Please explain how removing access to shows saves money? (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by GlassHalfHopeful@beehaw.org to c/entertainment@beehaw.org

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Would you all explain to me how removing content we expect to have access to is a "cost savings" measure?

The following is from the Willow Wikipedia page, which led me to the linked URL:

The series was removed from Disney+ on May 26, 2023, amidst a Disney+ and Hulu content removal purge as part of a broader cost cutting initiative under Disney CEO Bob Iger.

I've been abroad for a month and earned some time off afterwards. One of my kids reminded me that we never finished Willow, so I said "let's do it now!" The show wasn't perfect for many reasons, but I wanted to finish it for nostalgia's sake and my child legit found it interesting. Lo and behold, the series isn't on Disney+ any more!

A quick search later, I see the above referenced quote linking to the article associated with this post... which only made things worse. The Mysterious Benedict Society was something my whole family could watch and enjoy without arguments! Turner and Hooch was dorky, but something my youngest loved and it was a super safe and easy pick for us bond over.

This post isn't about whether the shows are good. And it isn't about how nearly every show I like ends up cancelled. The point is that I paid for access, they were then quietly removed (for various platforms), and I have zero understanding as to how this saves these companies money.

Would someone explain?

P. S. Yes, I know this is old news. However, this is just how I am. I'm not up to date with anything in the entertainment world. I intentionally wait a few seasons for things because I loath when shows are cancelled after a season. (I'm looking at you, Firefly.) I'm the same way with books, often waiting to read a trilogy after its published because I don't like the wait in between books. (Thanks, Rothfuss).

I just don't take cancellation wells, especially when I was on top of everything including summer podcasts and such. (Now anything with the names Abrams, Lindelof, or Cuse makes my skin crawl.)

I know. I'm weird and stuff.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] GlassHalfHopeful@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

If this is accurate, then it would make a hell of a lot more sense. But... it sounds like these "residuals" need to be payed out differently because this sucks for consumers and... honestly... I think for those that poured themselves into making the content in the first place.

[-] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

This is a huge point of contention in the current strike negotiations in Hollywood. Take, for example, this article:

SAG-AFTRA has proposed a bonus on top of the standard residual for the most-watched shows. But the AMPTP has refused to go along with that.

One of the challenges is getting a common metric that would work across all the streaming platforms. Each platform measures views differently, and they also consider that data top-secret.

. . .

Under the current formulas, streaming residual payments for all three guilds are based on a pre-determined compensation formula that declines over time as the TV show or movie ages. Platforms are sorted into subscriber-based tiers, with the higher tiers paying a higher residual. But the payments are the same regardless of the popularity of a show.