Today I’d like to tackle a topic that has been on my mind for quite a few years. While I’ve mentioned the concept of streaming as I’ve covered other issues, it’s never had its own time to shine. Given the preponderance of services that now dominate the media landscape, and the ever-increasing price of keeping up with most – if not all – of them, now seems to be the perfect time to talk about what makes streaming so appealing, all the benefits that it brings, and why it’s just become a nightmare.
The History of Media Access
No discussion of the modern streaming landscape would be complete without a quick look back into the annals of history. While there are a preponderance of artistic mediums that I could speak on, from music to literature to paintings, I’m going to try and limit this particular examination to just those artistic works that fall within the realm of the visual arts. Specifically, television and film.
In the old days, if you wanted to see a movie, the only real way to do it was to go to a theater. For a one-time fee, you were granted temporary access to a building where the motion picture would be projected on a screen in front of you. You got to see it once and then left. If you decided you wanted to see it again, you were perfectly free to (as long as the film was still playing), though it would cost you the same price again. In effect, watching a movie was a one-and-done effort. While I certainly don’t claim to know the media viewing habits of the past, I can hardly imagine that seeing a film more than once was a common occurrence… Though I’m sure it did happen.
Next came the advent of television. No longer were you required to leave the comfort of your own home to see visual media – it was instead now beamed directly into your house, provided you were lucky enough to own a television set. While there was a much greater upfront fee in the form of purchasing the actual TV (something that was quite costly upon its initial invention), beyond paying for electricity, there were no further costs involved for the consumer. Television stations were broadcast, for free, over the open airwaves and anyone with the proper equipment could tune in and watch.
Much like with films, television shows, at least initially, we’re never re-broadcast. Meaning that they, too, were one and done. Unlike with a film, viewers were unable to re-experience a show after they had first seen it (or if they had missed it). This was offset by the relative ease of getting access to these programs, however, as they didn’t require any extra work on the part of the consumer. They merely had to turn on their set at home and tune to the proper channel… Of which they were only three.
As time marched on, we were eventually introduced to the notion of cable television. I like traditional broadcast TV, cable television came with an inherent cost. You had to pay a cable company to install cable wires to your house and then continue to pay on a monthly basis to retain access to those channels. While the fee was certainly higher, it was also hard to argue with the sheer selection available. Hundreds of channels were now on hand at the mere push of a button. Not only that, but by then, we had entered an era where re-running programs had become more common. Meaning that you could, in effect, revisit things you loved, given you knew the time they would re-air.
Coupled with the advent of physical media (and even recordable VHS tapes), this era was then the greatest in human history for access to media of all kinds. But good things never last…
The Death Of Cable
For all the benefits brought on by cable television, there were a great deal of negatives, as well. For one, despite the large selection of channels available at any given moment, a common complaint was the fact that there was “never anything to watch.” Not literally, mind you, as there was always something on every channel. No, what was really being said was that the content available on any given channel wasn’t always the best – in no small part due to the sheer amount of time trying to be filled. While any given station, like NBC, might have various shows that you enjoy watching on a particular day, the rest of their schedule was likely filled with stuff that held little (to no) interest for you. As a result, you were forced to try and scan the various other channels for something that might be a suitable replacement for what you’d actually like to watch.
That takes us right to the next problem, however – the truth was, despite the sheer preponderance of channels available, most people only watched a small fraction of them. While each channel might have loyal viewers of its own, any given person probably only watched programs across fifteen or fewer. Given that cable was often bundled with HUNDREDS of channels, this meant a good deal of effective waste. Consumers were being charged a fairly hefty, and ever-growing, fee for the privilege of having cable, despite having little to no interest in the vast majority of programming on it. And that was aside from additional premium channels like HBO or Showtime.
Of course, there really wasn’t much to be done. You could – obviously – cancel your cable subscription, but that would leave you with precious few options to entertain yourself in the home, outside of previously purchased physical media (at least in terms of audiovisual content). While some people certainly did choose this option, the vast majority just suffered and grumbled at the complications that came with cable.
This is all in addition to the fees usually charged by cable companies for the rental of their equipment: be that cable boxes, wiring, and eventually DVRs. When combined with the already high monthly cost of service, contracts that usually kept people locked in for years, and notoriously abysmal customer service, this all added up to a relative monopoly in the space that left most consumers disillusioned… though with no real alternative.
That was all to change soon, though, when a new type of delivery method came into being, spurred on by the growth of the new digital frontier known as “the internet.”
The Rise of Streaming
The notion of streaming video from a centralized source to your monitor or television of choice is a relatively new one in the history of media. One of the first instances I recall becoming aware of occurred with the rise of the website YouTube. While the videos themselves were limited to five (and later ten) minutes, not to mention severely compressed and in low resolution, it was quite a novel concept.
It should be no surprise, then, that other media companies eventually began looking to this same notion regarding more traditional audiovisual works. The first to market with this concept was a company known as Netflix. Before that, for most of their history, their business model revolved around users paying a monthly subscription in return for the ability to rent any DVD they wished without ever leaving their homes. Customers had merely to push a button on their computer and an envelope would arrive at their house with the disk they chose. Once they were done with it, they had only to send it back and select another. While certainly clunky by today’s standards, at the time, it was quite a successful idea. Until then, the only way that anyone could watch whatever they wanted on demand was to go out of their home to the video store and pay a singular fee for each and every item (outside of those things they already owned, of course). It’s no surprise, then, given that Netflix came of age during the golden age of physical media, they were quite successful.
Still, this business model was not without its downsides. For one, there was an inherent cost to mailing the DVDs back and forth. Not only that, there was the perpetual risk of any given disc being damaged during transit or by a user. Then there was the notion of availability – after all, Netflix only had so many copies of any given film or television show and if they were all rented out, the user would be forced to wait for it to become available. Finally, there was the limitation of how many things a user could watch in a given month. After all, you could only have so many movies out at a time and had to constantly wait for them to ship back and forth. So, while there were no real “limits” on how many things you could rent in a month, there was a practical limit. Not to mention the delay between you wanting to watch something and actually being able to.
That was until Netflix began experimenting with the idea of adding the ability to stream certain titles, directly over the internet, into your home. While the initial selection was severely limited, users quickly adapted to the notion of being able to access any particular show or movie they wanted at the push of a button. While they certainly had to keep an eye on their data limits, never mind dealing with the reduced quality required so that the media could be transmitted over the internet reliably, it was still a much simpler experience than waiting for disks to arrive in the mail. It wasn’t long after this initial success that Netflix spun off the streaming arm of its business to being an entirely separate product – with its own fee.
Netflix is King
Netflix had a few advantages in these early days of streaming. For one, they happened to be first to market, meaning there was effectively no competition. If people wanted to subscribe to a streaming service where they could watch content instantly without having to wait, Netflix was the only game in town. More than that, however, they also made some very smart licensing deals. In effect, Netflix reached out to damn near every studio and content producer there was, paying decent sums of money for access to these shows and films on their service.
While deals with so many multimedia companies were no doubt very expensive, the subscriber base of Netflix itself was constantly growing. This was in small part due to the selection and ease of use on offer. No matter if you wanted to watch a movie from Disney, Warner Bros., or Paramount – basically anything could be found on Netflix. This truly made it a “one-stop shop.” Compared to the absurdly high monthly fee charged by cable companies, and all the previously discussed downsides, paying $7.99 a month for so much freedom and choice seemed a no-brainer.
Then, Netflix began doing the next obvious thing. After many content producers started seeing Netflix‘s success (and thus began charging even more to license their content), Netflix started using its revenue to start making their OWN shows and movies. These original artworks would require no perpetual fees and would be exclusive to their platform. This meant that there was now entertainment on Netflix that was inherent to Netflix – thus subverting the need for continual licensing. They also got very lucky in that some of their early shows (most notably the Kevin Spacey vehicle House of Cards… back when people still liked Kevin Spacey) became wildly successful due to their high quality of writing and production.
With all the obvious benefits of joining Netflix – instant access to anything you wanted, complete selection across all studios and types of media, a low monthly fee, and original content –, it shouldn’t be surprising that it quickly became one of the largest and fastest growing companies on earth. It also shouldn’t be surprising that so many people began “cutting the cord” and ditching cable for good. After all, why put up with all of that hassle when there is such an easy and cheap alternative available?
Multiplication and Replication
Given that Netflix was making money hand over fist with their model of licensing limited-time access to content, all of the other media companies took notice. Not only did they want to enter such a seemingly lucrative and limitless market, but they also began to wonder about the intelligence of licensing THEIR content to Netflix, only to let THEM reap the rewards. Why not, instead, use their vast libraries to start their own services?
This originally began with the likes of Hulu. Whereas Netflix geared itself more toward movies (though they did have television shows), Hulu decided to focus more distinctly on television as a market. Soon, not only were they producing their own originals, but they had taken a good deal of television media from Netflix’s service. While charging a similar fee (or slightly less if you didn’t mind watching ads), this now meant that consumers would have to subscribe to TWO separate services to have access to much of the same content that had been available originally through merely one.
Since that time, and with increasing rapidity as of late, nearly every company around has gotten into the streaming business: Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBOMAX, Paramount+, Peacock, Tubi, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime, Pluto TV, Shudder – just to hit a few. Name a well-known media company and they likely either already have their own service or are at least partnered up with someone else’s.
Each of these services, while different, offers much the same business model as Netflix. For a monthly fee, you are granted access to their library of content. That content usually consists of films and television shows that their parent companies own or that they have licensed for a limited time. It also consists of original films and shows produced exclusively for the platform. Some offer additional incentives, like lower-priced plans with ads (or even no fees) or, in the case of Amazon, access to two-day shipping and deals on items across the site.
So, you might be asking – with so much selection and media available for viewers, what’s the problem?
Too Many Bills
Quite simply, the issue with the current streaming landscape boils down to a few basic problems.
The first complaint you would likely hear from the mouths of most people is the ever-increasing cost of subscribing to so many of these platforms. While you’re certainly under no obligation to pay a monthly fee to any of these companies, it’s also true that many of them likely have original shows that you enjoy watching. Or, perhaps they are the current license-holder for a film or franchise that you love. Either way, the majority of individuals find themselves spending far more per month than they would like to admit… just for access to the few things they like.
Not only that, but they find the cost slowly growing over time, as more and more services hit the markets. Because, invariably, each new service takes content that used to be on a different service and locks it behind its own payroll. Therefore, consumers either have to be okay with giving up access to those particular shows and movies – or pony up the cash for a whole new monthly fee.
Some people try and subvert this (slightly) by sharing accounts amongst friends and families. In this way, the costs are either split amongst the group or perhaps each individual only pays for one or two services. While there is a certain practicality to this, companies are getting more frustrated by this practice every day. In the past, when subscriber numbers were perpetually shooting up and the sky seemed to be the limit, companies like Netflix encouraged users to share their passwords. It got the word out about the service and the quality they offered. In today’s landscape, however, now that the numbers of new subscribers have leveled off (both as a result of the fact that nearly everyone is already subscribed and the general fatigue of subscribing to new services), companies like Netflix are now looking into technologies to limit people from sharing their accounts or charging them extra for doing so.
Too Much Choice
Of course, the issue of cost is only half of this particular equation. The other side comes in the form of the quality and availability of content across the platforms. As mentioned, not only do you have to subscribe to a mountain of various services to ensure access to the things you love, but this also means that you have to scroll through ever-increasing piles of things just to find what you love. There’s a reason that it’s become an oft-repeated joke that people spend their entire night scrolling through their respective services looking for something to watch without ever actually finding it.
That’s because so much of the media available on these platforms holds little or no interest for most people. Not that any individual show is somehow unpopular with the whole of humanity, but that any given person probably only has an actual interest in a very small percentage of those things. So, after factoring in searching across not one but a great many streaming services, you can quickly find yourself lost in an ocean of things to watch… with nothing to actually watch.
Not to mention, even if you don’t have a problem FINDING what you want, you still have to CHOOSE from amongst the absolute ocean of available options. Do you watch the latest Disney+ Marvel show? What about the last season of Stranger Things? But Hulu does have Handmaid‘s Tale… And you can’t forget about Ms. Maisel on Amazon Prime… Though you were meaning to catch up with the Kardashians… And you did intend to re-watch Will and Grace… But there is that new Batman movie…
Suffice to say, not only is there an absolute abundance of media available to view, it’s constantly growing. As mentioned, each service has its own original films and television shows, and these are released in a nearly endless stream. Putting aside the interconnected nature of many of those found on Disney+, that still leaves any given person with a nearly overwhelming amount of things to choose from… Or to keep up with.
In fact, this has gotten so bad that many people now feel like merely trying to keep up with this many different shows and movies is a JOBin and of itself. It has ceased to be entertainment and become work. After all, if you don’t binge-watch the entire show in the first week of its airing, you’ll not only miss out on the cultural conversation, but you’ll also be privy to potential spoilers. You could, of course, just wait so long that everyone else has forgotten about it and then enjoy it on your own time… But that would mean relinquishing time that you could otherwise spend on the next new show (or, you know, on your family or something like that).
To put it simply – it’s a lot to deal with. And it costs a lot to deal with.
Conclusion
If you’re anything like me, I’m sure many of these complaints about streaming are starting to remind you of something else: That’s right, cable.
The very things that drove people into the arms of streaming and away from the large cable companies – the absurd price and relative abundance of content they don’t care about – are many of the same things now found in the world of streaming. Not only that, but then streaming went ahead and decided to add the complication of needing to pay various companies instead of just one and of having so many things to keep up with that it became stressful. What was once an escape from the structured and costly world of cable, has now found itself mirroring almost all of cable’s worst qualities… And then tacking on a few more for good measure. A system that promised a reprieve from the increased costs of paying for things you don’t care about became the poster child for it.
Perhaps this is just a result of the way that large media companies work. No matter the platform, no matter the medium – they will always find a new way to ruin it. They will take the innovation and freedom offered by a new way of doing things and find a way to strangle it and replace it with a doppelgänger that’s not quite the same but manages to benefit them greatly… while also inconveniencing the consumer. (Not to mention charging for the inconvenience.) So, basically, pod people. But for media.
[And this all also ignores large issues like the dissolution or merging of media companies – HBOMAX and Discovery+ as an example. But, honestly, that’s its own can of worms.]
So, in the end, we now find ourselves in a world that is vastly different from where we were twenty years ago. Though, in many ways, it’s almost exactly the same. Large companies are still taking absurd sums of money from us in the form of monthly fees in exchange for access to vast quantities of media, most of which we don’t care about.
I’d like to say that I have hope for the future – hope that competition in the marketplace will cause a culling of the herd. The return to a select few streaming services that manage to offer a large quantity of content while also not gouging the consumer. Sadly, however, I don’t see this being the case. While some streaming platforms will no doubt fall by the wayside and be relegated to the dustbin of history, I feel that the problems brought on by streaming, including the very ones we were attempting to escape, will follow us forward into the future, no matter the platforms available.
So, as much as streaming is the problem, it’s also not… The real problem lies at the heart of how large media corporations interact with the consumer – and that’s something that will likely never change. Still, it’s worth noting that this doesn’t mean that any of the above complaints against streaming aren’t valid. They are very, very valid. And that’s why it’s important that we remain vocal about them. Maybe we’ll get lucky and some of these things might even be addressed in the future. Until then, don’t hold your breath…
And maybe catch up on a show you love. If you can find it.
interesting post