NBC's Streaming Service 'Peacock' Launching in July With Three Subscription Tiers

[sbrunner]

Too many subscription services.... I never understood why anybody would pay for ads, got rid of cable a decade ago, never looked back. There is only so-and-so-much time one can spend on watching TV. In the end, all these $5/mo or $10/mo will cannibalize each other, and people pick what interests them most.

 

[Rogifan]

I think the hope was that with "unbundled" services, each one would be priced reasonably, say $2 or $3 a month. But "cheap" is now $5 a month, and many services start at $10 and up. I don't think that was what consumers wanted. Mainly, most consumers didn't want to have to pay cable companies for all the stations they never watched. They wanted a la carte channels. Well, we're now closer to that model but it's coming at a much steeper price indeed.

We’re not getting ala carte channels though. We’re getting streaming services by content owners/distributors. For example, the show Mom is on CBS but it’s distributed by Warner Bros. Right now it’s on CBS All Access but will it eventually get pulled once HBO Max is up and running? People are going to be very confused about what is where. How many people know HBO is part of WarnerMedia which is owned by AT&T? When you had cable (or just antenna) all you had to know was if your favorite show was on CNS, ABC or NBC (or a cable channel). What if there’s two shows currently on NBC that I like but only one is owned by NBC Universal. Now I have to pay for two subscriptions when the non NBC Universal show eventually leaves the network? And what about things that are missing because of existing deals. I read that there are some Disney properties not available on Disney+ because Disney signed a distribution deal with someone else and that deal isn’t up for renewal yet. To me this who thing is a big mess which is why I‘ve kept my DirecTV subscription.

 

[chublet]

Pay through the nose for half a dozen streaming services and have problems knowing what show is on where, or just pirate what I want to watch for free, not exactly a hard decision...

 

[Marshall73]

I really wonder how much longer Hulu survives with ABC(Disney) and NBC both having their own services.

Disney owns and controls Hulu now and has stated it intends to use Hulu for more adult shows and movies so it’s not going anywhere.

 

[Baff]

It will be perfect for the Olympics.

Having cut cords, I will gladly pay for a month of Peacock for the Olympics.

 

[konqerror]

What is the breaking point? Will people look at it and allocate 40 bucks a month to streaming? How much did cable cost? Or will people just look at this as being too fractured and slide back into pirating content because it's easier.

The average cable bill in 2018, after taxes and fees, was $217/month. So if you forget the useless phone bundle, pay $100/month for Internet and pay $50 a month for streaming, you're ahead.

The conclusion is people irrationally feel one huge bill is better than 10 small bills even if the huge bill is more... it's known that there's a per-purchase "hurt" or remorse.

Cable Company Fees Add $450 to a Typical Annual TV Bill

Consumer Reports looks at the surprise cable company fees and add-ons that can jack up consumers' bills. Our research shows advertised cable TV prices don't reflect what you really have to pay, and fees continue to rise.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[bpeeps]

I really wonder how much longer Hulu survives with ABC(Disney) and NBC both having their own services.

Disney owns Hulu, so it will survive as long as they want it to.

 

[decypher44]

This will be a hard pass for me. Since I haven’t “cut the cord”, no need for it. DVR. Plus, nothing for exclusives have jumped out.

 

[gridlocked]

What is the breaking point? Will people look at it and allocate 40 bucks a month to streaming? How much did cable cost? Or will people just look at this as being too fractured and slide back into pirating content because it's easier.

You see those as the only two options?

None of these services have enough new content every month to justify a subscription every month. You just put them on a rotating schedule.

I can see getting this maybe two months out of a year ad free.

 

[moderngamenewb]

I have Disney and Hulu bundle (credited back for price of Hulu unlimited so Disney is only $1 for me), prime video, and my folks Netflix and use their cable subscriptions for others like job. If Peacock content is worth it I will add that, depending on their content of shows added. Hopefully they will have older archived shows hardly seen anymore too such as Providence (1999-2002) like Disney has older shows

 

[swingerofbirch]

Remember that whole kerfuffle When Conan O'Brien was upset his show would air at 1205 am instead of 1130 pm?

I never understood the big hubbub when they're pre-taped anyway.

Now they're putting out the late night shows early anyway. Makes you wonder.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

With people tired of 200+ channels of crap being force-fed to them on cable/satellite, a-la carte has seemed like a pipe dream. Except the problem now, is each service is costing $10/mo! Before you know it, you're spending $100/mo on individual streaming services! Not sure which is better...

 

[Unity451]

Not really the same. Streaming services have decades of back catalog titles, prior episodes, and exclusives. For example with CBS, Star Trek is a streaming exclusive.

Understandable, but there's only so much time in the day... you can't watch everything. I'm more likely to get hooked on a new show if I don't have to pay for decades of back catalog titles to get it.

 

[jlc1978]

I think the hope was that with "unbundled" services, each one would be priced reasonably, say $2 or $3 a month. But "cheap" is now $5 a month, and many services start at $10 and up. I don't think that was what consumers wanted. Mainly, most consumers didn't want to have to pay cable companies for all the stations they never watched. They wanted a la carte channels. Well, we're now closer to that model but it's coming at a much steeper price indeed.

What people didn’t understand about the cable model is the popular channels got a lot bigger per user payment as well as payment based on subscribers, not viewers. Now that they are offering a streaming service they will need to charge based on how many people will pay and not get the extra bump like they did with cable.

A la carte was never going to be cheaper, the economics don’t support it. The desirable channels will survive and the smaller ones with very limited viewership will die as since they won’t be able to cover costs as cable losses subscribers and going to streaming won’t attract enough revenue to stay alive.

 

[ActionableMango]

With people tired of 200+ channels of crap being force-fed to them on cable/satellite, a-la carte has seemed like a pipe dream. Except the problem now, is each service is costing $10/mo! Before you know it, you're spending $100/mo on individual streaming services! Not sure which is better...

It is MASSIVELY better for people like me who only ever wanted to watch a few things on a couple of channels. For example I paid for HBO for a few months to get GoT and WestWorld.

Prior to this, if I wanted to watch something on HBO, I'd have to get a cable subscription, add HBO, pay for installation, rent proprietary equipment, and be locked into a 2-year contract. What would this cost, several hundred dollars? Thousands? Even worse, if you stay after the 2 years, they jack up the price and either you're lazy and just pay it, or you waste your time playing "I'm going to cancel" bluffing phone games with technical support. NO THANK YOU.

All that as opposed to HBO NOW which is $15 per month and I'm done in 2-3 months? If you are the type of person who just wants to watch a small number of high quality shows, the decision is an absolute no-brainer.

 

[BF1M]

CBS All Access all over again. Still cracks me up that CBS doesn't even have the full seasons of it's own classic shows...well worth the 9.99 I pay a month.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I watch too much of a variety of stuff spread out over different channels for these to be cost efficient for me. For others, I can see how having internet and a three or four subscriptions would be a good deal. I hate having tons of different recurring bills though. I'm already up to about two dozen, including things like Netflix, Hulu, Apple Music, etc. and my regular bills. I don't want to keep adding more.

I really miss the days of having just a small handful of monthly bills. And in a way, limited access to media.

 

[Jensend]

We’re not getting ala carte channels though. We’re getting streaming services by content owners/distributors. For example, the show Mom is on CBS but it’s distributed by Warner Bros. Right now it’s on CBS All Access but will it eventually get pulled once HBO Max is up and running? People are going to be very confused about what is where. How many people know HBO is part of WarnerMedia which is owned by AT&T? When you had cable (or just antenna) all you had to know was if your favorite show was on CNS, ABC or NBC (or a cable channel). What if there’s two shows currently on NBC that I like but only one is owned by NBC Universal. Now I have to pay for two subscriptions when the non NBC Universal show eventually leaves the network? And what about things that are missing because of existing deals. I read that there are some Disney properties not available on Disney+ because Disney signed a distribution deal with someone else and that deal isn’t up for renewal yet. To me this who thing is a big mess which is why I‘ve kept my DirecTV subscription.

I don't understand what is so difficult. I use the JustWatch app and add shows and movies that I'm interested in to my watch list. When I have time and want to watch a season of a show, I click on the show, and subscribe to one of the listed services for a month. Heck, I am usually offered a free trial subscription because it's been a while since I've subscribed to that particular service.
I also keep one or two services year-round that I share with family members (was Netflix for a long time, but now Disney+). I also have a year of Apple TV+ because I got a new Apple device recently.

 

[Zoboomafoo]

Pay through the nose for half a dozen streaming services and have problems knowing what show is on where, or just pirate what I want to watch for free, not exactly a hard decision...

the best part is you still have to pay for internet for access

 

[Jensend]

I think the hope was that with "unbundled" services, each one would be priced reasonably, say $2 or $3 a month. But "cheap" is now $5 a month, and many services start at $10 and up. I don't think that was what consumers wanted.

Consumers want everything instantly, at any time, for free, with no ads and no hassle.

Too bad TV shows cost a lot to make.

 

[fairuz]

What is the breaking point? Will people look at it and allocate 40 bucks a month to streaming? How much did cable cost? Or will people just look at this as being too fractured and slide back into pirating content because it's easier.

I don't see the point of watching TV anymore unless you pirate it. The one reason to watch it was laziness, but now that's gone too because of how complicated things are.
[automerge]1579230787[/automerge]

Too many subscription services.... I never understood why anybody would pay for ads, got rid of cable a decade ago, never looked back. There is only so-and-so-much time one can spend on watching TV. In the end, all these $5/mo or $10/mo will cannibalize each other, and people pick what interests them most.

Most people don't realize how much of a waste of time it is to watch ads, and cost to everyone is much greater than what the advertisers make. Not the case if people are just paying for usage. I wish everyone would change their minds and make ads not profitable anymore.

 

[BehemothManiac]

I think I’ve seen that logo somewhere already... 🤔

 

[rols]

Most people don't realize how much of a waste of time it is to watch ads, and cost to everyone is much greater than what the advertisers make.

I absolutely think that most people totally know how much of a waste of time it is to watch ads and would avoid them if at all possible.

 

[Richdmoore]

If it has NBC sports included then I will go in on it. That is one channel that keeps me from cutting the cord.

I already purchased indycar gold this year, it covers everything indycar except the races live on NBC. (You can view them later, and it also covers every indycar race on NBCSports.

Hopefully this new service will include the indycar races live (and without commercials would be a huge bonus.)

I guess we will find out in July (1/3 way into the 2020 Indycar season.)

I checked the PDF, doesn't look like many sports will be on this, except olympics, english soccer and golf. No access to the rest of NBCSports, or most of the programs on it, as far as I can tell.

From the PDF:

With the 2020 Tokyo Olympics beginning this summer, Peacock will be the ultimate hub for sports- lovers. Users will have access to live coverage of marquee Olympic events, in addition to analyst commentary, athlete profiles, and more. For fans of the Premier League, Peacock will stream 2,000 hours of programming including over 140 live matches. And for golf enthusiasts, Peacock will cover the Ryder Cup, with live coverage of featured holes and groups. All this – in addition to thousands of hours of original documentaries, curated clips, and more.

Sports
Peacock will be a destination for premium sports content, including live coverage of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, and dedicated streaming channels.
Olympics Coverage (July – August 2020)
Live coverage of Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and three daily shows:
“Tokyo Live,” a five-hour live morning studio show during Tokyo primetime with live coverage of major events, plus medal ceremonies, engaging segments with athlete profiles, and real-time analysis
“Tokyo Daily Digest,” an hour-long highlight show with the best and buzziest moments, athlete interviews, features, and more
“Tokyo Tonight,” a nightly live studio show with quick turn-around highlights, in addition to medal ceremonies, features, interviews, and primetime previews
Paralympics Coverage (August 2020)
1,000+ hours of exclusive live streaming coverage of the 2020 Paralympic Games
Premier League Games (August 2020 – May 2021)
2,000 hours of Premier League coverage, including over 140 live matches across all teams and a
dedicated streaming channel
Ryder Cup Coverage (September 2020)
Live coverage from Whistling Straits of featured holes and groups at the 2020 Ryder Cup
And, Curated Highlights from NBC Sports

 

[subjonas]

I think the hope was that with "unbundled" services, each one would be priced reasonably, say $2 or $3 a month. But "cheap" is now $5 a month, and many services start at $10 and up. I don't think that was what consumers wanted. Mainly, most consumers didn't want to have to pay cable companies for all the stations they never watched. They wanted a la carte channels. Well, we're now closer to that model but it's coming at a much steeper price indeed.

I think the higher-than-expected cost comes from each company having to set up and maintain the infrastructure to stream their content. It would probably be a lot cheaper if there was a central platform to handle all the infrastructure. But I guess that’s what cable was.