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Which has actually figured out streaming better already. Outside of new releases that maybe hit Spotify first is there any major music label that is exclusive to a streamer? There are podcasts and there there used to be some gaps years ago with some major artists (I remember first using TY Music that Tool and I think Zeppelin were not yet on there) but I think that's pretty rare today.
If you have Spotify or Apple Music or YouTube Music or whatever, chances are you have access to what you are looking for and the services compete on features and user experience.
I've said it before but we need a Paramount Decree for streamers. You can produce content or you can distribute content but you can't do both. All content (after a short exclusive period) has to be made licensable for anyone at a reasonable price (as in you can't keep an exclusive through high prices). Think of the streamers like a sports team, they have $XX.XX dollars to spend, put together a roster of content that is compelling enough for people to subscribe, make your service the easiest to use. Don't just rely on rent-seeking your exclusives.
As much as they'll fight it maybe regulation is what this industry actually needs, they'll never make significant business model changes on their own, as we see with MAX they'll sooner take the ball and go home.
Re: (Score:2)
Producing music doesn't cost much though. Producing good TV is expensive. It's not clear if the economics of licencing TV shows to other streaming services will work out. I think at best we would end up with something like cable TV, where you get annoying bundles of channels, and ads.
There but for the Will and Grace of God... (Score:2)
High rates of brand recognition may actually be bad in some cases. Like, "I only subscribe to Service X because it has that one show I like, and that's all I ever watch on it."
what we wanted, what we got (Score:4, Insightful)
What we wanted: standards-based, platform-agnostic systems which allow us to rent content a la carte and have payment managed by whichever service we found convenient.
What we got: a big fuck you
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Pretty much.
The only things that... (Score:2)
...make each brand "unique" are the inconsistent UI functions
In this case, unique is not good, it's more like maddening and frustrating
Shocking! (Score:2)
They start with bundling and cross promotion, and the result is a diluted brand perception? No shit!
Re: Shocking! (Score:2)
Actually, I lied. I love seeing forced ads for reality informative murder porn "documentaries" while I try to watch the Pitt. No, I don't. Fuck that shit. Fuck the guy who watered down HBO, a truly prestige brand for the ages. Get that shit back to just HBO
Disney+ (Score:2)
That may be true for the others, but Disney+ is pretty obviously for fans of Disney/Pixar movies, Disney Channel kids content, Star Wars, and Marvel. (Yes, they have Doctor Who and some other random content.)
Oh, and isn't Disney+ the original '+' streaming service?
Re: (Score:3)
> Disney+ is pretty obviously for fans of Disney/Pixar movies, Disney Channel kids content
I think you can stop there. People who are unable to identify Game of Thrones with HBO seem equally unlikely to be aware that Disney bought Lucasfilm or Marvel. Or The Muppets, or 20th Century Fox, or any of the other things that Disney has swallowed.