But fear not, said University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor Anthony Palomba, the Netflix-Max partnership is likely to be the way of the future. And that’s not only good news for consumers trying to save money, but for streaming platforms trying to stay afloat.
UVA Today caught up with Palomba, an expert in the media and entertainment business, to learn more about the trend.
Q. Why do you think streaming services are starting to come together to offer bundle packages instead of trying to compete for consumers?
A. It makes sense to do this. There’s just so much content to keep track of. From a consumer behavior standpoint, it’s quite difficult to parse all of this out.
It will aid consumers in making trade-offs that are clearer. It’s very difficult to figure out the trade-offs among eight streaming services. It’s far easier to look at three or four bundles and figure out the trade-offs. Of course, streaming service menus are replete with TV series, movies and other content to demonstrate up-front value. However, this can undermine the user experience.
This is a far cry from what our parents faced in determining viewing options decades ago. Through satellite or cable television, there were two or three options available from each service. The primary decision point was access to channels. But the change that’s come with [subscription video on demand] services doesn’t concern access to channels. Netflix is the channel. Hulu is the channel. What the trade-offs revolve around are the kind of content you have access to. That’s hundreds and hundreds of shows to consider. Most consumer don’t have the domain expertise necessary to know where to find content.
So, I think with these bundling options, you’re able to get a better sense of which types of content you have access to.
I think these bundling services not only will be the future, but are also a steppingstone for a lot of these firms in understanding what’s popular. Right now, there is no audience metric or measurement that’s widely agreed-upon. Nielsen’s kind of faded away, and I think there’s enough stakeholder distrust of Nielsen that it won’t come back to the audience measurement marketplace. So, this is also a boon for a lot of these firms to begin to understand how popular their content is, and maybe even sharing data among themselves.
Q. Does any of this surprise you?
A. No, it does not surprise me. Warner Bros. Television was responsible for “Friends” and “Two and a Half Men,” and at one point was responsible for close to 40 to 50% of all content on television. That means Warner Bros. was making content for NBC as well as CBS and other competitors.
There’s a long, long history in Hollywood for studios creating content for rival studios and distributors. I think it’s indicative of it being a small community; it’s indicative of finding opportunities to make money. Frankly, when you’re struggling to keep up different revenue streams, it makes a lot of sense. Also, bear in mind that artists (e.g. directors, producers, writers) all shift from movie to movie, TV show to TV show. This is an industry that regularly shuffles workers around, why not output?
Also, internally, it might be difficult to produce all of the content you want. If you hire someone else, you can ultimately produce more content, and you might be able to balance others’ schedules better.
Q. What do you think was a tipping point for rival streaming services to begin thinking about bundles?
A. I think part of it is just churn rates. I do some data science stuff with my own research. It’s problematic from a data security standpoint and a data science standpoint, if you have this constant churn, as you can’t properly measure or gauge what people want. If you’re in and out of the door so much, it becomes transactional and it becomes difficult, I would argue, to properly measure customer lifetime value and to really begin to understand the kind of costs associated with getting somebody versus retaining them.