Are we circling back around to cable? Disney+, Hulu, and Max ad-free bundle is coming

[Daniel Sims]

What just happened? Streaming services from traditional media companies lost billions collectively last year, indicating that their attempts to compete with Netflix are failing. For some of them, consolidation seems to be the new strategy. However, viewers wonder whether increasingly expensive streaming bundles are recreating the cable landscape that initially pushed cord-cutters to Netflix.

Starting this summer, viewers can subscribe to a new streaming bundle combining all content from Disney+, Hulu, and Max (HBO). Disney and Warner Bros. haven't provided exact pricing or release details yet.

The bundle will be available through the websites of any of the three individual services. Ad-supported and ad-free tiers will be available.

How the new offering affects subscriptions to the standalone channels remains unclear. However, Bloomberg reports that Warner Bros. plans to raise the subscription price of Max as part of a strategy to earn at least $1 billion from streaming next year. Cost-cutting measures, which could include additional layoffs, are also to be expected.

The moves follow a tough year for Warner Bros., Disney, Paramount, and Comcast. Although WB profited moderately from streaming in 2023, the other three combined lost over $5 billion, with Paramount in the worst position.

After Netflix's initial explosion in popularity, traditional media companies pulled their content from the service and attempted to compete with it directly. However, cord-cutters appear unwilling to subscribe to several streaming apps simultaneously to access the shows and movies spread between them.

Furthermore, they're still cutting the cord, leading to an unending decline in TV and advertising revenue, thus squeezing the companies from both sides, with mergers as the response. Meanwhile, Netflix has remained mostly profitable, still picking up millions of subscribers.

The state of streaming after Disney+, Hulu and Max agreed to a new bundle pic.twitter.com/7jWOSikz8T

– Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) May 9, 2024

The new bundle adds Max to the Hulu-Disney+ package that debuted last month. The current offering starts at $9.99 monthly for the two streaming channels, while paying $14.99 monthly adds ESPN+. Including Max will certainly increase the price, but the announcement didn't mention an option that includes ESPN.

Ever since the strategy of giving every company its own streaming service began failing, some have expressed fears that they could recombine into something suspiciously reminiscent of old cable bundles. One primary reason cord-cutters initially ran to Netflix was to escape expensive packages forcing consumers to pay for hundreds of channels, most of which they never watched.

Permalink to story:

Are we circling back around to cable? Disney+, Hulu, and Max ad-free bundle is coming

 

[R00sT3R]

My advice is to find a good, invite only, scene release forum...there are too many streaming platforms now, charging too much money.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Netflix got its foothold because it was pretty much the start of the streaming. They aligned themselves with big name companies and they had an amazing library of material to go through, unlike anything anyone had ever seen before. No commercials and tons of content from many, many companies.

Eventually these companies see how well Netflix is doing so they take their small library of material (small compared to what Netflix has on hand) and start their streaming channel. A channel that can only bring in a small percentage of the accounts that Netflix has because of their limited library. Soon more and more companies are doing this and even though so much has been pulled from Netflix due to lack of renewing contracts all these companies have a miniscule amount of content even to this day when compared to Netflix.

These companies actually thought people would flock from Netflix and bring their streaming channel to the top....a lot of these companies done did screwed themselves over by thinking they could just easily compete and pull in the big bucks on a streaming service.

I only pay for Netflix (which I will drop on their next price hike for the standard sub because they really don't offer anything I watch and only my wife watches stuff on it from time to time now) and Discovery+ (ad-free sub). Everything else I watch I can do so through other means. I'm not giving more companies more of my money.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Of course they want to recreate cable-like bundles. A lot of these channels have lousy content, high operating costs, and survived only because they were effectively subsidized by being lumped together with the channels consumers actually wanted.

 

[Dimitriid]

Things are not as bad as they seem: I can tell you that most people that decided to just not get cable to begin with are people who just watch stuff like youtube or twitch: rather young adults and below.

Boomers were enticed to leave because of the convenience of on-demand offers like Netflix but I feel like millennials and elder millennials are the only core demographic that actually consumes both the newer stuff like youtube and twitch as well as the older, typical tv series for entertainment and it's a losing battle: Having bundles is a sign that they're just not getting enough subs on the merits of their service only (Being an elder millennial myself I can tell you there isn't enough nostalgia bait or new offerings to make me pay for more than 1 or 2 services at the most, no matter the bundles) So it's probably not going to entice many: older folks might be but that's a dwindling demographic and zoomers never cared for typical shows.

 

[dirtyferret]

I'm 100% shocked! I've never heard of an industry that monopolizes the competition and then once subs plateau they introduce new revenue streams! I really took these corporations for their word when they said consolidation would benefit the consumer...

 

[Uncle Al]

Cable & Streaming services need to be lumped together with broadcast television. Regulated and controlled for the benefit of the citizens with any price increases subject to review and approval. They have grown to the size that they must be considered a utility and managed accordingly.

 

[cawopid]

Another good sunny day for high sea sailors! AHOY!!!

 

[Subset6]

Multiple subs will bleed you dry if you’re not careful. At this point I sub to nothing unless something interesting hits, new season of Mando for example, watch it, immediately cancel. 99% of what I watch is YouTube / Twitch. Even if something fun hits, unless I can binge it I wont sub until the entire season is available.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Multiple subs will bleed you dry if you’re not careful. At this point I sub to nothing unless something interesting hits, new season of Mando for example, watch it, immediately cancel. 99% of what I watch is YouTube / Twitch. Even if something fun hits, unless I can binge it I wont sub until the entire season is available.

- We have Netflix, Disney+, Hulu in our house. Rule is if we sub to something else, we have a drop something of an equivalent price.

Otherwise it's just the old gym membership model of getting you to pay for something you never use.

 

[mgwerner]

Another good sunny day for high sea sailors! AHOY!!!

Aye, matie. I like the cut of your jib...... A torrent of rum to ye from one scalawag to another.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'll never go back to a cable/satellite model as long as there is Netflix. Part of my Netflix sub is paid for by my T-mobile plan - so I pay about $8.73/mo for the HD, no commercial plan.

When I started streaming, I was paying DishNetwork $85/mo to watch about 5-channels out of their 500+ channels of crap to chose from - to paraphrase Pink Floyd. If any of these services think that they are going to make a profit by bundling and jacking up their prices to astronomical levels that prove to have no value compared to the price, I think they are in for another hard lesson whether they like it or not.

I will, however, subscribe to a service for a month or two, watch what I want to watch, then cancel.

It was their choice to pull their content from Netflix because they misread the market and thought streaming was a FAD, IMO. They were wrong. Licensing their content to Netflix was a good model that worked and gave consumers the value that consumers were looking for.

Consumers went to streaming because it was a good value. IMO, it serves these greedy bstrds right in that they lost all kinds of money on their "experiment." I don't think this next phase of their experiment is going to do much better because they want to repackage the crap value into another form. They are just repeating the same failed experiment and expecting different results. We all know Einstein's famous quote about that being insanity.

Good luck to them, but I think its a doomed effort.

 

[RandomWAN]

I'm circling around to swearing off of all shows and movies. The industry is nearly completely creatively bankrupt and now streaming platforms are trying to become cable TV all over again with dillution (having to have 5+ platforms to watch everything you want) and advertising.

 

[toooooot]

Yep. And with more ads!

 

[digibluez]

I cant even log in to Hulu with my disney+ account, the account system is horrible

 

[TomSEA]

Well, the elephant in the room is sports broadcasting. If you're a big sports fan, your options are pretty limited unless you have a cable subscription.

Because TV (and sports) is a big part of our entertainment desires, I subscribe to cable tv and 2-3 streaming channels. I do fight tooth and nail with the cable company every year when they try to raise their rates, so at least I'm keeping it somewhat manageable.

Getting older, we don't go to movies anymore (or rarely), and same thing with live sporting events which helps justify the cost of cable/subscriptions channels. Two single-game Seattle Seahawks tickets (and I used to be a season ticket holder, so 8 games a year) pay for 3 months of my cable/subscription fees. So in the end it's a wash.

 

[wiyosaya]

Well, the elephant in the room is sports broadcasting. If you're a big sports fan, your options are pretty limited unless you have a cable subscription.

Because TV (and sports) is a big part of our entertainment desires, I subscribe to cable tv and 2-3 streaming channels. I do fight tooth and nail with the cable company every year when they try to raise their rates, so at least I'm keeping it somewhat manageable.

Getting older, we don't go to movies anymore (or rarely), and same thing with live sporting events which helps justify the cost of cable/subscriptions channels. Two single-game Seattle Seahawks tickets (and I used to be a season ticket holder, so 8 games a year) pay for 3 months of my cable/subscription fees. So in the end it's a wash.

Assuming its the right service for the subscriber, an ESPN subscription is available separate. lyPersonally, I only care for Ice Hockey, and I have nearly no time to watch, so I don't bother with a "Center Ice" subscription. I play fantasy hockey instead.

 

[BabaYaga]

Bundling makes no sense to me. I usually watch one show at a time. Why would I pay for 2 other services when I'm not using them? It's best to rotate one at a time. For sports, the local teams are free OTA.

I'm just glad I'm free from the ESPN cancer that made up most of the cost of cable bill back in the day. At least now, we pay for the channel we are actually watching not subsidizing 99 other channels to get the one we truly want.

 

[ZackL04]

Bundling makes no sense to me. I usually watch one show at a time. Why would I pay for 2 other services when I'm not using them? It's best to rotate one at a time. For sports, the local teams are free OTA.

I'm just glad I'm free from the ESPN cancer that made up most of the cost of cable bill back in the day. At least now, we pay for the channel we are actually watching not subsidizing 99 other channels to get the one we truly want.

I dont think Im alone when I say only football is OTA

 

[BabaYaga]

I dont think Im alone when I say only football is OTA

You're right. I stopped watching other sports and didn't even realize they all have their own broadcasting networks now. The Cubs started their network in 2020. The Bulls, White Sox, Cubs and Blackhawks started their network in 2003 but still broadcasted until 2014.

I guess I'll keep watching Bears, F1, and some major tennis matches. Only F1 I have to stream.

 

[captaincranky]

Dune 2 is out this Tuesday. I think I'll buy the Blu-ray and be done with it, until something else I desperately need to see is released.

 

[captaincranky]

Bundling makes no sense to me. I usually watch one show at a time. Why would I pay for 2 other services when I'm not using them? It's best to rotate one at a time. For sports, the local teams are free OTA.

Thar's not entirely true as stated. Home team >away< games are sometimes televised. However, home games are not. Pro sports are a business, plain and simple, nothing more. And a very lucrative one at that. They want the home crowd's a**es in the venue seats, at however much they can get for the tickets, plus about $20.00 for parking, and however much they can leech out of "fans" for cold, over cooked, and way overpriced concession foods

You could conceivably see home playoff games, if the venue is sold out, if any given network wins the bidding rights to playoff games, and the home team just happens to be in them. But even then, the local games would likely be blacked out, or only offered by a subscription service.

I'm from Philly, and I wouldn't be caught dead making an a** of myself singing, "Fly Eagles Fly", or proving that I can spell Eagles, "E-A-G-L-E-S, loudly, one letter at a time, for the benefit and amusement of local broadcasters. If I happened to get tagged by the local press, I'd rather prove I could spell "pound sand", one letter at a time, loud and proud..

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Thar's not entirely true as stated. Home team >away< games are sometimes televised. However, home games are not.

FYI, that’s not entirely true either. Home games for the Green Bay Packers are almost always televised locally over the air. I think it depends on which market you’re in and whether the fans fill the stands. The waiting list for Packer season tickets was 140,000 deep as of 2022.

Twice as many come off Packers ticket waiting list, but more than 140,000 are still waiting to get into Lambeau Field

Packers reclaimed excess season tickets from holders to distribute to people on waiting list, which is still 140,000 strong.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com

 

[Gezzer]

Paramount lost the most amount. Woah... really?? Wonder if it's because it's such a sh*tty platform? When they pulled all their content from Crave (Canada) I dropped Carve after seeing I could get a year of Paramount for half price.

While I love Star Trek and many of the shows they have the platform just sucks!! For example I get this message "optimizing video stream" on virtually every show. Then it drops down to what has to be 160i. It's a blurry mess. And anything I try to do like pausing and waiting for the stream to buffer enough simply doesn't work. Disney+ isn't much better, and the thing is I never have a problem with Netflix.

If you don't offer a Netflix or better experience out of the box, you won't make the massive profits you're expecting to make. It's just that simple. The maxim "if you build it they will come" doesn't work if your not first to build it. Unless there's massive changes, when my year is up with Paramount I'm looking else where, even if they offer me half off again.