“Most of the problem is that there are too many streaming broadcasters.”
Yes, and the cause of that is they are all trying to be distributors of their own product. They are pursuing “vertical integration” like it’s still the 1990s when that is an obsolete business model already.
That was a viable model when we were still consuming media the way we had for all of the 20th century, and companies just wanted to streamline to retain more profits. But nobody is consuming media like that anymore. Nobody wants to have to pay $9.99, or more likely $19.99 a month now just to watch one tv show or movie they are interested in. They’ll just go to a pirate website instead, or borrow a friend’s password, etc.
What needs to happen is the same as what happened with music distribution. All tv shows and movies should be available on one or two streaming services, and you have access to all of them, regardless of who owns their copyright, just by paying one monthly fee. Then that service distributes the royalties based on what people actually watch.
Yes, this would mean a hit to revenue for the content producers just as it has in the music industry. But it’s the only type of model that has a chance to still be viable in today’s world, where you are basically relying on people wanting to be honest and not just go to a shady website where they can view everything for free.
napster didn't really last. But neither did Prodigy's idea about charging $1 an email, or my first cell phone that cost many dollars per call. Competition works.
“Yes, and the cause of that is they are all trying to be distributors of their own product.”
You must mean, like Netfix’s own productions. In the case of Netflix the only production of theirs I’ve watched is ‘The Crown’. To me the streamers provide things that they didn’t produce.
How did the music industry arrive at their distribution model? There must be winners with that model. Could it be that shady websites drove them to the model. The internet is certainly a game changer.