Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Businesses The Almighty Buck United States

As 'Subscription Fatigue' Sets In, the OTT Reckoning May Be Upon Us (adweek.com) 205

An anonymous reader writes: Deciding which streaming outlet you want to subscribe to can be just as hard as finding a show itself. With options from big players like Netflix, HBO Now, Hulu, Showtime, Amazon and YouTube Premium -- and looming new platforms from the likes of Disney, Apple, AT&T and NBCUniversal -- consumers are already starting to grow frustrated with the crowded streaming marketplace as "subscription fatigue" sets in, according to Deloitte's 13th edition of its Digital Media Trends survey.

Viewers are taking advantage of these options: the average video consumer subscribes to three video streaming services, said Deloitte. But they're growing frustrated over just how many options they have. Nearly half of those surveyed, at 47 percent, said they are frustrated by the growing number of subscriptions and services to watch their shows. And this audience grows attached to the content: 57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As 'Subscription Fatigue' Sets In, the OTT Reckoning May Be Upon Us

Comments Filter:
  • Too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:01AM (#58315848) Homepage Journal

    I would get YouTube Premium if it was 2 bucks a month. The current price, higher than Netflix, isn't worth it.

    • by sinij ( 911942 )
      I would never get YouTube Premium, as I don't ever want Google to be able to profile me in such way. Subscribing means offering Google definitive identity and home address as a result of financial transaction of paying subscription.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        The bottom line is you're really not interesting enough for Google to care about. They probably already know your address from related searches and indexes of public information.

        • by sinij ( 911942 )
          However, they have no clue that I am a brony, listen to Nickelback and Justin Bieber on repeat, prefer Oracle databases, and space-delineate instead of tab-delineate my code. We all have our dirty secrets.
          • The spaces make up for all the evil.

        • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

          The bottom line is you're really not interesting enough for Google to care about. They probably already know your address from related searches and indexes of public information.

          What are you talking about? It's not like they dedicate an employee to monitor everyone, their automated algorithms track *everyone* (even if you don't directly use Google services). So no one is too small to escape their interest.

          But like you said, most people probably aren't diligent enough to keep Google from identifying them - simply not subscribing to a service won't stop that.

    • It's not about money, or at least it's not all about money. People in gaming forums are currently throwing various screaming tantrums over the fact that Epic is launching a competitor to Steam, and that's free.

      I really think it's more about fragmentation than cost. People don't want their stuff scattered all over the place, and a lot of people have developed brand loyalty (developed Stockholm syndrome, have become enveloped in the RDF, whatever you want to call it) to the platforms which have been around
  • Apple Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:06AM (#58315870)

    Apple knows this. Maybe it is the secret sauce in its soon-to-be-announced offering.

    I for one agree. I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.

    What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

    • You hit the nail on the head. I subscribe to Google's Premium service because that is what I mainly watch. However, my NetFlix subscription is free because I get it through my cellular carrier. Do I care to pay $10 a month to a whole bunch of providers? Not really.

      I don't want to sound alarmist, but what are all these businesses selling subscriptions going to do if there is a recession, and Joe Sixpack has to tighten the belt? The first thing he will be doing is cancelling all but maybe 1-2 things that

    • That's called cable, and it fails as your provider makes choices and contract bundling to save money, thus limiting your choices.

      However if you want to do that get subcriptions through Amazon. I pay Amazon for my HBO now subcription, and thus don't only have one place for my card.

    • Sounds like... Cable TV.

      o.O

      What I want is a la carte TV shows. I don't really care about the services, though I do keep my Netflix subscription going, I'd much rather watch a pilot freebee and pay for a season of a show.

    • I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.

      That's the beauty of using an AppleTV for this, today.

      A few services (notably Amazon and Netflix) you still need to sign up for separately.

      But pretty much everything else, you can subscribe to content in an app using in-app purchase on AppleTV.

      That means none of those companies have any info on you beyond a

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I have no idea what the Apple video service will offer beyond that but I am pretty dubious about signing up, because the way it works is already pretty good just subscribing and unsubscribing from apps. Its the ala-carte dream I always had about video content, and I'll be dammed if anyone can pull me out of this new video paradise.

        I suspect the Apple video service is what AppleTV has in a more generalized form. Right now you need an AppleTV to enjoy it. With a few more content providers and such, the new se

    • What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

      Amazon, ironically, does let you do pretty much that. I see plenty of shows and movies in their video service that are really through a different video service, which presumably you pay for via Amazon.

    • One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

      so....you want cable

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      A big problem is the exclusive deal. A has an exclusive on 1, B an exclusive on 2, C on 3, etc. Any one or two would be a fair enough price to pay for a good variety of entertainment, but not the growing number you have to pay to get the shows you want.

    • I'm not sure how it is relevant that "apple knows this". Everybody knows this and always has. It doesn't stop the content producers from making exclusive licenses or starting their own streaming service (Disney). This is a long-predicted endgame.

      There is a solution: compulsory fair licensing. The producer can't choose who is and isn't allowed to buy their DVDs so why are they allowed to choose who carries their stream? Basically historical accident. The specter of compulsory licensing is what was ho

    • What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill.

      I'd be content with more choice. Streaming for free with ads, or subscribe to remove the ads. Most places force one option or the other.

  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:08AM (#58315880)

    57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries.

    No kidding; Amazon has taken to moving off a lot of both shows and movies to linked providers so now one would need to pony up extra $$ for five or six other services to get the same old selections.

    • I have this sneaking suspicion that Amazon eyes closely what people enjoy watching, then take it off prime when they suddenly and miraculously just so happen to offer a DVD collection of that show as a new item.

  • Aggregator (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:08AM (#58315882)

    What we need is a subscription service, that manages your subscription services.

    For a small monthly fee, you can pay for small monthly fees, and have an easy way to manage all those subscriptions, for just a small monthly fee.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:09AM (#58315888)

    I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    I have Netflix regularly, and Amazon Prime mostly for shipping but do use video also. Beyond that though, I just join in and then drop different services depending on what I want to see - so I subscribe to HBO when Game of Thrones is on, dropping it after (and also catching up on a few other shows they have while I'm there). I subscribed to CBS fo ra little while to watch Star Trek Discovery, then dropped it when I had seen enough.

    This is the golden age of subscription. I don't care how many different streaming options there are, as long as I can take them or leave them when I see fit - so much better than cable ever was.

    • Sure, but you still need a cable bill worth of streaming services to get most of the content out there.
      • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        Sure, but you still need a cable bill worth of streaming services to get most of the content out there.

        No, you don't. I keep Hulu, Netflix, and Prime (and that's more for shipping than video) year round. If a show I want to watch comes on HBO, Shotime, Starz, CBS, whatever, I'll sub for a month, watch the show, and un-sub. Most people don't need every service every month of the year.

        • No, you don't. I keep Hulu, Netflix, and Prime (and that's more for shipping than video) year round.

          That's all I have, and honeslty it's more than I need. Prime we have because of the shipping otherwise wouldn't bother with it- it has the worst UI and worst selection. It's not worth getting Prime just for TV.

          That leaves Hulu and Netflix. The wife can't live without Netflix and the kids can't live without Hulu. I watch a few shows from both but could do without either. So both Hulu and Netflix stay for now to keep the family happy.

          Three streaming services is enough and where I'm stopping. I want to w

    • I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

      Yeah I know. Just yesterday I was thinking I wanted to a movie so I sat down at the TV, browsed through the library, fired up the website, cancelled my Netflix subscription, jumped on HBO subscribed, downloaded the app to the TV, made some popcorn and ... well at that point it was bed time. But it's okay in the morning I ... wasn't in the mood for a horror film so I opened up the website, cancelled my HBO subscription, jumped on the Netflix website ...

      Easy as pie. What a golden age we live in.

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

      I have Netflix regularly, and Amazon Prime mostly for shipping but do use video also. Beyond that though, I just join in and then drop different services depending on what I want to see - so I subscribe to HBO when Game of Thrones is on, dropping it after (and also catching up on a few other shows they have while I'm there). I subscribed to CBS fo ra little while to watch Star Trek Discovery, then dropped it when I had seen enough.

      Sorry, my torrent finished downloading halfway through reading that. I'm just not interested in the question of "which damn service hosts this thing I want to watch". Netflix used to have a lot of value to me, as I could browse it when I was bored and actually find something. That's fading. I was happy to pay one subscription, and let Netflix sort out the money between all the IP owners but that's the service I was paying for.

      There's just no way I'm going to try to figure out what's on a dozen different

    • by dargaud ( 518470 )

      I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

      I don't know, bittorrent 'subscriptions' have been working fine for over a decade...

    • > as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

      It is, but it's also easy to forget when your subscription month end is, and as a result you'll miss cancelling in time. It's also a hassle. I have Netflix, and I get Prime Video through my Prime membership. I may entertain buying a couple of other services for a month here and there, but that's it, and when I do that I'll do it at a time when I can binge what I wanted and then drop it. I won't be subscribing to anything else on an ongoing

    • by Calydor ( 739835 )

      So you enjoy juggling all those subscriptions. Good for you.

      Some people want to just sit down and watch something without first having to figure out which service is active today and what is actually on that service.

      That's where torrenting comes in.

      It's sad, really. Netflix was THIS CLOSE to winning over piracy because people don't inherently WANT to be criminals ... but then everyone got greedy and wanted their own cake instead of a slice of the cake and here we are, torrents are once again becoming the op

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:13AM (#58315902)

    It's the ever changing offer. Today you have Series A on Streaming Service A. Tomorrow, on Service B. Then it vanishes entirely. Only to resurface on C next week. Maybe. And heaven forbid you want to see more than one show. Because one thing you can be almost certain of: It is on another streaming service. Or will be. Or will no longer be once you subscribed to that other service for exactly this one show, but now you're tied to it for a year.

    Especially that last bit gets people pissed. Streaming services could be a killer for torrents if, and only if, they become at least halfway reliable. Else, torrents are simply less hassle.

    • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:35AM (#58316076)

      This is why I still buy movies and sometimes TV shows that I enjoy on physical discs. If it's something I might enjoy rewatching later, or a long-running show where I want to make sure I can watch the whole thing, it doesn't work out significantly more expensive given how much I typically watch on the likes of Netflix.

      The frustrating thing is that because of the emphasis on streaming and rental models these days, it's much harder to buy a lot of things on disc than it used to be, You can find that seasons 1 and 2 are out on disc, but season 3 isn't, and season 4 is but only on US import that doesn't quite work right here in the UK. Then because Amazon won and killed off all the competition, and right now it doesn't have season 2 on sale, you get stuck anyway.

      I miss the old days, when there were actual bricks 'n' mortar shops like Silver Screen, where you could go in and buy most moderately popular films and shows from at least the past decade or two and the classics right off the shelf, and they knew how to get hold of just about anything else if you wanted to order it for collection later. What we have with modern technology should have been better, but as usual the money-grabbing media companies have spoiled it by trying to lock everything up and squeeze out a tiny bit more profit.

  • Was there ever a time when people were likely to subscribe to more than a handful of streaming services? My wife and I were just talking about this this morning. We would love to watch Cobra Kai but have no interest in signing up for anything, not even a free trial. Same with Star Trek Discovery.

    It might be easier for us to avoid FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) because we are not cord-cutters.

    We never had cable to begin with.
  • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:19AM (#58315954)
    Jesus Christ, people, quit watching videos and do something with your lives. If you don't have enough time to watch everything, then the problem isn't what you think it is. Put down the fucking phone/tablet/computer and do something useful. It's much more satisfying.
  • If you try to recreate a cable package through multiple streaming services it will end up costing just as much

    As recent cord-cutters
    We already had Amazon Prime for free delivery etc. and will keep it
    We have a Netflix subscription which we will keep.
    We have an antenna and DVR for over the air broadcasts (Networks/PBS/Spanish stations for soccer games with Spanish commentary)

    Then we will probably just have one other active service at a time.
    At the moment it is HBO through Amazon (we are binge watching Game of

  • ... of how many corporate hands they want in their bank accounts every month.

  • ...but commerce is natural across humans. If governments (or in this case the stupid companies themselves) try to constrain commerce in unnatural ways, a black market is a certainty.

    In re all the flippin streaming services specifically?
    If you decide to leave the commons and hide your products in pay-to-enter walled gardens, we're going to find out two things:
    1) how good your security is, because ultimate someone's just going to break in and steal it, or
    2) your shit isn't worth the trouble.

  • by oogoliegoogolie ( 635356 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:31AM (#58316038)

    Same as the told cable-TV.
    You need to subscribe to multiple providers(packages) to get the few of shows you really want to watch, and the remainder is like the old cable cliche of "500 channels and nothing good is on." How many mediocre shows that take place in some dystopian future do we need?

    Smart money will bet that in a year or two, these providers will begin to divide their offerings into basic & premium content.

  • A la carte (Score:2, Interesting)

    But they're growing frustrated over just how many options they have.

    No, what these people are complaining about is that nobody has been able to deliver on a reasonably priced one- or two-stop a la carte experience for viewing content they care about. And they're placing the blame squarely where it belongs - on subscription services basing their model on producing "you can only find this show on this service" content to try to lock in their piece of the pie.

    I don't have to subscribe to a video game service if I want to play the newest video game. I can just buy whatever ga

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      You CAN buy most TV shows a la carte. Apple, Google, Vudu, Amazon all carry shows you can buy digitally. You can also get most on DVD or Blu-ray (many with digital copies that end up costing less than just buying digital). Even some Netflix shows are on physical media (Marvel shows and Stranger Things for example).
  • OTT? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:37AM (#58316096)
    Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?
    • Re:OTT? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @12:11PM (#58316290)

      Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?

      Neither the summary nor TFA defines the what OTT means. According to Google it means "Over The Top", and refers to a box that sits on top of a TV set-top box to give additional services and content. But since services like YouTube Premium don't actually involve any physical device, the term has become disconnected from its origin.

  • All options are full of crap. Tons of crap. Sure there are a couple semi-recent movies, but that is about it. Most of it is not worth watching, which is exactly why they can buy tons of hours of stuff for dirt cheap.
    Very frustrating is that there is no good indexing service I have found to tell which of our 3 subscriptions might have it. WTF?
    Want to go back and watch a good show again after giving up finding anything new in despair? Too bad, it disappeared.

  • I do this: Each month, try a new subscription and cancel an old one.

    After a year, pick one to have permanently, and try the others again.

  • OTT = Over The Top (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:43AM (#58316140)

    Which is a term for direct to internet content services. Had to look it up. If it's not a widely known acronym, it should be spelled out in the title or summary.

  • I buy one or two new DVDs/Blu-Rays a month and used ones whenever my fancy is struck. They are my physical disc and shall remain mine. Last year went through the trouble of registering them all through Ultraviolet and all the other streaming services, only to receive an email from Ultraviolet that they're shutting down and all that is going away.

    One of these days I'll buy a little storage network and rip my library, but I'll keep the discs - gotta figure out a backup strategy. Meanwhile, I'll keep my
  • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @11:53AM (#58316206)

    And these content providers wonder why piracy still exists. I'm sorry, but a person shouldn't have to subscribe to more than one or two streaming services to get the content they want. Any more than that is a market failure. It's far too easy to just toss the wanted series or movie into Sonarr or Radarr, and magically have it appear in your library. The best part of this is that it will never disappear from your library when a licensing deal expires.

    What we need in the video world is mandatory, non-discriminatory licensing for content, similar to what exists in music. Netflix should be able to provide whatever they want, and just pay the same licensing fee as everyone else. Same thing goes for Netflix produced content.

  • A big problem I have with streaming service silos is they each present their own (bad) UI and search space. So if there's a show I want to watch, it's quite difficult to figure out which of the services will have it other than to go to each Roku app, find its search screen, type in the query one letter at a time into the on-screen keyboard, find out the show isn't there, and repeat until I've exhausted all my options and, maybe, resort to just finding a torrent and having it in less time than that just took

    • You can search the web but "which streaming service is show X on" is a surprisingly difficult query.

      It gets even worse if you don't live in the US, because the selections are different.

  • For most of the TV channels, if you subscribe to a service which offers the channel, you can login directly to that channel's site [discovery.com] and stream their content. The movie studios need to set up a similar system, where if a service you subscribe to carries a movie, then they will stream it to you after confirming your subscription.

    What we need now is some master app which coordinates all this. Right now if you try to stream like this directly from all the channels, you'll have to go through a login procedur
  • I would hate to think that the real OTT [echochamber.me] were to come to an end.

  • "...57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries."

    All too true. Netflix dropped the stuff I really wanted to watch. So I dropped them.

    • Netflix dropped the stuff I really wanted to watch. So I dropped them.

      They even drop stuff partially. For some TV show that I wanted to watch, they still offer season 2 and further, but withdrew season 1. It boggles the mind why anyone would think that's a good idea.

  • You all thought 'cutting the cord' was going to save you money and get you what you want and only what you want? Look again: how many of you have to now get multiple subscriptions to multiple 'streaming services' to get all the entertainment you want? How close is that to what your cable bill was? Oh and don't forget to factor in how much your internet costs, too, counting your wireless bill if you use that as well. Is it now equal to or over what your cable bill was? If so then congratulations, you fell fo
    • by tsqr ( 808554 )

      U-verse U-400 service, $200+. Netflix, $12; Hulu, $12; Amazon Prime, $10; ISP, $50. So, cable = $200; streaming = $84. That leaves quite a bit of margin for intermittent, short-term subscriptions to other streaming services when something interesting pops up. And of course, the cost of Amazon Prime covers more than their streaming service; we save more in shipping costs than the cost of the Prime subscription.

      While it's true that there are a few shows that are available through U-verse that aren't available

    • You all thought 'cutting the cord' was going to save you money and get you what you want and only what you want?

      Depends. As the article says, most people only use a couple of streamers. We only have 2 subscriptions at our house, and it's still less than half the price of cable, while it offers more entertainment that I'm interested in. The beauty of entertainment is that it is interchangeable. I don't have to watch a particular movie if I can watch something equally entertaining instead.

      • Consider this: since when does anything, over time, cost *less*? It doesn't. All these 'streaming' services will over time cost more and more. Bet you cash money sooner than you like they'll all cost rivalling cable TV. Why? Because they can.
    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Why would ones internet connection be factored into the cost? This being the day and age it is, I imagine most of those we typically think of as cord cutters already had broadband connections when they switched off cable.

      • Why factor in internet cost? Because I have an antenna on my roof that's a one-time expense. I pay zero to watch TV. Sure, I don't care about what's only on streaming but you MUST have internet to use streaming so you have to consider the cost.
        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          "Sure, I don't care about what's only on streaming but you MUST have internet to use streaming so you have to consider the cost."

          No you really don't. If you had the same internet connection both before and after cutting the cord then it would be completely incorrect to include unless you included the internet bill into your prior cable costs as well. In other words, the necessity of having a broadband internet connection to watch streaming content is irrelevant in this context because it is typically a cost

  • Consumers are willing to pay for a streaming service and we don't mind there being 10-20 streaming services but all of them need to have all the premium content included and for it to stay. Nobody cares about the non-premium content at all. So content makers, stop splitting off your own streaming services and stop selling exclusive access. Let consumers have their cake and eat it to and race these guys to the bottom and make up the difference by making them all pay for content all the time instead of one at

  • The article about subscription fatigue is locked behind a subscription:

    Want to Read the Full Article?
    REGISTER NOW FOR FREE

    Access 5 free articles*
    every month on Adweek.com

    *Excludes premium content

    I tried to register, giving my email, a random 16-character string as a password, first name, last name, and country. But because I left the following fields blank, the "JOIN" button was grayed out.

    Company
    Job Title
    Business Type
    Job Function
    Job Level

  • ... now instead of having to buy a super expensive cable package to get the channels/shows you want, now you need to subscribe to multiple different services to get the 1 or 2 things you want on each one.... was better when Netflix had almost everything and you didn't need multiple subs....

  • I'd actually pay a little extra, say 1-2EUR on my Netflix account if it allowed me to view shows from some other network. Pay a little extra to Netflix and get 3h of viewing of another providers content, delivered through the same account/subscription I already have.
    I'm sure they could work out a deal if they only wanted to.

    But alas, Popcorntime is still a better experience. Or so I'm told.

  • suppose.tv [suppose.tv] is the Swiss pocket knife of streaming choices. Any time I get frustrated with my current service I hop over to see if I can get my must have's anywhere else. And just when I think I've got a solution I see they don't support my chosen client (Nvidia Shield TV). It's nice to see at a glance instead of rooting around the fine print of each site.

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...