I'd say that was a surprise, but it's really
not. The whole concept was a disaster from the start, and ended predictably.
"Let's do a short form serial video entertainment subscription service!"
Well, there's an awful lot of free short-form video content already available, and you could also just pause your Hulu or Netflix show after 5 minutes (or at the commercial break point, if it was formatted for broadcast), but sure, it might work if you get creative and slowly build a subscriber base. Maybe start with indie groups that are already good at producing short-form content and...
"We'll get big name acts and spend a BILLION DOLLARS making shows for it!"
Uh... okay, that sounds doomed to fail, but I guess if the content is really good and you also package it as a regular streaming service...
"It's smartphone only! No TV watching for you until it's been out for at least six months!"
Okay... that sounds like a really bad idea, but maybe if you give it enough time for word-of-mouth spread and to build up a library...
"It's the moon or bust! We'll spend money so fast if it's not a hit within six months we shut it down! What could go wrong?"
You've got to admit, the whole thing sounds
exactly like what you'd expect from the Hollywood mega-blockbuster peddlers that came up with the idea.
Develop a streaming service, spend ungodly amounts of money on content right out of the gate, advertise it like crazy, and leave absolutely no runway at all so that if it isn't an instant smash hit it crashes and burns. It's the same basic logic that causes studios to spend $200 million on a movie and expect to make it back on opening weekend or try again next year.
So sad. I was fully expecting this format to revolutionize the entertainment industry... kinda like how the Segway revolutionized urban transportation. 😏
Hey, that's not fair. I've actually seen Segway users in the real world.