Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

I feel as if the problem in media, film, and television today was brought about by the anticompetitive behaviors of tech giants encroaching into media.

Amazon and Apple offer nearly free entertainment that they subsidize at a loss. Vertical media companies are trying to compete and are thus attempting to mimic the streaming model.

This is an unwinnable battle. Disney and NatGeo can't compete on price. HBO / Warner / Discovery can't either. They're being forced to awkwardly consolidate and cut costs to stem their losses while they try to serve the same customers.

Streaming is ultimately a game of throwing spaghetti at a wall and seeing what sticks. You can't charge a big premium for sludge content, especially now that it's a commodity.

Summers full of prestige drama and blockbusters have been replaced by shovelware Bird Box sequels and shows that get launched and canceled in one season.

It's disappointing.

View on HN

Nat Geo could absolutely run a generational brand again but it sounds like it’s overloaded with old media dinosaurs. They have 280 million followers on Instagram.

Any media savy millennial or gen-z could build a hundred million dollar a year brand with that following alone but instead they’re posting articles about “skincare routines” and “birth control for cats” with almost zero engagement.

You have an unrealistic view of the capabilities of media savvy gen-z.

I watched a TikTok length documentary the other day of an Everest climb. It starts at basecamp and 30 seconds later they are doing selfies at the top. I cant' help but feel something was missing:)

FYI: The long lines at the Hilary Step were because someone stopped to play Zelda on their phone.

I wonder what kind of Pokemon Go you can only get at the top of Mt. Everest?

If you know how to convert followers to money, send them your resume.

If you passively accept whatever mass media is spoon-feeding you, you're gonna have a bad time. The good shit is out there but doesn't have the same marketing budget, you have to go looking for it.

Obsolete models being replaced by current ones is a better explanation. NatGeo's video operations surpassed their magazine profit long ago. Why then retain the elements that can create a high-quality product in an obsolete medium? Customer demand shifts toward digestible video content in the form of Youtube and TikTok, and bingeable streaming content a'la Netflix and HBO.

I think it's more than just vertical media vs. tech giants, it is the nature of consumption via streaming.

Look at Disney, who does not make most of their content available to stream on other platforms. Their latest movies haven't been great, but compared to what they cost to make, they've absolutely bombed at the box office.

I suspect a lot of this has been because many people would rather wait a bit and let the whole family watch on disney+, rather than pay at least the cost of an entire month's worth of streaming per ticket, plus the high cost of drinks and snacks once you get in.

In my area, a family of four could easily pay $50 for tickets for a single screening. With the prices of everything going up, an $8-12 / month streaming plan on disney plus makes way more sense.

Disney is still a mostly theme park company, right? Everything else is secondary to that. I’ve seen only one of their latest movies, Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and it was great.

No. They are an IP and merchandising company. That's where the money is.

I feel like there's an opportunity for a competitor that streams only a (comparatively) small number of curated, highly-rated shows and movies. At least, I would buy that. So tired of the same old formulaic Netflix slosh.

A24 has found a great deal of success in curating their films. It's the magic touch that Disney seems to have lost.

You’ve just described HBO.

What used to be HBO. All those old bosses are gone and now reality show executives are in charge.

Compared to the competition, HBO is still heads and shoulders above them in terms of featuring great original content and not garbage.

HBO should just keep giving Danny McBride money and free reign. I can't think of many people who didn't like Eastbound, Vice Principals, and Gemstones.

He's basically the only reason I subscribe...

Couldn't stand any of them. So there's 1.

Loved Vice Principals.....on one episode we were laughing so hard watching that cops were called! Good times.

Criterion didn’t do so well.

Apple has done a pretty good job of this but its not a money making strategy. They have to hand out AppleTV 3 and 6 month trials like they've got too many, and are pouring billions into it with no sight of it ever being profitable, basically the exact same situation as Disney+ is in.

I’ve found literally no shows on Apple TV that I’m interested in. The only one I got through more than two episodes was Ted Lasso and I had gave up on that after five or six as it got worse not better.

Have you tried Severance? Took me a bit to get around to it but probably the best sci-fi show to come out since Devs and by far the best show on Apple TV. Ted Lasso is too wholesome for me.

Apple TV has some other sci-fi with not great writing like “Hello, Tomorrow” but that are still fun for the visuals and what not.

Severance is a fantastic show.

I do also like For All Mankind, although its started to get a bit silly in later seasons. Season 1 is great however.

That's MUBI which is very popular. (https://mubi.com)

Netflix has been going downhill for the past few years.

It is inspiring to see individuals succeeding on Substack - https://growthinreverse.com/archive/ It proves that people will pay for quality content and it is possible to build a successful business. If an individual can make a million dollars a year by himself, imagine what a business can do, if only they have the discipline to produce high quality content.

In the next few years, the web is going to drown in low quality AI generated content. It would be a good time for disciplined content producers who go for quality than quantity, to make a name for themselves - individuals or businesses

Yea ! Teenagers with superpowers ! Lol seen one seen them all.

In the same way that Spotify bought podcasters, I wonder if Netflix or a new competitor could lure creators from YouTube. There are some great, quality solo or small-team creators on YouTube that could increasingly anchor a platform.

The criterion collection might be of your interest.

https://www.criterionchannel.com/

Try and watch some miniseries from the 70s or 80s. They're terrible. Awful. Shogun is probably the best of the lot, but it hasn't aged well.

Nothing as good as, say, 1883.

Star trek?

Star Trek is episodic, not a miniseries. There is no overall story arc.

Also, ST TOS is exceptionally good. I tried watching TNG several times, and find it just unwatchable. I'm probably the only person who has polar opposite opinions of TOS and TNG.

Also, advertising on reputable media sites had become much too cheap. (Had it been in the ballpark of what they made with print advertising and own advertising departments before, they should be thriving.) In general, advertising is much too ubiquitous and cheap on the web in order to sustain anything.

What about the many alternatives to old media that are now available? Video games, TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, Reddit, HN, etc are all ways to spend time that do not involve money going to the old media companies.

Somehow I don't think that TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit are adequate replacements for magazines and newspapers.

Of course not, but how are quality newspapers and magazines going to get paid if people would rather spend their time on those other ones, especially since they are free (money wise).

That is exactly the question - does anyone have a good answer?

Be that as it may, you would think that a million subscribers would be enough to keep a magazine afloat.

The main problems in film and media today are over-consolidation and grossly inequitable compensation models. Blaming Apple is a rare, bizarre take.

Like - we have a huge writer strike right now, the second very large one in recent years. Meanwhile the CEOs and shareholders of every media company are paid multiples of what every writer gets combined. It's wildly perverse. And not Apple's fault, or even Amazon's.

“grossly inequitable compensation” models arise because literally nobody is paying for content anymore.

nat geo magazine used to have millions of loyal subscribers.

> literally nobody is paying for content anymore.

That's not even remotely true. People pay for lots of subscription services; it's getting ridiculous. And we pay a very dear price indeed for getting blasted with ads and propaganda.

> nat geo magazine used to have millions of loyal subscribers.

And then Rupert Murdoch bought them. Immediately, people knew it would get strip mined to the bone and then sold off for parts. If anything, I'm surprised it hasn't been faster and uglier.

... If the negative externalities of advertising and propaganda were costed in, the entire media landscape would be wholly different. Most people can't even imagine how different.

The problem isn't that people aren't paying for content, it's that people are the product now; even when they pay.

I think people are paying for content, but the majority are watching more pulpy stuff.

I love showing my kids documentaries, but even the majority of those now are a bit unbearable with over the top voiceovers, etc.

You’re wrong - my parents both work in this industry. People are paying less for content total

Compensation isn't set by "equity". It's set by the Law of Supply & Demand.

Besides, no two people are equal.

The supply of directors, board members and CEOs are artificially constrained by the same. Workers need to do the same and eat their cake too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com