Former HBO CEO Richard Plepler Inks Five-Year Apple TV+ Production Deal

[ipponrg]

Just to clarify, are you arguing that he is correct that he can raise prices and not lose more revenue than he gains?

I am not arguing that he is correct or incorrect. I am saying I can see it from his perspective without dismissing it entirely.

Let’s say he raises the prices from 15 to 20 and there are 10 people in that tier at 15. He is making $150 off 10 ppl. If after the raise, he still keeps 8 people. He is making $160 which he might be ok with losing 2 subs. This is just a simple example obviously and not taking into account other acquisition costs/profits, so maybe losing 2 subs might actually help with revenue.

All I was saying is to think about what Hastings said with an open mind.

 

[citysnaps]

^^ This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Essentially, Netflix is diving in the ocean with a quarter the amount of oxygen of Disney, Apple, ATT and Amazon.

What a great analogy!

 

[Alan Wynn]

I am not arguing that he is correct or incorrect. I am saying I can see it from his perspective without dismissing it entirely.

Got it. I totally understand that he would like to be able to raise prices with impunity.

Let’s say he raises the prices from 15 to 20 and there are 10 people in that tier at 15. He is making $150 off 10 ppl. If after the raise, he still keeps 8 people. He is making $160 which he might be ok with losing 2 subs.

Certainly a possibility. Here is another one using your numbers:

He raises the prices from $15 to $20, the third or fourth increase in a fairly short period of time. Instead of losing 2 subscribers, he loses 3, now he is down making less money. Worse, lets just say that one of those subscribers was not really watching much, so was not generating much cost. It will be almost impossible to get that subscriber back, at any price, especially given how much lower all the other services are. It is way more expensive to acquire new subscribers than it is to maintain them. Especially once people leave and discover they have more than enough other content.

This is just a simple example obviously and not taking into account other acquisition costs/profits, so maybe losing 2 subs might actually help with revenue.

Or it might start a trend that causes a catastrophic failure (losing people causes his borrowing costs to increase which necessitates increase, etc.). Understand

All I was saying is to think about what Hastings said with an open mind.

Now that you have said that you are not supporting or opposing his position and your mind is open, let me ask you more directly:

If Netflix increased its price to $20, would you continue to subscribe? In the end, that is the only thing that really matters.

 

[ipponrg]

He raises the prices from $15 to $20, the third or fourth increase in a fairly short period of time. Instead of losing 2 subscribers, he loses 3, now he is down making less money. Worse, lets just say that one of those subscribers was not really watching much, so was not generating much cost. It will be almost impossible to get that subscriber back, at any price, especially given how much lower all the other services are. It is way more expensive to acquire new subscribers than it is to maintain them. Especially once people leave and discover they have more than enough other content.

On the contrary, it’s actually more expensive to maintain subscribers than to acquire.

For example, you described Netflix as filler. Due to the number of streaming services and no need for commitment, it’s easy to hop around services. These services are constantly looking for the next "big" thing to draw people in. For example, let's say someone loves The Witcher and only cares about HBO's Westworld. It's common for households to binge Witcher, then cancel Netflix and resub to HBO for Westworld, followed by canceling that and just waiting. People have done this already for Mandalorian on Disney Plus even though it was a measly $7. The streaming companies already know this is a common habit. The only way to keep this from happening is to just throw as many content on the board as you can and hoping they all stick.

In the industry, retention is a frequently discussed topic, and it's something that streaming services spend a lot of time to plan for. New user acquisition is much simpler because the free trial flow is designed to be low friction to get the user in. Raising prices of course is rarely a good thing for consumers, but maybe like Apple, Hastings is not afraid to test consumer patience as evident of this past year.

Or it might start a trend that causes a catastrophic failure (losing people causes his borrowing costs to increase which necessitates increase, etc.).

It might, but like you said, it's nothing but speculation. Maybe by losing those people, the company's operating costs decrease, and they can allocate the same borrowed money to other expansion strategies.

If Netflix increased its price to $20, would you continue to subscribe? In the end, that is the only thing that really matters.

The simple answer is I get more value out of Netflix than if I were to subscribe to cable.

 

[Abazigal]

On the contrary, it’s actually more expensive to maintain subscribers than to acquire.

This makes me wonder if Netflix should do what Apple has done and offer an annual subscription rate (roughly equivalent to 10 months of subscription). While you earn less per customer, there will be less churn and might solve the issue of trying to time releases.

 

[PickUrPoison]

On the contrary, it’s actually more expensive to maintain subscribers than to acquire.

For example, you described Netflix as filler. Due to the number of streaming services and no need for commitment, it’s easy to hop around services. These services are constantly looking for the next "big" thing to draw people in. For example, let's say someone loves The Witcher and only cares about HBO's Westworld. It's common for households to binge Witcher, then cancel Netflix and resub to HBO for Westworld, followed by canceling that and just waiting. People have done this already for Mandalorian on Disney Plus even though it was a measly $7. The streaming companies already know this is a common habit. The only way to keep this from happening is to just throw as many content on the board as you can and hoping they all stick.

In the industry, retention is a frequently discussed topic, and it's something that streaming services spend a lot of time to plan for. New user acquisition is much simpler because the free trial flow is designed to be low friction to get the user in. Raising prices of course is rarely a good thing for consumers, but maybe like Apple, Hastings is not afraid to test consumer patience as evident of this past year.



It might, but like you said, it's nothing but speculation. Maybe by losing those people, the company's operating costs decrease, and they can allocate the same borrowed money to other expansion strategies.



The simple answer is I get more value out of Netflix than if I were to subscribe to cable.

No. It’s never more expensive to maintain a new subscriber than acquire. What’s the cost to maintain? None.

Furthermore, you’re discounting the importance of retention. Yes, there are periodic subscribers who will come and go. Netflix is addressing this by moving away from full-season drops to the episode per week model iirc.

But similar to satellite TV, fixed costs are very large (due to original content production mostly, not so much because of infrastructure as is the case with satellite) while the marginal cost to carry a subscriber is extremely low. Losing a subscriber is a 90+% net profit hit of that subscriber’s revenue, right to the bottom line. (And Netflix has no retention incentives afaik, which is something they should probably be exploring.)

New-customer acquisition costs are not to be disregarded; it is much better not to lose a customer than to have to replace them. If you have to acquire a customer merely to replace one that cancelled, you’re only offseting the loss and you’re net zero. Much better to acquire that same new customer without having lost one, and add a +1 to the subscriber count. It’s almost 100% profit after covering the customer acquisition cost.

Re: weathering a price increase, you say “The simple answer is I get more value out of Netflix than if I were to subscribe to cable.” But that’s exactly the logic error I called out Hastings for.

The substitute for a $20 Netflix isn’t cable. It’s a $20 package of other streaming services:

• $6 ad-based Hulu + $7 Disney Plus + $5 AppleTV Plus
• $12 ad-free Hulu + $7 Disney
• $15 HBO Max + Apple (or Disney)
• $10 Peacock + ad-based Hulu + Apple (or Disney)
• etc.

Very few will return to cable after cancelling Netflix. Rather, they’ll pick up other streaming options (temporarily or permanently) or re-subscribe to Netflix for two-three months over a year’s time and be happy to spend the $150 they’ve saved on something else. Just my 2¢, but it’s one of the reasons why I don’t own Netflix.

Apple’s strategy is interesting to me in that they’ve kept the price low enough to be under the pain threshold. Along with constantly introducing new, high-quality content and episodic release schedules vs. full-season drops, they’ll likely keep most from intermittent subscribing. Discounts for the annual subscription help with that as well, and Netflix should consider doing the same imo.

PS Apple creating more expensive products by adding new, high-end features for which customers are willing to pay a premium is far different from Netflix raising prices 15% for all customers for the same—or even less attractive—product.

Apple’s strategy was designed to overcome customers’ reluctance to upgrade because the products they currently owned were already so damn good. Netflix was forced to increase prices indiscriminately across the board to cover their ever-higher costs of content production and debt service on the billions they’re borrowing.

I don’t think Hastings even believes what he’s saying when he tells investors there’s “a lot of room” to raise prices. That’s what I call an investor con job, and if Netflix stock collapses, the plausibility and viability of those types of statements will be the basis for shareholder lawsuits. He’s walking a thin line.

 

[ipponrg]

No. It’s never more expensive to maintain a new subscriber than acquire. What’s the cost to maintain? None.

You would think once you have acquired the user, you don't need to think about retaining them. That's simply not true. I've worked at many companies you've mentioned that you used, and it's not as simple as "hey we got you a subscriber we don't care to target you anymore".

Furthermore, you’re discounting the importance of retention. Yes, there are periodic subscribers who will come and go. Netflix is addressing this by moving away from full-season drops to the episode per week model iirc.

You say "moving", but The Witcher was just released with full season drop. Netflix is selectively choosing certain series to release episodic (e.g. Explained). Maybe Netflix's data has discovered something for them that is specific for those types of series.

But similar to satellite TV, fixed costs are very large (due to original content production mostly, not so much because of infrastructure as is the case with satellite) while the marginal cost to carry a subscriber is extremely low. Losing a subscriber is a 90+% net profit hit of that subscriber’s revenue, right to the bottom line. (And Netflix has no retention incentives afaik, which is something they should probably be exploring.)

New-customer acquisition costs are not to be disregarded; it is much better not to lose a customer than to have to replace them. If you have to acquire a customer merely to replace one that cancelled, you’re only offseting the loss and you’re net zero. Much better to acquire that same new customer without having lost one, and add a +1 to the subscriber count. It’s almost 100% profit after covering the customer acquisition cost.

Of course for any company, it's better to not lose a customer. But the reality of the matter in this landscape is that it is likely and anticipated that you will not retain 100% of your new customers. Live/VOD Streaming services know this is a common pattern. You are not going to keep 100% of the users you acquired. Their product, services, and business plans are usually planned accordingly for this.

Re: weathering a price increase, you say “The simple answer is I get more value out of Netflix than if I were to subscribe to cable.” But that’s exactly the logic error I called out Hastings for.

The substitute for a $20 Netflix isn’t cable. It’s a $20 package of other streaming services:

• $6 ad-based Hulu + $7 Disney Plus + $5 AppleTV Plus
• $12 ad-free Hulu + $7 Disney
• $15 HBO Max + Apple (or Disney)
• $10 Peacock + ad-based Hulu + Apple (or Disney)
• etc.

Very few will return to cable after cancelling Netflix. Rather, they’ll pick up other streaming options (temporarily or permanently) or re-subscribe to Netflix for two-three months over a year’s time and be happy to spend the $150 they’ve saved on something else. Just my 2¢, but it’s one of the reasons why I don’t own Netflix.

Fair enough. You're speculating based on what you see. I'm presenting the alternate side of this, and why it's not such an easy answer.

Apple’s strategy is interesting to me in that they’ve kept the price low enough to be under the pain threshold. Along with constantly introducing new, high-quality content and episodic release schedules vs. full-season drops, they’ll likely keep most from intermittent subscribing. Discounts for the annual subscription help with that as well, and Netflix should consider doing the same imo.

The issue with Apple's strategy and why it's hard to make any jumps to conclusions is because it's practically free for most people right now. A ton of people have gotten new devices, so they get AppleTV+ for free for a whole year. We have to wait and see if Apple will continue this strategy year after year for each device, or if they will move to the industry standard 1-week free.

Anecdotally, none of my friends or coworkers in this industry really talk about AppleTV+ at the moment. I don't know anyone personally who has voluntarily paid $5. Maybe it's because there's no "Baby Yoda" trend or no "GOT-ish" trend. In my household we have new devices, but we haven't even bothered to sign up for the free trial.

PS Apple creating more expensive products by adding new, high-end features for which customers are willing to pay a premium is far different from Netflix raising prices 15% for all customers for the same—or even less attractive—product.

I disagree slightly here. When Apple increased prices on phones and macbooks, people weren't happy with either of those actions. They paid, but they weren't happy. Their actions say that Apple adjusted slightly to the criticism this past year for both in terms of pricing (iPhone 11 being comparable and 16" MBP costing the same as the prior year's 15").

Apple’s strategy was designed to overcome customers’ reluctance to upgrade because the products they currently owned were already so damn good. Netflix was forced to increase prices indiscriminately across the board to cover their ever-higher costs of content production and debt service on the billions they’re borrowing.

I don’t think Hastings even believes what he’s saying when he tells investors there’s “a lot of room” to raise prices. That’s what I call an investor con job, and if Netflix stock collapses, the plausibility and viability of those types of statements will be the basis for shareholder lawsuits. He’s walking a thin line.

For the face of a CEO, Hastings is rather reckless as you know. I would think that the board would advise to prevent that from happening. But we'll see.

 

[LizKat]

Until they release an Apple TV+ app for more devices it won't really matter. I want to watch shows on my big TV with great sound and I shouldn't have to buy a $200 apple TV device to do it. And I doubt many people will just for this use. So when I get home and I want to watch a show, my options are to stare at a small phone screen with headphones in, or fire up the TV and watch Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime... all services that realized that they needed apps for every device.

So I came here to read about forum members' reactions to the interesting deal with Plepler and bumped into your so relevant and useful commentary... /S

HBO has been a wonderful incubator and springboard for so many talented people who helped build that company and who, in the process, discovered something "else, but related" that they were determined to try out for themselves --either within the company or in eventually departing for not necessarily greener but still more adventurous pastures-- whether on the content development or corporate side of things. Sheila Nevins, who became "the queen of docu" ain't the half of it but she certainly comes to mind. Also David Levine, who went on to join Anonymous Content as they branched out to TV production. And Plepler is certainly a great catch for Apple.

Apple seems well placed to pick up such talent not only from HBO but from other entertainment-oriented companies as well, since they can afford to play the long game and learn from the experiences without requiring immediate profit margin contributions. I think this deal bodes well for Plepler and Apple both.

 

[Alan Wynn]

The simple answer is I get more value out of Netflix than if I were to subscribe to cable.

Thanks, but I did not ask you if you wanted to subscribe to cable. My simple yes or no question was: “If Netflix increased their price to $20 a month, would you continue to subscribe?”

So again I ask: If they were to raise their price to $20 would you continue to subscribe? (I guess I should ask you if you actually subscribe yourself, have a free subscription or use someone else’s subscription first, but instead I will just say: “Would you pay $20 a month for Netflix?”)

 

[ipponrg]

Thanks, but I did not ask you if you wanted to subscribe to cable. My simple yes or no question was: “If Netflix increased their price to $20 a month, would you continue to subscribe?”

So again I ask: If they were to raise their price to $20 would you continue to subscribe? (I guess I should ask you if you actually subscribe yourself, have a free subscription or use someone else’s subscription first, but instead I will just say: “Would you pay $20 a month for Netflix?”)

The simple answer is yes. The reason is because I get more value out of Netflix than cable. Right now, I don’t subscribe to cable. My Netflix circumstances don’t have any bearing on my answer.

The premise of why this is relevant is because the posts you are replying to are talking about whether Netflix/Hastings can keep increasing its prices because it thinks it’s cable.

 

[PickUrPoison]

The simple answer is yes. The reason is because I get more value out of Netflix than cable. Right now, I don’t subscribe to cable. My Netflix circumstances don’t have any bearing on my answer.

The premise of why this is relevant is because the posts you are replying to are talking about whether Netflix/Hastings can keep increasing its prices because it thinks it’s cable.

Hastings can say whatever he wants. I don’t think even he believes the crap coming out of his mouth.

The real question actually has nothing to do with cable. A theoretical $20 Netflix price will cause some consumers to re-evaluate Netflix’s value proposition.

So do consumers accept a $20 Netflix? Or do they find more value in a bundle of alternatives at about the same price, such as:

• $6 ad-based Hulu + $7 Disney Plus + $5 AppleTV Plus
• $12 ad-free Hulu + $7 Disney
• $15 HBO Max + Apple (or Disney)
• $10 Peacock + ad-based Hulu + Apple (or Disney)
• Many other streaming channels and combinations thereof, including the ad-supported services listed below.

Cable as an alternative is a red herring; few cord cutters will return to cable when Netflix raises prices. But there are plenty of alternatives to ad-heavy cable channel programming, including many free services like Roku Channel, Tubi, Pluto.tv, ad-supported Vudu, IMDb, Crackle, etc.

When your subscriber base starts eroding, despite new customer subs, it’s possible you’ve already exceeded consumers’ willingness to pay more—regardless of how much more headroom Hastings claims Netflix has. With so many other alternatives—all at lower prices—I actually think Netflix is currently overpriced, and will suffer in comparison as Peacock and HBO Max roll out.

Time will tell, but I’d be surprised to see Netflix jacking up prices again this year.

 

[Alan Wynn]

The simple answer is yes.

Cool.

The reason is because I get more value out of Netflix than cable. Right now, I don’t subscribe to cable. My Netflix circumstances don’t have any bearing on my answer.

While I understand the reference, I think it is false comparison. Given that you do not subscribe to cable, it not the alternative for you to Netflix. What is more likely to be a replacement for Netflix is one or more other streaming services. Do you subscribe to any other streaming services. If so, which?

If Netflix raised its price, would you just pay the increased price or would you consider dropping one or more of your other services. Hastings’s argument seems to be that Netflix is only in competition with Cable, while it is more accurately in competition with all forms of entertainment.

The premise of why this is relevant is because the posts you are replying to are talking about whether Netflix/Hastings can keep increasing its prices because it thinks it’s cable.

While I think your (and his) argument is wrong, let us really explore it. The lowest priced cable packages average around $40. You have said you would pay $20, moving from 37.5% of that price to 50% of that price. If that really is the competition, how high would you be willing to go relative to that package? Seventy-Five percent ($30)? Sixty two and a half percent ($25)?

I do not think you (or almost anyone one else) measures the price of Netflix against cable, but rather against itself: ”It this a better deal than cable?” vs. ”Is this worth it to me?” or even against other streaming services: “Should I get Netflix or Hulu and HBO Max?”

 

[Michael Scrip]

All this talk about cable TV and how it compares to streaming... I think we're forgetting one thing... CABLE SUCKS

Cable still follows the old-fashioned method of delivering content on a certain day at a certain time.

Do want to watch this show at 8:30pm on a Tuesday? Well... you better be home at that time.

Or... you can set your DVR... which has an additional monthly cost. Per TV.

In this world of on-demand streaming... is anyone excited about linear TV anymore? And does it still make sense to deliver content that way?

There used to be a giant antenna that beamed these shows to everyone in your town at the same time. That's how it was done 50 years ago. Even though the transmission has changed today (copper wires vs over-the-air) the schedule still remains.

But now we can watch an insane amount of content... at any time we want over the internet. No schedules!

I often hear "once I subscribe to 3 or 4 streaming services... I might as well get cable instead..."

Ummm... cable and streaming are two entirely different products.

I don't know how anyone can compare linear TV to on-demand internet streaming.

Even if a bunch of streaming services cost more than a traditional cable TV package... I'd still prefer streaming.

I know linear TV won't disappear overnight... but something's gotta give.

13 year-olds today won't be subscribing to linear cable TV when they move into their first adult apartment in 10 years.

Their whole lives they've been able to watch anything they want at any time. They won't abide by a "schedule" when they're adults.

 

[ipponrg]

The real question actually has nothing to do with cable. A theoretical $20 Netflix price will cause some consumers to re-evaluate Netflix’s value proposition.

An alternate way to look at value proposition is cable vs Netflix (streaming services). Cable was primarily programmed to deliver filler and key shows. It's a linear lean-back experience. However as programming started catering to specific audiences, people only tune in for those respective shows. Content discovery is also much easier on these online driven streaming service approaches than cable. I could watch say half an episode of The Witcher and decide I hate it. I don't need to sit through ads or anything else. It makes the consumer experience very easy.

Cable as an alternative is a red herring; few cord cutters will return to cable when Netflix raises prices. But there are plenty of alternatives to ad-heavy cable channel programming, including many free services like Roku Channel, Tubi, Pluto.tv, ad-supported Vudu, IMDb, Crackle, etc

Having worked at some of these companies, I can say that people that use these are niche users. Cable is not the alternative. Cable is the primary. These cord cutting services including Netflix can be seen as an alternative.

When your subscriber base starts eroding, despite new customer subs, it’s possible you’ve already exceeded consumers’ willingness to pay more—regardless of how much more headroom Hastings claims Netflix has. With so many other alternatives—all at lower prices—I actually think Netflix is currently overpriced, and will suffer in comparison as Peacock and HBO Max roll out.

I think that's subjective. I would say it's stagnating not necessarily eroding. I have friends that do a sharing of multiple services + Plex, and they still subscribe to Netflix. It's still TBD still how Peacock and HBO Max will make a dent in the field. Remember that HBO Max will likely come out at $14.99 per month. Keep in mind that it's easier for services to increase their customer base from 0 than to keep a customer base of X million.

Time will tell, but I’d be surprised to see Netflix jacking up prices again this year.

I agree, I would not expect them to do any pricing increases in 2020.

 

[cola79]

Having worked at some of these companies, I can say that people that use these are niche users. Cable is not the alternative. Cable is the primary. These cord cutting services including Netflix can be seen as an alternative.

For the moment yes, but it is shifting away from that.

I can see that in my parents, both close to 80 years old, and even they do get bored of traditional television, not because it has fixed times, but because of the quality of the content and because of ads.

And in people 40 and below there are more and more who only use their television for streaming apps or their fire stick, and do not connect a set top box anymore. They also do not check tv guides, meaning, they really don’t know what is happening on tv. It’s a product which becomes more and more invisible to the people.

I don’t see a future for traditional television, i rather believe that people will watch less movies and shows, but ad free and selected, at times when they want to be passively entertained.

 

[ipponrg]

I don’t see a future for traditional television, i rather believe that people will watch less movies and shows, but ad free and selected, at times when they want to be passively entertained.

I think there are people that the Plutos/Xumos cater to which represents a specific audience. The issue with these services (for now?) is that content is dated and still niche today. Some people achieve the same effect from their subscribed as-less services.

I also think that there still are a significant amount of people that subscribe to cable because of sports.

I definitely think traditional TV will pivot as evident by the HBO (WB/TW), Peacock (NBC / Comcast), CBS (Viacom, etc), Disney (ABC, NatGeo, Fox, etc) changes but I am skeptical that it will go away in the near future

 

[podlasek]

He was at HBO when it had some of its biggest hits - Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Veep. Hopefully he brings some of that talent with him in his Apple deal.

Yes, Exactly!

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yes, Exactly!

Not quite exactly...

Sure... Plepler was at HBO when some of the biggest shows were on the network:

Plepler worked at HBO for 27 years before leaving in February 2019, and under his leadership, HBO had hits like "Game of Thrones" and "Big Little Lies."

But when he comes to Apple... Plepler will be producing shows for Apple under his own company... not just selecting shows that other creators are making:

...Plepler making it clear at the time that he did not want to return to TV as an executive, but instead wanted to take on a new role as a producer.

Will Plepler make the successful transition from executive to producer?

I hope so. But the result aren't guaranteed.

 

[jbachandouris]

All this talk about cable TV and how it compares to streaming... I think we're forgetting one thing... CABLE SUCKS

Cable still follows the old-fashioned method of delivering content on a certain day at a certain time.

Do want to watch this show at 8:30pm on a Tuesday? Well... you better be home at that time.

Or... you can set your DVR... which has an additional monthly cost. Per TV.

In this world of on-demand streaming... is anyone excited about linear TV anymore? And does it still make sense to deliver content that way?

There used to be a giant antenna that beamed these shows to everyone in your town at the same time. That's how it was done 50 years ago. Even though the transmission has changed today (copper wires vs over-the-air) the schedule still remains.

But now we can watch an insane amount of content... at any time we want over the internet. No schedules!

I often hear "once I subscribe to 3 or 4 streaming services... I might as well get cable instead..."

Ummm... cable and streaming are two entirely different products.

I don't know how anyone can compare linear TV to on-demand internet streaming.

Even if a bunch of streaming services cost more than a traditional cable TV package... I'd still prefer streaming.

I know linear TV won't disappear overnight... but something's gotta give.

13 year-olds today won't be subscribing to linear cable TV when they move into their first adult apartment in 10 years.

Their whole lives they've been able to watch anything they want at any time. They won't abide by a "schedule" when they're adults.

Well, where do you get your internet from? In my area, it's the CABLE company. Yes, I have Netflix and Disney+, but still have cable. I also have a DVR for the reasons you mentioned. Sometimes we just want to turn on the TV and watch whatever happens to be on. Streaming services require you to search for what you want. No thanks.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Well, where do you get your internet from? In my area, it's the CABLE company.

Yes... I get my internet from the cable company.

But I don't necessarily have to get live TV channels from them. I can choose other options like YouTube TV, SlingTV, etc.

Or I don't have to get channels at all and just use streaming.

Sometimes we just want to turn on the TV and watch whatever happens to be on.

And then there's the argument that you're paying for 500 channels and there's still nothing to watch.

Remember... people were complaining about that long before streaming became a thing.

May I ask how much just your TV package is? You're obviously getting a bundle of TV and internet... but I'd love to know how much your cable company is charging you for hundreds of channels and your DVR set-top boxes.

You're likely paying a ton of money just to watch whatever happens to be on.

And let's not forget about all the commercials...

Streaming services require you to search for what you want. No thanks.

It's not as bad as you think. People actually like the content that these streaming companies provide. And some people prefer it!

In the last few years... US traditional cable TV has lost 7 million subscribers. So clearly those people have had enough.


But yes.... I understand what you're saying.

My point was... streaming and live cable TV aren't really comparable. They offer different experiences (and costs)

Cable TV lets you watch when they decide you should watch (unless you set your DVR... at an additional cost)

But streaming lets YOU decide what to watch.

They're not the same.

 

[jbachandouris]

About $200/month for phone/internet/cable/Whole house DVR (2 boxes).

Wife babysits kids from the house, so her sitting down finding something for the kids to watch isn't happening.

You're right about the 200+ channels of nothing to watch. On some nights, that's a good thing. Gets me doing other things to waste time.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Not quite exactly...

Sure... Plepler was at HBO when some of the biggest shows were on the network:


But when he comes to Apple... Plepler will be producing shows for Apple under his own company... not just selecting shows that other creators are making:


Will Plepler make the successful transition from executive to producer?

I hope so. But the result aren't guaranteed.

True, the results aren’t guaranteed. But Plepner knows everyone who’s anyone in that business. He’s got a ton of relationships with people he’s treated right over decades of involvement in the industry. He’s due a little more credit than just being “at HBO when some of the biggest shows were on the network”, don’t you think?

Top talent will bring him projects that he’ll sign if he believes in them, and Apple will be able to access that content if they wish. Will there be a next GoT? Who knows? Like you said, there’s no guarantee 🤷‍♂️

 

[Michael Scrip]

He’s due a little more credit than just being “at HBO when some of the biggest shows were on the network”, don’t you think?

Of course. He was the CEO.

But like I said earlier... he might have said "yes" to greenlighting Game of Thrones... but the show also had to be good on its own. There's a lot of credit to be given to the writers, producer, directors, cinematographers themselves.

In the years Plepler was in charge, the network won more than 160 Emmys, including for series like "Game of Thrones," "Big Little Lies" and "Veep."

So how much credit do we give Plepler vs the hundreds of people who actually made all these amazing shows? How much does the CEO of a network get their hands into a TV show?

But all that is history. Plepler is no longer an executive at HBO.

Now he's a producer at his own production company.

Yes... his contact list is vast. He knows everybody in the industry. But now he's a producer... and that's an entirely different job than an executive.

Instead of greenlighting shows at a network... he'll actually be producing shows on his own. He'll be flexing an entirely different set of muscles.

I was just exploring the differences between an executive at a network... and the shows themselves.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Of course. He was the CEO.

But like I said earlier... he might have said "yes" to greenlighting Game of Thrones... but the show also had to be good on its own. There's a lot of credit to be given to the writers, producer, directors, cinematographers themselves.

In the years Plepler was in charge, the network won more than 160 Emmys, including for series like "Game of Thrones," "Big Little Lies" and "Veep."

So how much credit do we give Plepler vs the hundreds of people who actually made all these amazing shows? How much does the CEO of a network get their hands into a TV show?

But all that is history. Plepler is no longer an executive at HBO.

Now he's a producer at his own production company.

Yes... his contact list is vast. He knows everybody in the industry. But now he's a producer... and that's an entirely different job than an executive.

Instead of greenlighting shows at a network... he'll actually be producing shows on his own. He'll be flexing an entirely different set of muscles.

I was just exploring the differences between an executive at a network... and the shows themselves.

Well, ok. But I didn’t get the impression he was going to be a one man show; there are almost always multiple producers and executive producers involved. If he sees something interesting, he may hire the producers of GoT to execute the project. Who knows?

I really don’t see the downside of being able to pick up his projects, it’s simply more exclusive content that’ll potentially be available to Apple. You don’t have to give him credit for anything he’s ever done at HBO at all. Maybe Apple will pass on everything 🤷‍♂️

But Apple like many smart companies, likes to bet on winners—and Plepler is a winner. The question of whether Apple should have done a deal with Plepler or pass on him and have him go to Netflix or Amazon or whoever, is in the rear view mirror. Whether you agree or disagree with that decision, the results are yet to be seen.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Sure... Plepler was at HBO when some of the biggest shows were on the network:

I think your conception of what someone in that role does is incorrect.

But when he comes to Apple... Plepler will be producing shows for Apple under his own company... not just selecting shows that other creators are making:

While it is different for every studio CEO, most effectively act as an Executive Producer on every project they green light. He was not “just selecting shows that other creators” made, he was reviewing the progress, giving notes, choosing (or at a minimum approving the choice of) the major talent positions (Director, writer, lead actors, etc.). For films (and a series like Game of Thrones is produced more like a film than a standard TV show), they likely even approve the script. The projects discussed were produced by/for HBO, not just purchased by them after they were finished (distribution deals like that happen, however, that is not what these projects were).

Will Plepler make the successful transition from executive to producer?

A more accurate description of his transition is from an executive responsible for all aspects of the business (content creation, acquisition, marketing, sales, etc.) to one just focused on content creation. He is not going to become a line producer, nor will he be focused on a single project. Just like when he was at HBO, he will have several Executive Producers working for him, each focused on specific projects.

He is likely to have much the same role as he did before related to content creation - choosing or approving the key talent, scripts and budgets for the projects he is developing - without the rest of the responsibility for the studio/network.

I hope so. But the result aren't guaranteed.

Just like in finance where “past performance is no guarantee of future results”, having a successful run (even in the same exact role - director, writer, etc.), does not mean that the run will continue. Robert Zemeckis made many successful movies and then made Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, all of which were terrible.

Like you, I hope he succeeds in his new role and produces great content for us to watch.