Study Finds that Millennials Prefer Multiple Content Providers for Streaming

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,331
According to Parks Associates research, millenials are becoming ever more varied when it comes to choosing an Over-The-Top (OTT) subscription service to stream content. By tracking over 200 OTT services it was discovered that more than 25% of millenials chose 3 or more services and over 50% maintained at least two OTT subscriptions.
This of course has had a positive effect on streaming services such as CBS All Access that predicts an increase in subscriptions from 2.5 million to 8 million by 2022. Marc DeBevoise, president and COO of CBS Interactive shared his thoughts on how CBS viewed the OTT business. "We're playing a different game here," he says. "We're taking a No. 1 network and building a premium service on top of it."

Hollywood has its eye on the OTT business for a simple reason: The financial stakes are huge. The Boston Consulting Group recently forecast that $30 billion in profits could shift away from the traditional TV business over a five-year period ending in 2022, with OTT services poised to pocket some of the spoils. With this much at stake, showbiz players are now making big plays for OTT.
 
I don't believe that conclusion for a second.

Looking at that data, I see that their study population wants to watch varied content that is exclusive to disparate streaming services.

I'd bet the family farm on that if they had the choice to get all of the shows they want to watch from the same provider they'd be overjoyed.

Absolutely no one wants to deal with multiple services and exclusives.

If it were up to me, there would be a law requiring every content provider to offer every show to every streaming service at the same price, if that steaming service wants the content.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't believe that conclusion for a second.

Looking at that data, I see that their study population wants to watch varied content that is exclusive to disparate streaming services.

I'd bet the family farm on that if they had the choice to get all of the shows they want to watch from the same provider they'd be overjoyed.

Absolutely no one wants to deal with multiple services and exclusives.

If it were up to me, there would be a law requiring every content provider to offer every show to every streaming service at the same price, if that steaming service wants the content.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your law, but I do agree that I'd LOVE to have my Amazon Prime and Netflix and Hulu and all of that in one monthly subscription, under one account, with one username and password. That's a dream I don't think we'll ever see come true, because exclusivity brings far too much money to those in charge. I'm also technically a millennial.
 
I could believe it, cutting the providers that underperform is something cable providers have made nearly impossible for decades.

I'm not entirely sure there's such a huge skew in their data that they can draw that particular conclusion, but I can understand the sentiment.
 
is it really preference when you need to to get everything you want?
 
Aireoth said:
Biased study supports what the industry wants, news at 11.

I am with Zarathustra on this one, no one, millennial or otherwise, wants multiple streaming services if one was a viable option.
Click to expand...
But one isn't.

I'll happily pay $30/month for my three separate Netflix, Hulu and Crunchyroll subscriptions. It's of zero consequence to me that they're three separate subscriptions.

What's of consequence to me is that the alternative, that being my local cable TV provider, charges $80/m to deliver piles and piles of garbage I don't care about and won't watch.

If I stop following all the shows on any given streaming service I can just end my subscription: $10/month saved, no sweat, I can turn it back on whenever I want.

I'm an older millennial, but I never have and never will pay for "cable" in the traditional sense for the above reasons.
 
This all said to people have any recommendations for off the shelf boxes that you can just HDMI to your TV? Roku still good?

Any put there that let you stream from a computer or read from a usb to view "non service" videos? Without going the htpc route?

My kid mostly watches youtube through an app on the xfinity box so figure why pay them a rental fee, dvr fee, hd technology fee, local broadcast fee, sports franchise fee and other bullshit fees when I can just pay for internet and use OTA sure cant dvr that but 12 months times what ever that costs ought to get a nice Roku or something
 
I think its less prefer and more have to. All the stuff I watch isnt on a single service, I need multiple to follow my interests. Still cheaper than cable and way easier to cancel
 
This is why no trust studies and news anymore. Everything can be twisted one way or another to satisfy their agenda. GTFO with these bullshit studies.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
But one isn't.

I'll happily pay $30/month for my three separate Netflix, Hulu and Crunchyroll subscriptions. It's of zero consequence to me that they're three separate subscriptions.

What's of consequence to me is that the alternative, that being my local cable TV provider, charges $80/m to deliver piles and piles of garbage I don't care about and won't watch.

If I stop following all the shows on any given streaming service I can just end my subscription: $10/month saved, no sweat, I can turn it back on whenever I want.

I'm an older millennial, but I never have and never will pay for "cable" in the traditional sense for the above reasons.
Click to expand...

My take away from this post, you shouldn't answer studies.

The study likely asked leading questions to support the desired end result which is to support the now fragmenting streaming model. When the reality is, most of us would prefer having all content in one place. Also, this is not cable, not sure why your making that comparison except that your assuming all content would = cable, it does not.
 
Dear Park's Associate's Research,

You have been mislead. If you believe people prefer paying more money and doing more work for the same result, your brain doesn't work right.

Thanks.
 
For years, folks said they wanted an 'A la carte' content delivery system. Seems like we are getting pretty close to there. It just takes a lot of work and multiple accounts to get there. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
 
They only support that from multiple providers because they can't afford a cable subscription and are getting streaming from their parent's/older siblings/people with jobs.
 
Dead Parrot said:
For years, folks said they wanted an 'A la carte' content delivery system. Seems like we are getting pretty close to there. It just takes a lot of work and multiple accounts to get there. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Click to expand...

Al la carte is different in a cable world, people wanted to pick their channels Al la carte, rather than be bundled into 100 channels they didn't want just to get two they did.

Steaming should not be cable, this is unnecessary. Streaming you can watch what you want, when you want to, that convenience will last even if the service providers try the change the model. Piracy will just increase.
 
cageymaru said:
According to Parks Associates research, millenials are becoming ever more varied when it comes to choosing an Over-The-Top (OTT) subscription service to stream content. By tracking over 200 OTT services it was discovered that more than 25% of millenials chose 3 or more services and over 50% maintained at least two OTT subscriptions.
This of course has had a positive effect on streaming services such as CBS All Access that predicts an increase in subscriptions from 2.5 million to 8 million by 2022. Marc DeBevoise, president and COO of CBS Interactive shared his thoughts on how CBS viewed the OTT business. "We're playing a different game here," he says. "We're taking a No. 1 network and building a premium service on top of it."

Hollywood has its eye on the OTT business for a simple reason: The financial stakes are huge. The Boston Consulting Group recently forecast that $30 billion in profits could shift away from the traditional TV business over a five-year period ending in 2022, with OTT services poised to pocket some of the spoils. With this much at stake, showbiz players are now making big plays for OTT.
Click to expand...

I mean according to millenials, none of them can afford a house either. I would argue that they probably aren't the brightest bunch when it comes to managing money.

Disclaimer: The above was snark and not in any way meant serious.
 
Aireoth said:
My take away from this post, you shouldn't answer studies.

The study likely asked leading questions to support the desired end result which is to support the now fragmenting streaming model. When the reality is, most of us would prefer having all content in one place. Also, this is not cable, not sure why your making that comparison except that your assuming all content would = cable, it does not.
Click to expand...
I sure would prefer having all content in one place, but that doesn't exist now. The closest thing to it is cable, unless there's some kind of content delivery service I'm unaware of.

And I appreciate your take on my post. You shouldn't answer studies designed to promote ideas that I disagree with, either. It can be our little gentleman's agreement. ;)
 
ryno9100 said:
I don't agree with your law, but I do agree that I'd LOVE to have my Amazon Prime and Netflix and Hulu and all of that in one monthly subscription, under one account, with one username and password. That's a dream I don't think we'll ever see come true, because exclusivity brings far too much money to those in charge. I'm also technically a millennial.
Click to expand...

You do realize this pipe dream is basically just on-demand cable right?

It’s the business model cable has utilized since cable TV was a thing: license content from as many networks as possible and pipe it to your home for one “low”, flat fee.

You’re pretty much hoping that streaming becomes a bloated service with more content than you’re willing to sift through that comes at predefined structures which come at various, astronomically high, tiered prices. Repeating history in a different medium. Be careful what you wish for.

The future:
Sign up now for the Netflix+HBO+Hulu package at $40 a month (plus the HBO, Hulu monthly tax of $10, and $15 respectively).

Sign up now for the Hulu+HBO+Showtime+Crunchyroll service for....

What’s that? You want Netflix+Hulu only? Well, we don’t offer those two on their own but we do offer Netflix+Hulu+Crackle+Yahoo and that fits your criteria. It’ll be $50 a month plus applicable service fees.

You get the idea. Cable all over again. You don’t want that.
 
Last edited:
I do not prefer multiple services, but I'll use them if need be. What I prefer is Amazon's way of doing things. I like that I can subscribe to multiple services through Amazon and access them from a single log-in. I don't mind paying multiple people, as long as I get to pick and choose who I'm paying, but I'm not terribly fond of needing 5+ apps on my TV to watch shit that I want to watch.
 
If there is 1 thing that is for sure CBS all access won't reach that number on time. Who actually has that garbage?
 
I think they are correct in some ways and wrong in others.

Yes, the mainstays are Netflix, Hulu and Prime. Most people will have a combination of those.

No, people don't want to buy into CrapBullShit All Access.
 
Kor said:
Nobody prefer's it, they just do it because they have to. What a pile of garbage.
Click to expand...

Yep this is the problem with only studying behavior and ignoring the motivations or circumstances behind those behaviors.
 
sfsuphysics said:
This all said to people have any recommendations for off the shelf boxes that you can just HDMI to your TV? Roku still good?

Any put there that let you stream from a computer or read from a usb to view "non service" videos? Without going the htpc route?

My kid mostly watches youtube through an app on the xfinity box so figure why pay them a rental fee, dvr fee, hd technology fee, local broadcast fee, sports franchise fee and other bullshit fees when I can just pay for internet and use OTA sure cant dvr that but 12 months times what ever that costs ought to get a nice Roku or something
Click to expand...

You can DVR the OTA shows. It's not hard to do, get yourself an ethernet based tuner box from Silicon Dust (HDHomeRun Connect), a small HTPC and SageTV (open source). This will let you DVR the OTA stuff. We have FIOS TV so we use the Silicon Dusts HDHomeRun Prime boxes (cable card devices). It works really well. The wifey's got about 2.5 TB of HD TV shows and movies recorded.
 
I'll weigh in on this. I don't give a fuck what millenials do but I maintain three services myself. Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix. Hulu for current TV shows, Amazing Prime for digital content I purchase as well as some TV content. I tend to watch Netflix primarily for its original content or for shows that aren't available on the other services even though they are a season back. I would use a single service if I could, but frankly I can't get all the content I want that way.
 
MrDeaf said:
I think they are correct in some ways and wrong in others.

Yes, the mainstays are Netflix, Hulu and Prime. Most people will have a combination of those.

No, people don't want to buy into CrapBullShit All Access.
Click to expand...
Prime + crunchyroll here. Prime for free shipping and streaming music (and sometimes movies/shows), crunch for anime/manga.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I could believe it, cutting the providers that underperform is something cable providers have made nearly impossible for decades.
Click to expand...

Right... it's not that Content providers like Disney Owns a NUMBER of channels...

if the cable provider only wants to Carry ESPN and History,
Disney forces them to also Carry A&E and Military Channel at X price also.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't believe that conclusion for a second.

Looking at that data, I see that their study population wants to watch varied content that is exclusive to disparate streaming services.

I'd bet the family farm on that if they had the choice to get all of the shows they want to watch from the same provider they'd be overjoyed.

Absolutely no one wants to deal with multiple services and exclusives.

If it were up to me, there would be a law requiring every content provider to offer every show to every streaming service at the same price, if that steaming service wants the content.
Click to expand...
By the decrees of compass of order, this is unpossible.
 
We grew up with our parents complaining about $150 cable bills with hundreds of channels, yet we found nothing good to watch.
 
Filter said:
i call BS
Click to expand...

I'm here! :)


VanGoghComplex said:
But one isn't.

I'll happily pay $30/month for my three separate Netflix, Hulu and Crunchyroll subscriptions. It's of zero consequence to me that they're three separate subscriptions.

What's of consequence to me is that the alternative, that being my local cable TV provider, charges $80/m to deliver piles and piles of garbage I don't care about and won't watch.

If I stop following all the shows on any given streaming service I can just end my subscription: $10/month saved, no sweat, I can turn it back on whenever I want.

I'm an older millennial, but I never have and never will pay for "cable" in the traditional sense for the above reasons.
Click to expand...


This is what most people do not understand. If you have the right device (Roku, for example), then managing 100 different services is simple. Much easier than trying to manage through one cable provider, for sure. As a matter of fact, it is completely transparent to you that you are dealing with different services. It just appears as another channel. They make it easy.

People using the excuse, "I do not want to manage a bunch of different services" have chosen to remain ignorant to the simplicity of it all. I used to think like that until I actually dug into it and discovered how simple it is. I have one interface to deal with in activation and termination of any given channel (service). You need to stop thinking in terms of "services" and start thinking in terms of "channels". It is so damn easy to manage, I kick myself for not doing it a long time ago.

I like what CBS is doing with their streaming service and so I subscribe to it. If they keep pumping shows out like "Strange Angel", I'll keep signed up. Currently, I have Netflix, Hulu, Prime, and CBS as my services. Occasionally I try other services, because it is easy to do. Aside from the subscription channels, I have 22 other channels, that are free, I have subscribed to. Most of them carry older content not available on subscription channels. I do like the odd B movie once in a while and some of the older television series.

You can keep the "one-stop" shop. It is an outdated model and has been replaced with a much better and easier model which allows you to tailor your entertainment needs to fit your life style.
 
Last edited:
Kor said:
Nobody prefer's it, they just do it because they have to. What a pile of garbage.
Click to expand...

100% agree with this, the article and study is purely assumption based that millennial willingly choose multiple streaming services which is likely not the case, we just have no other option but to choose them if we want to see the shows/movies we want to see. personally i only really have 1 streaming service, netflix, sure i have amazon but i pay for amazon prime for the free shipping while their video service just happens to be an added benefit(that i barely use because their user interface SUCKS and was designed by some one still living in 1995). even if amazon got rid of it i still wouldn't cancel my prime sub since i buy way to much crap on there.
 
Why are we suddenly getting a bunch of studies on what millennials are doing? Have we run out of more useful studies?
 
Axehandler said:
Right... it's not that Content providers like Disney Owns a NUMBER of channels...

if the cable provider only wants to Carry ESPN and History,
Disney forces them to also Carry A&E and Military Channel at X price also.
Click to expand...
bingo, want to have The Walking Dead? Well you are going to carry all these other channels too
 
Lie, mother of lie, statistic. Millenials get a fragmented POS of an offering -> millenials 'prefer' multiple large payments for content instead of one small one.
 
umeng2002 said:
We grew up with our parents complaining about $150 cable bills with hundreds of channels, yet we found nothing good to watch.
Click to expand...

Nah, I grew up with 3 OTA broadcast channels that were shit, MY parents grew up watching trees grow.

This is fucking paradise as far as entertainment goes in comparison. My Prime, Netflix and PSvue subs gives me everything I want. (The PSvue DVR is nice!)

You kids get off my lawn!
 
B00nie said:
Lie, mother of lie, statistic. Millenials get a fragmented POS of an offering -> millenials 'prefer' multiple large payments for content instead of one small one.
Click to expand...

It is "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Also, traditionally -> means "Equals" or "Leads to". Based on this it appears as if you are saying:

Because millenials get a fragmented POS of an offering they prefer multiple large payments for content instead of one small one.

It is also not clear if you are saying that from the perspective of the people doing the study, or if you are saying it from your perspective.

Instead of -> did you perhaps mean to say <>, which means "Does not equal", and makes the sentence almost make sense?

Also, regardless, I do not see a manner or meaning for the sentence in which you get to either yourself or the study saying that millenials prefer multiple LARGE payments. Both the study perspective version and the "does not equal" version of the sentence should say "multiple small payments for content instead of one slightly larger payment".

tldr: You don't make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top