Streaming looks set to undergo what some have called “The great gathering” with services merging, combining or forming alliances that will essentially rebuild the cable “bouquet” that consumers have relied on for decades.
While that makes sense for studios looking to offer “more robust, streamlined content,” as Disney’s CEO put it, Bob Iger As noted earlier this year, subscribers have every reason to ask themselves, “What’s in it for me?” and whether all these high-stakes corporate announcements will actually benefit them.
Will access to home viewing options be cheaper? More abundant? Easier to navigate and find what you want? Less of a hassle to manage in terms of juggling multiple subscriptions?
That’s the goal, but honestly, we can’t really know.
The latest news that has been making waves in the streaming space concerns reports Primordialbefore moving forward on his merger with Skydancewhich is looking to combine its Paramount+ service with another service. Max, the HBO-centric provider from CNN parent company Warner Bros. Discovery, was among the potential partners mentioned.
Such an arrangement would follow the official announcement in February of Venu Sportsa joint sports offering comprised of Disney’s ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros.; Disney’s intra-studio attempt to create a mega-service for subscribers who subscribe to its trio of services: Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+; and Disney’s collaboration plan with Warner Bros. on a pack consisting of Disney+, Max and Hulu.
The benefits for companies as they seek to compete with Netflix and the tech giants (Amazon and Apple chief among them) that have helped crowd the streaming waters are unclear, but the goals seem clear, starting with the hope that these combined or consolidated services will reduce churn, or the number of people who sign up, cancel and re-sign up.
What has become increasingly clear, however, is that for all the criticisms leveled at cable, starting with the fact that consumers paid for many channels they never watched, its one-stop-shop approach has eliminated some of the challenges that arise today.
This old system worked because the “bundle” actually created a mechanism to financially support a large number of choices that cater to a variety of tastes.
Simply put, paying for ESPN if you don’t like sports, or CNN and MSNBC if you don’t watch the news, might have been irritating, but those millions of cable subscriptions spread the revenue in a way that made dozens and dozens of channels available and affordable.
The dream of an a la carte system, where you pay for what you watch, has proven elusive, mainly because there is no way – at least not yet – to adopt such a system without the cost becoming onerous, if not prohibitive, for many consumers.
Eliminating the bundle through “cord cutting” on cable subscriptions might have been a good thing, but in economic terms for the industry, the move opened a Pandora’s box. While Disney or Paramount’s profits shouldn’t be a concern to consumers, the ability of those companies to produce and present TV shows and movies that people want to see should.
After cutting the cord, sewing it back together in a different form by bundling it together comes with questions and risks. Just ask the newspapers that once delivered a physical package that landed in customers’ homes before the digital age upended their business model.
Promises made by executives like Iger, who called Venu a “major win for sports fans,” may well come true. In theory, consumers could be spared some of the “hassle and decision-making,” as the report puts it. Washington Post Columnist Megan McArdle, who closely follows half a dozen streaming services, wrote that this is “why so many consumers prefer things like all-inclusive vacations, and why bundling is a common business practice.”
However, when it comes to implementing structural changes in the way entertainment is distributed and consumed, a well-known adage of most Disney characters is worth remembering: be careful what you wish for.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com
