Streaming companies could attract more users by bundling services, adding shopping discounts

[midian182]

In brief: With the ever-increasing price of streaming services, have we reached a peak where the only way is down? A new study suggests there are methods of enticing consumers to sign up for even more subscriptions: include extras such as discounts, free products, and bundles.

Ernst & Young's new Decoding the Digital Home study (via Insider) questioned survey respondents about the likelihood of their subscribing to a streaming service that came with additional products or services.

According to the results, the best incentive to get people to sign up is to include discount deals for shopping or e-commerce, with 50% of people saying they would likely take a service with this deal.

The joint-second-best incentives are bundling the service with a broadband/internet subscription and handing out discount deals for events, both of which appealed to 48% of participants.

For 45% of participants, including a subscription or pass to an additional streaming platform would convince them to sign up, while 40% would go for one that gives out deals on consumer tech. Not surprisingly, the least enticing deal is to include free digital products such as NFTs or digital art, which appealed to just 28% of respondents.

Most streaming services promote their content as the main reason why people should sign up, such as Stranger Things for Netflix and The Mandalorian on Disney+, but it seems offering extras with a subscription can be just as appealing as accessing exclusive shows. In the US, 59% of those surveyed were interested in streaming packages that included other streaming services or broadband/internet.

It was also found that the 25-34 age group was the most likely to take on streaming services that came with additional products and services.

A number of companies already offer subscription bundles that incorporate several different channels. Disney, for example, offers bundles consisting of Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu, though they do cost extra, obviously.

Disney is also one of the companies to have raised its prices in recent times. It was recently found that it now costs $87 per month to subscribe to the top US streaming services, $14 more than it was one year earlier ($73). But people are still sticking with streaming and cutting the cord; a recent Nielsen report found that linear TV viewing had fallen below 50% among US audiences for the first time ever.

The Ernst & Young study surveyed 21,000 households online. The survey took place in March and April and included participants from the US, UK, Canada, and other countries in the EU and Asia

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100136-streaming-companies-could-attract-more-customers-offering-bundles.html

 

[dangh]

It's always funny to see companies 'pretending' spending more can help people saving money...
sure, you will spend less on things which you wouldn't / and probably shouldn't / be getting in the first place.
Budget management and critical thinking should be taught from 1st class...

 

[Dimitriid]

I notice how more and better shows as a consequence of say, paying the writers for said shows a decent share so they have liveable wages, is somehow not on the table: Just let them keep striking while we send them a coffee mug or some stickers that'd be enough to keep this thing going I'm sure.

 

[mrvco]

E&Y suggests... BUNDLING! Wow, brilliant.

 

[m4a4]

Wow, doesn't that sound familiar.

We're right back to square one...

 

[wiyosaya]

IMO, the trouble with many, if not most, surveys, is that they only ask questions to which they want to hear an answer; they typically don't ask the hardest questions.

IMO, the suggestion of bundling internet service is the dumbest of them all. That would likely mean that ISPs, themselves, would have to bundle the streaming service with their internet service. We all know the spectacular reputation that ISPs have for customer service, so this sounds like an ideal solution - not.

Bundling - well, we already have that with Amazon and Disney and still Disney looses money. That's another ideal solution - not, IMO.

We had the ideal solution before - where content providers licensed their content to streaming services such as Netflix. Then with thoughts of money dancing in their heads, content providers misread, IMO, why people started streaming in the first place and decided, unwisely, IMO, to start their own streaming services at considerable expense to them and, eventually, to their customers. Then their experiment failed, and the content providers seem unwilling to own their mistakes and, instead, decided to go back to the model of gouging their customers. Brilliant!

 

[bviktor]

Or how about offering "family" plans that aren't limited to single households? That'd help.

 

[Hexic]

E&Y suggests... BUNDLING! Wow, brilliant.

And I can guarantee that was a six or seven figure(+) bill for their consulting services, just for this survey.

 

[waclark]

I think streaming services have the same problem that cable TV has. That is 80% is junk but you have to buy the "bundle" because buying single shows or seasons of a specific show are too expensive. What I want is a service where I can buy what I want to watch, and nothing more, but at a reasonable monthly rate.

I doubt we will ever get a system like that but I'm hoping.

 

[waclark]

I notice how more and better shows as a consequence of say, paying the writers for said shows a decent share so they have liveable wages, is somehow not on the table: Just let them keep striking while we send them a coffee mug or some stickers that'd be enough to keep this thing going I'm sure.

You know who could fix this? Actors. Actors make millions for a performance, even if the movie/TV show bombs. Just like in any business, if you want better products you pay for it. If actors want better scripts, then they should pay for that. Why can't they give up some of the money they make to ensure writers get a fair deal? They sure are happy to spout off about rich people paying higher taxes, well, rich actors should make less so the rest of the people that make a movie happen can make a little more.