The flow in 2019 is very different from what it was a few years ago. Only this year, several new services were launched or opened, which violated what until recently was a one-horse race. So, do we viewers win or lose in this big race for our attention?
There was a time when Netflix was the only game in town. It started a revolution in the distribution of digital cinema, and once you could find on it almost everything you wanted (especially when its DVD business was more of a cornerstone than it is now). When he came across the idea that he did not need to be tied to physical media, he was mostly finished for such old miserable blockbusters.
Previously, the Netflix digital platforms had no analogues – the closest competitor in the early 1920s was probably Redbox. But this is changing as more and more services began to appear, each with its own libraries and exclusives. An unnamed film director said The washington post“Once Netflix owned the future of television, because only they did it. And now, in a sense, they are in the thicket along with everyone. ”
Over time, Netflix gradually began to push back existing shows in favor of promoting its original programming. According to Streaming Observer, over the past five years, the library of films on the platform has decreased by 40 percent, and there are 2600 films left to watch. The observer believes that the main reason for this is the growing competition.
Pricing is also a problem. Netflix raised the price of its subscription in April, including the price of a basic plan that had never been raised before. This did not appeal to consumers. According to Netflix July earnings reports, the company added half of its estimated subscribers this quarter. Its stocks subsequently fell by more than 10 percent.
So if consumers are no longer satisfied with Netflix, where will they turn? By the end of this year, everyone will have much more opportunities than before.
… AND DISNEY CAME IN
One of the biggest changes in the dynamics was the launch of Disney +. One might laugh at Disney + for being the only self-praise company without Netflix’s potential for original features. And if the company was not Disney, the creature is so terribly massive that it looks a bit like a god-commander that it could be in fact.
Of course, Hulu preceded this, but I’m not sure if anyone really saw Hulu as the main competitor of Netflix – even its founder Peter Chernin seems to believe that the costumes behind him strangled marketing. But Disney seems to have decided not to make the same mistake.
Disney + was originally marketed as a child-centric service, which is typical of Disney. Unlike Netflix, which focuses on mature content, Disney + promised to become a real treasury for children, those who care for children, and those children who have grown up with Disney at heart and still eagerly consume everything that the company releases (guilty).
Thus, even before the start of the service, it already seemed clear that it would be a good choice for parents of children aged from the fetus to fourteen. But how could this attract the attention of the whole world, even those who were not initially interested in Disney?
Disney needed some great word of mouth, and he knew exactly how to do it.
I don’t think it would be a great exaggeration to say that the main factor in changing the streaming landscape was one character in one show. I’m talking about Baby Yoda, a fan of the name of the incredibly amazing live McGuffin from the Disney + series. MandaloretzBaby Yoda, with his big eyes and ears, incoherent mockery and affection for the title character, has an almost uncanny ability to capture hearts.
Source: Netflix and Disney against the world (and we do not complain) – Tech Ballad News