My Solution for Fixing a Broken Streaming System

[Anderton]

Streaming overpromised and has underdelivered. People are tired of subscribing to a service for one or two things they want to watch. They don't like movies suddenly disappearing, never to return. There's no fair compensation for writers and actors. A lot of services continue to lose money. 

 

So here's my solution.

 

No more subscriptions - micro-payments.

 

You can look at the first 15% (timewise) of anything that's streaming - movies, documentaries, whatever. At the end of that time, a pop-up would say continue watching for $X, or cancel. If you clicked on continue watching, your account would deliver a micro-payment to watch the rest of it. If it was a series, you would have the option to pay for the whole series in advance, like a quantity discount kind of thing. (The payment would vary, depending on the content - hit movies cost more, vintage TV series cost less.)

 

At the end, another pop-up would ask if you wanted to own what you saw by downloading it to a phone, tablet, or computer. This would require a larger payment, maybe $1 or $2 for a hit movie.

 

I believe companies would make more than they would by subscriptions. Everyone tells me Ted Lasso is great. I'm not going to subscribe to Apple TV for one show. But I would do micro-payments to check it out.

 

What am I not taking into account that might make this a bad idea?

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

I don't know, but I would prefer that.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

This is an interesting suggestion! I think you're right that this would end up being higher value, and certainly make the works more widely accessible. But it might be a hard sell -- as a consumer, my kneejerk reaction is that the idea of having to constantly assent to little transactions sounds *incredibly* annoying. Not as frustrating as the big-picture of subscribing to multiple services with increasing amounts of ads and higher cost for gradually worse versions of the original product, but, more frequent. I think I'd probably take it, ultimately, but one of the big apparent conveniences that the current streaming model offers over the Legal Download model of my teen years is the set-it-and-forget-it aspect of the transaction. It's not "do I want to pay for this particular TV show/album, or save it for something else?" It's "now I have access to all of this as much as I want this month and I don't have to think about it anymore!" It's way more of a dopamine hit, and way less stress (because having to think about your bank account is stressful!) than a la carte would be.

 

Zooming out, though, I think the real problems with streaming platforms stem from, simply, greed. They make enough to pay the creators better, these six different corporations don't HAVE to all be in competition with each other, years of creative work doesn't have to be shuffled into the abyss just for tax writeoff purposes. The power of the technology means we could have a magnificent, accessible digital library of television, film, and recorded music for all of humanity. And everyone still gets paid for their contribution to creating the work and maintaining the interface.

 

But resolving those issues would involve some larger *ahem* structural overhauls on a government/social level, so... it's not like I see my approach being implemented as an alternative to the current model at this moment...

[Notes_Norton]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

No more subscriptions - micro-payments.

As a minimal media consumer, I like that idea. We watch 3 or 4 movies per month, and that's the only time the TV is on.

 

I can't see subscribing to Netflix, Disney+ and a dozen of others just to get the titles we want.

 

Notes ♫

[Anderton]

30 minutes ago, SamuelBLupowitz said:

But it might be a hard sell -- as a consumer, my kneejerk reaction is that the idea of having to constantly assent to little transactions sounds *incredibly* annoying. Not as frustrating as the big-picture of subscribing to multiple services with increasing amounts of ads and higher cost for gradually worse versions of the original product, but, more frequent.

 

It would depend on whether people hated subscriptions more than they hated "continue to watch." But there's another big advantage of micro-payments: if you're not pulled in during the first 15%, you can bail without having to pay a thing. Take the Ted Lasso example. If I don't like it, even if I cancel after watching one show, Apple (or Netflix, for that matter) will charge me for the entire month before the cancellation takes effect.

 

Considering how fed up people are with subscriptions, I think they'd get used to micropayments pretty quickly.

1 minute ago, Notes_Norton said:

As a minimal media consumer, I like that idea. We watch 3 or 4 movies per month, and that's the only time the TV is on.

 

I can't see subscribing to Netflix, Disney+ and a dozen of others just to get the titles we want.

 

Notes ♫

 

And there you have it. The services would get income they would not have gotten otherwise

[bill5]

I think it's great in theory but would never fly because it flies in the face of the almighty convenience factor. For most I think it would get really old to have to keep clicking "OK pay more OK pay more" all the time. People are ALL about convenience now.

[Old No7]

16 minutes ago, bill5 said:

I think it's great in theory but would never fly because it flies in the face of the almighty convenience factor. For most I think it would get really old to have to keep clicking "OK pay more OK pay more" all the time. People are ALL about convenience now.

 

True enough -- then why not offer BOTH OPTIONS and likely gain more sales revenue overall?

 

It's like buying 24 single beers, versus (4) 6-packs or 1 case of 24 -- sure, you pay more per bottle with the "micro purchase" but you are paying for the option to try other things, not buying in bulk.  I have to believe the software & systems capabilities we have today would allow for both options -- subscriptions and pay-as-you-go streaming.

 

Actually, I wonder if a 3rd Party could subscribe to ALL those other streaming services, with a license to RESELL the streams -- and they could offer the pay-as-you-go option by title.  We'd need a catchy trade name for it though!!!

 

Old No7

[bill5]

I question if companies would gain more revenue. They want you to buy that "case" of stuff. They'd fear too many people would start to watch something, realize it sucks, and not pay more. It's like cable offering you 500 channels so you go ooooh wow great deal, but you end up watching perhaps 5-10 of them on an even semi-regular basis.

[Anderton]

16 hours ago, bill5 said:

I think it's great in theory but would never fly because it flies in the face of the almighty convenience factor. For most I think it would get really old to have to keep clicking "OK pay more OK pay more" all the time. People are ALL about convenience now.

 

Well, think about how many clicks you have to do already to see something. I'm not sure one more for "continue watching" would be a deal-breaker, especially because in return they a) wouldn't have to subscribe to anything, and b) they could check out a variety of content from a variety of platforms without having to subscribe to all of them. So, they would have a much wider range of potential viewing options. 

 

I don't know if everyone would be happy with that tradeoff, but I would be.

[Anderton]

15 hours ago, bill5 said:

I question if companies would gain more revenue. They want you to buy that "case" of stuff. They'd fear too many people would start to watch something, realize it sucks, and not pay more. It's like cable offering you 500 channels so you go ooooh wow great deal, but you end up watching perhaps 5-10 of them on an even semi-regular basis.

 

It depends on how they priced the micro-payments. But also, I don't know anyone who subscribes to everything. So by definition, the companies to which they don't subscribe will get $0. At least this way every streamer would have a chance to get revenue. There are a lot of things I'd like to see on services to which I don't subscribe.

 

It would also benefit the companies in another way. A lot of them are cutting back on productions. Imagine how valuable it would be to know the point at which people dropped off, and what scenes caused them to flee. It might allow them to create a greater number of successful shows.

 

 

[bill5]

5 hours ago, Anderton said:

Well, think about how many clicks you have to do already to see something.

It's been awhile since I had any streaming service, but as I recall, one or maybe two. See something I'm interested in, click, it goes. With your 15% idea we're talking at least five more clicks. And it's not just about how many more clicks, but the fact that the show's continuity keeps getting interrupted with that. It's like a micro commercial. I see the logic on the surface, I just don't think it would fly.  I think what might work is that you don't have to subscribe to the entire service, but entry is "free" and you only pay for what you watch, like a huge video rental store. But really I don't see that flying either because companies would probably make less.

[Anderton]

On 8/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, bill5 said:

See something I'm interested in, click, it goes. With your 15% idea we're talking at least five more clicks.

 

No, only one click. See something you're interested in, click, it goes. I'm proposing one click if you want to keep watching and pay for it.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, bill5 said:

And it's not just about how many more clicks, but the fact that the show's continuity keeps getting interrupted with that. It's like a micro commercial.

 

But is one click really that much of an interruption, considering what you get in return? Also I didn't pull that 15% figure out of my butt, most movies are structured with three acts and two plot points, the first being 15% to 25% into the movie. It's almost guaranteed there's a fade to black or scene transition somewhere around that part of the flick.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, bill5 said:

I think what might work is that you don't have to subscribe to the entire service, but entry is "free" and you only pay for what you watch, like a huge video rental store.

Well...that's exactly what I'm proposing (except for an option at the end to download if you want to "own" it).

 

On 8/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, bill5 said:

But really I don't see that flying either because companies would probably make less.

 

I'm not sure about that. With micro-payments, companies could charge more for hits. Just think how much people would pay to watch a video of a complete show from the Eras tour...but the main advantage is that people would check out services to which they don't subscribe. There are shows I'd like to see on Apple TV, Paramount+, Peacock+, etc. But I never will because I don't subscribe. So the companies get $0. If I had the option to pay only for what I want, they'd get a lot more money from me.

 

The bottom line is people don't like subscriptions, can't afford to subscribe to all the services with content they'd like to see, and don't like paying for content they don't care about. Streaming services are desperate because they can't build subscribers at the previous pace, so they're trying to extract more from individual subscribers.

 

I believe what I'm proposes addresses all those issues. If someone has a better idea on how to fix a broken system, believe me, I'm all ears.

[bill5]

35 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

No, only one click. See something you're interested in, click, it goes. I'm proposing one click if you want to keep watching and pay for it.

ah OK, I thought you were saying watch 15%, you like it, click for more...you get another 15%, like it, click for more (repeat to the end).

[Anderton]

13 hours ago, bill5 said:

ah OK, I thought you were saying watch 15%, you like it, click for more...you get another 15%, like it, click for more (repeat to the end).

 

The YouTube ad model LOL