So, Disney + is going to start imbedding commercials…

[Psab keel]

It's always about the principle! Disney has always charged more for their content as a company and they often set the bar in terms of pricing, so this will most definitely set a precedent for the industry. Even as a kid I remember my friend's parents talking about how expensive the Disney channel was and their home video content always cost top dollar, so while this is nothing new for them, it is questionable that they would be so quick to jack up their rates so soon.

As I said above, I know that they aren't the first in this regard with offering tiered memberships, but Disney Plus is less than three years old. Let that sink in. If they raise their prices this early in the life of their streaming service, you can bet the price will be almost double in another few years and other streaming services will follow suit.

I know a few dollars to those who already subscribe may not feel like much of an impact on their wallet and everyone is going to make their decision based on the value they feel they get from the content available to them. What seldom shows or movies me and the Mrs. watch on their channel we get to see for free as the streaming service costs are split between different members of the family (ie. one person has Netflix, another has Disney +, we have HBO Max and Hulu, etc.) but I just find it absurd that the prices are only going to keep climbing with these rate hikes and you're going to have to tolerate constant interruptions from advertisements which they'll pump into your shows/ movies to appease the companies who aim to sell you their goods, and also to bombard you with enough of them that you'll gladly pay the extra fee to avoid having your stories constantly interrupted.

 

[Moviefreak]

It's not the amount of money itself that's in question, it's the principle of paying more to prevent ads. I'm genuinely surprised about the lack of the realization that this is going to set a precedent for other streaming services to do the same and that it will likely escalate. Oh well as long as you get your precious content above all else.

Before long we will be paying $50+ a month per streaming service, lol

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Well, Disney already raised their prices a year ago. They went up a dollar a month for all members. It started at $6.99 a month in 2019.

 

[Starganderfish]

Yeah seems like an easy decision to drop Disney+ as soon as they start pushing ads here in Aust. I know Netflix and many other streaming platforms will soon follow and honestly, I'll probably drop them if they do.
These streaming platforms are purely about convenience and a centralised and enjoyable experience. As soon as that enjoyment starts getting busted by ads, or accessibility becomes limited by excessive price hikes, it's just not worth paying for them anymore.
I currently have the big three streaming services going to cover the content we mainly watch (Prime, Netflix and Disney) and I occasionally dip in and out of other services as and when I want to watch something specific, but with the increasing fragmentation of streaming services, I find myself checking online to see where shows are streaming locally and often just ... not subscribing

I am curious to see how Amazon handles this. While they often show ads for their own content at the start of a show, they aren't running external advertising and they aren't interrupting shows, at leats not here in Aust. Amazon has in the past seen platforms like Prime Video and Kindle Unlimited less as money spinners in their own right, and more as gateways to pull customers into their marketplace. Upsetting subscribers by including ads, and potentially losing them as customers on the main Amazon storefront may not be worth it to Bezos. Then again, he is a greedy capitalist monster so ...

 

[Picard102]

Things like Sonar are only getting better as well. Making piracy easier than ever. Guess they didn't learn from cable TV that decentralization and Ads were a consumer pain point.

 

[joberg]

^^
This exactly

 

[Paul Andrew]

It's not the amount of money itself that's in question, it's the principle of paying more to prevent ads. I'm genuinely surprised about the lack of the realization that this is going to set a precedent for other streaming services to do the same and that it will likely escalate. Oh well as long as you get your precious content above all else.

For regular TV this would make sense, as ads are where all the revenue is. I'm all for the idea of paying a little bit not to be advertised at.

I'd be inclined to be miffed if there were a dearth of original content or if that content didn't clearly have **** tons of money spent on it to acquire talent and make it look as good as it does.

 

[Funky]

The day I see the first commercial, I cancel. Damn the Mandalorian.

 

[Axlotl]

 

[JediMichael]

Its ironic how these streaming services were going full force a few years back about cutting the cord, ditch cable tv, why pay for a million channels when you only watch a few shows, all your shows on one service...blah blah blah.....
Now theres more streaming services than cable tv channels....well, getting there, and with each having their own selection of shows....it has totally defeated the purpose to beging with all on the name of making more money.
Stupid greed.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Broadcast television is paid for by commercials. If I’m paying a service to watch, no commercials are necessary.

If anything they should be reducing the price I pay as they are now being paid twice.

 

[Psab keel]

It's not like the service has had some vast improvements added to increase the value of the product for the consumer. It's really a form of extortion when you think about it.

"You're already paying us, but if you don't want to have to sit through endless advertisements, you better pay us MORE to watch our shows, ad free."

Typically if you're going to raise your rates on a service there's several factors at play. Inflation, cost of goods increasing, and or the end result should be an improvement or added value to the service you're paying for to warrant the increase. So you're essentially paying more, for the exact same service, and the only "benefit" would be that you're paying extra for the "convenience" of not being interrupted. How many industries can you think of that get away with that kind of behavior?

Could you imagine an electric company telling you that your service will be down intermittenly unless you pay an extra fee to prevent it? Or your water company will shut off service to your home unless you cough up extra cash? How about your internet service provider cutting out service unless you pay more, even though you depend on that service being reliable when you work from home on your computer? But an entertainment company is given total carte blanche to act in a predatory way, just because it's service is completely discretionary?

People have a tendency to roll over too easy and they tell megacorporations how they want to be treated when they don't fight the trends set by the industry. I find it astounding how complacent consumers can get and the slightest inconvenience can be "overcome" by coughing up just a few extra bucks. Then again, they're literally counting on every consumer to do just that.

The considerable decline of physical media also starves the consumer of options so that unless you actively seek out discs and maintain players you're limited on your viewing choices. There's still a lot to be said for owning your content and not having to rent it! Again, this is all a matter of preference but I think on principle these types of market shifts by companies are astoundingly against the consumers interests and only benefit them, not the customer.

I really need to watch less TV and movies and take up reading!

 

[tcsmit29]

I really need to watch less TV and movies and take up reading!

Can I interest you in trying out Audible? For only $15 a month you can listen to all the books that nobody wants to read. Of course, premium content (the books you downloaded the app for) is available to purchase.

 

[Psab keel]

I used to listen to audio books when I had to commute to work, but generally I prefer a paperback/ hardcover and a comfortable chair. I don't read as much as I ought to, but if I do decide to get back on track with that, I'll do it like it was done for hundreds of years instead of needing electronics to do it. lol

 

[Axlotl]

I used to listen to audio books when I had to commute to work, but generally I prefer a paperback/ hardcover and a comfortable chair. I don't read as much as I ought to, but if I do decide to get back on track with that, I'll do it like it was done for thousands of years instead of needing electronics to do it. lol

Hundreds of years.
No books until the 15th century.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Hundreds of years.
No books until the 15th century.

Well, there were scrolls and waxed tablets long before books. Written scrolls go back over 2000 years.

 

[Psab keel]

Axlotl noted and corrected!

 

[Laspector]

So, how long before audio books have commercials?

 

[Psab keel]

"Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine!"

 

[Riceball]

It's not the amount of money itself that's in question, it's the principle of paying more to prevent ads. I'm genuinely surprised about the lack of the realization that this is going to set a precedent for other streaming services to do the same and that it will likely escalate. Oh well as long as you get your precious content above all else.

Hulu has been doing this before Disney decided to do the same, Netflix had recently announced that it was going to do the same, and the anime streaming site has been doing this for forever whee you could watch things for free but with tons of commercials and at a much lower video quality.