#this show is top tier in the not so big budgeted netflix show category

[infinitelygay]

on my second rewatch of warrior nun and i'm crying bc of how cute and in love bea and ava are and these are my fave photos of them <3333

[blog-researchblog]

A Frame by Frame Look at the Life of an Animator

Casey Stoneback

The Seven Questions

Growing up I’ve been asked what I want to do when I grow up. It’s the age old question many children have been asked growing up: what do you want your career to be? I’ve had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to do with my life since I was in high school, but the article “7 Powerful Questions To Find Out What You Want To Do With Your Life,” helped me narrow down the type of life I want to live as an adult, beyond what career I want to have. 

Not all the questions were easy to answer, and some were honestly no help at all, but the first question was very easy to answer. What am I passionate about? The one thing that I’ve been consistently passionate about my entire life is art. I didn’t really consider it as it being a legitimate career until I was in high school, but I have been making art since I was a child. Art is still a very broad field, but I can still easily narrow down what subcategory of art I’m most interested in. I’m interested in the field of animation and/or visual storytelling. Animated TV shows and movies are really important to a lot of people, including myself. I strive to be part of that process and make something that’s important to someone, which answers one of the other questions in the article: What are my goals in life?

One of my main goals related to my career is to do something with art, and more specifically make art that impacts people’s lives. Like I said earlier, I want to use animation and visual storytelling to make that impact. Moving on to smaller life goals, I want to live in a city or very close to a city, because I really want to live in a diverse area. Diversity is really important to me, and living in an urban place will put me in an area with so many people with all different types of backgrounds and stories. Some other goals are wanting to be able to travel a lot, and try working both freelance and for a studio/company just to see what both are like. These are all things I really really want to do, but leaves the question: what don’t I want to do? The last question in the article that I felt was truly insightful and important for me to answer was along those lines. What do I not like to do? I feel like this is really relevant to my career, because I know myself and I know I have zero motivation and interest in things I’m not passionate about. I really could not sustain a career outside of art, I just don’t have the drive for that. Any other field would bore, exhaust, or just plain confuse me. I know I have no choice but to give it my best shot in the animation industry, since that’s what I’m most passionate about. 

With these questions and answers in mind, I wanted to know how attainable they are in the field of work I want to go into. To find out more information, I consulted the Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Outlook Handbook

According to the Occupational Outlook Handbook entitled  “Multimedia Artists and Animators,” a short summary of the field says, “Multimedia artists and animators create images that appear to move and visual effects for various forms of media and entertainment.” The site also listed some specific parts of the field, and stated that most artists in it stay within one certain medium (TV, movies, games, etc). Another thing to note about this career is the work environment. In addition to that, for the most part they work normal hours, but may have to work overtime when deadlines for projects are approaching. Most artists either work in an office, or from home. 

The employment of multimedia artists/animators is expected to grow by 4% between 2018 and 2028, which is the average growth for all careers. This projection is due to the fact that the demand for animation across many platforms including TV, movies, video games, etc. keeps going up and is expected to continue to rise.  To be able to get a job in the field, most jobs require a portfolio to represent the artist’s work (in this case it would be mostly digital pieces), and usually at least a bachelor's degree in some sort of digital art major. Self study is also an important part of this process for artist’s to better themselves and get more experience. The handbook also lists these qualities that are essential to this career: artistic talent, communication skills, computer skills, and creativity. While this information is helpful and insightful, it isn’t very personal. I wanted to know more about the first person point of view as an animator. 

An Animator’s POV

To find out more, I did an interview with my animation professor from last semester, Professor Elizabeth Schnieder. For my first question, I started with asking her what got her interested in animation, since seeing something that inspired me was a big part of me picking this career path. She said she saw the work of William Kentridge as MASS MOCA, and “fell in love with the idea of creating moving artwork.” After looking into his name, he’s an artist that specializes in prints, drawings, and animated films. I found this interesting because this is different to the inspiration I had. She had a more traditional “fine” artist that inspired her, while my inspiration was a cartoon I grew up with.

My next question felt very important to me, since it’s something I struggle with even as a student: How do you avoid burnout? She recommended planning, consistent working every day, and setting goals. She also said stepping away and coming back to look at a project with fresh eyes helped. I also asked what she does on a regular basis, and she said “I always have a cup of coffee every night at 7 pm,” (which made me laugh because I do the same thing), “and sit down to work on my personal animations for two hours at least.” This is a little bit different than what someone actively working for a studio would do, but 2 hours is still a lot of time on top of being a professor.

Another question I asked that felt important to me personally was if she had time to make art for herself, to which she simply said, “I always make time!” I really like this answer because it’s so short and simple, yet so important. I think I’ll be keeping these words in mind for awhile.

I also asked was what she felt  was a major issue in the field today. Her answer was sexism. She ended it on a lighthearted note though, and said she felt optimistic that the next generation behind her will have a more inclusive workplace. She said “I’m excited to see more content from female animators, writers, and directors.” I agree with this because I’m also excited to see what productions from women will come out in the future, and as a woman I hope to be a part of an inclusive production like that someday.

The last question I asked her what current events are related to this field, and I found her answer interesting and honestly inspiring. She said “the thing about animation is that you can talk about anything and everything, so all current events can inspire your stories and content.” This precise thing is one of the reasons I’m interested in animation in the first place. I want to tell stories that are important to the world, that will make a difference in someone’s life. 

A Current Event Across the World

While I felt this interview was extremely insightful, I still wanted to know more about what’s going on in the field. To see what’s going on in the world of animation, I looked for a current event within the field. One subject that kept popping up no matter what I searched was the poor working conditions and poor pay for animators in Japan’s animation industry. The article I found to be the most useful was Younger Animators Still Struggling Amid Anime Boom. This article goes over the research done by the Japan Animation Creators Association (JAniCA), which is a non-profit organization that documents and hopes to improve the working conditions in the anime industry. It also goes over some of the thoughts and solutions that Yasuhiro Irie, the Representative Director of JAniCA and an anime director himself, and Daisuke Okeda, the auditor and lawyer of JAniCA.

As the anime industry gets bigger, the profits seem to only be benefiting middle aged veteran animators, and newer/younger animators are not also being properly compensated. Workers have faced unpaid overtime, and some have even been hospitalized from being overworked. 

Animators in Japan can usually be broken down into two categories: people that draw genga and dōga. Genga are the keyframe in an animation (the most important frames in a story), and dōga are the frames in between keyframes to make an animation more smooth and fluid. Dōga work is given to newcomers, and as they improve and gain experience, they should move up to working on genga. The current issue with this system, is that the newer animators may quit before getting to move up in the industry simply because they don’t make enough money to survive. According to the most recent JAniCA report, the average monthly income for animators between the age of 20-24 is only ¥128,000 (1,168.47 US dollars). 

In the article, Irie and Okeda gave their thoughts on possible solutions to solve this problem. One of their ideas was for studios to negotiate with more sponsors in order to get the money to pay animators properly. Here’s how they explained it:

“Companies should also look outside Japan, to sponsors like Netflix or those in China, he adds. It’s still too early to tell whether such nontraditional sponsors will truly make a difference, says Okeda, but he notes that since last year, when multiple animation companies began working with firms like Netflix and Amazon, ‘many titles with good budgets have emerged. In terms of A-tier titles, the average budget has increased by over 30 percent.’”

One of their other ideas was more government assistance within the field. They argue that while it’s not huge, since anime is consumed globally it does bring in a significant amount of money into the country, so the industry should be compensated for that. Another solution in addition to that is moving studios outside of Tokyo where the cost of living is lower. Two successful examples of this are Kyoto Animation, located in Kyoto, and P.A. Works, located in Tomoya. While it took years for the studios to reach the successfulness they’re at now, Irie says that “‘if new studios learn from such examples, they may be able to get a head start and improve more quickly.’” 

One last solution is that a might help, but unions are usually formed to negotiate with one big cooperation, and in the case of anime, it’s broken up into many smaller production companies. These are just a couple ideas to solve the issue of animators being underpaid, because there's no one single way to solve it with the snap of a finger. Irie believes that hopefully, things will change soon since more and more headlines about the poor working conditions animators work in are being published. Hopefully these issues being brought to light will push companies to change and improve.

The reason I picked this article in the first place is when I was looking for articles about news in the animation industry, the poor working conditions and pay in Japan specifically were what almost every search result was about. I’ve also heard about this problem before, so I wanted to learn more about it anyways. One reason I picked this article specifically, is because I know of one of the studios mentioned, Kyoto Animation. Not only have I seen some of the things they’ve produced, but about a month after the article was published, which was only less than a year ago, it was all over the news and internet that Kyoto Animation went through a huge deadly arson attack (due to the studio’s success, it was luckily able to recover through donations and is still open). 

I feel as if this article is relevant to the career I’m going to into, because while it’s not about America and it’s highly unlikely I’d move to Japan to become an animator, it’s still a relevant story in the world of animation. It’s important to know what’s going on in your field of work, even in different countries. I already had a vague understanding of the issues in the anime industry, but from this article I’ve learned the specifics of the issue. I had no idea the pay there was that low. What I’d still like to know is how the working conditions in Japan compare to working conditions in America (within animation). I’m curious to know if American animators are also underpaid, even if it’s not to the extreme that Japan is going through right now. 

[arplis]

Arplis - News: Marie Kondo Your Kitchen With These 11 Amazon Products

Marie Kondo has made an art form out of home organization. Through her KonMari Method, she encourages you to only keep items in your home that spark joy (and to purge the rest). She brings her concept to life in her now famous Netflix series called Tidying Up with Marie Kondo and while details on a second season have yet to emerge, she recently debuted her own online shop to highlight items she loves.

This $89 rabbit-ear storage box, for instance, is definitely adorable, but if youre on a budget, you can find sleek and super useful organizing items on Amazon too. We rounded up our favorite picks to de-clutter your kitchen, because even if you missed spring cleaning, its never too late to get everything in order.

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing, $9.69 on Amazon

Marie Kondos best-selling book details how to implement her KonMari method in your own home.

Buy Now

For Your Pantry

Royal Air-Tight Food Storage Container Set, 10 for $54.98 on Amazon

Royal/Amazon

Weve been seeing a ton of #pantrygoals images on our Instagram feed lately from both celebs and normal people like us (look at Khloe Kardashians pantry for major inspo). One product every image seems to have in common is clear stackable food storage containers. These containers are great because they allow you to see whats inside, they stack for maximum storage space, and they help to create uniformity and harmony in your pantry.Buy Now

SimpleHouseware Stackable Can Rack Organizer, $19.87 on Amazon (originally $29.99)

SimpleHouseware/Amazon

Wrangle those canned goods with this stackable can rack organizer. It can hold up to 36 cans and comes with adjustable dividers so you can make just about any size can fit.Buy Now

ClosetMaid Adjustable 8-Tier Wall and Door Rack, $31.99 on Amazon

ClosetMaid/Amazon

Get extra space out of your pantry with this hanging door rack. You can use this for any overflow items you might have laying around, from canned goods and paper towels to spices and baking items.Buy Now

mDesign Turntable Storage Container, $17.99 on Amazon

Amazon

Lazy Susans may be more of a Home Edit thing, but theyre great for storing snacks, baking supplies, and other pantry items. Upgrade to a mod pale pink model and we think Marie might approve.Buy Now

Related Reading: The Top 100 Cookbooks, Kitchen Gadgets & Pantry Items on Chowhound

For Your Kitchen Drawers

Joseph Joseph Kitchen Drawer Organizer Tray for Cutlery, $9.99 on Amazon

Joseph Joseph/Amazon

At press time, this was the number one ranked item in Amazons Movers and ShakersHome and Kitchen category, which means this item is #trending in a big way and we can see why. The last thing you want to do when youre starving is struggle to find a fork because its buried underneath a million utensils. This kitchen drawer organizer gives each piece of cutlery its own home, which helps keep things chaos-free.Buy Now

STORi Clear Plastic Vanity and Desk Drawer Organizers, 6 for $14.99 (originally $19.99)

STORi/Amazon

The infamous junk drawer. We all have one, but Marie encourages us to tackle even that area. Whatever you decide to store in this prized real estate space, the key to keeping it tidy is to give each item a place to call home. To fully organize it, Marie suggests taking everything out of the drawer, organizing items into categories, deciding what to keep/purge, and then placing similar items into their own container, like these see-through trays in various sizes.Buy Now

For Your Cupboards

YouCopia Chefs Edition SpiceStack 30-Bottle Spice Organizer with Universal Drawers, $41.32 on Amazon

YouCopia/Amazon

As one reviewer puts it, The racks themselves are fantasticI love them to death. This might sound a little dramatic for a spice organizer, but we feel you. This spice organizer can fit 30 full-size or 60 half-size round or square spice bottles. The drawers pull out and lower to display spices at eye level so you can quickly see your inventory when making your grocery list. Genius!Buy Now

Extreme Matters Heavy Duty Pan Organizer, $29.95 on Amazon

Extreme Matters/Amazon

Do you shove all of your pans into the cabinet and then run away as quickly as possible before you can hear everything come crashing down? Stop living your life in fear and buy this organizer to make things just a little bit easier. This rack can be used vertically or horizontally, depending on the size of your cabinets, and fits 5 pans. After reading the reviews, it looks like people have also used this rack to organize extra dishes, so this product is definitely versatile.Buy Now

To Create Extra Storage Space

AmazonBasics 3-Shelf Shelving Unit, $39.99 on Amazon

Amazon

If you dont have the space, then no matter how well you organize your items, you will always feel like things look cramped and cluttered. This 3-tier shelving unit will solve that space dilemma and give you more room to organize your excess items. You can either fit this inside your pantry if its large enough, or keep it out in your kitchen or mudroom.Buy Now

For Under the Sink

BINO Woven Plastic Storage Basket, 3 for $34.99 on Amazon

BINO/Amazon

Just because no one usually sees underneath your sink, doesnt mean youre off the hook for organizing this space. Use these chic baskets to place cleaning supplies, rubber gloves, a dish brush, extra garbage bags, etcOnce organized, you wont have to cringe every time you open this cupboard.Buy Now

For Your Fridge

Sorbus Fridge and Freezer Bins, 6 for $27.50 on Amazon

Amazon

Youve Marie Kondod your pantry, kitchen drawers, cupboards, and even underneath the sink, but you need to show your fridge some love as well. Using the same method you did for the other areas of your kitchen, organize your food into categories and decide what to keep and throw away. Next, place similar items into containers and stack away to save space and a little bit of sanity since youll now know where everything is. You get 2 wide drawers, 2 narrow drawers, 1 can dispenser, and 1 egg drawer in this set. Use them all in your fridge and freezer, or split them up between there and your pantry, depending on your specific needs.Buy Now

Related Reading: Fridge Organizing Photos to Inspire You to Clean Your Own

If youre eager to keep on organizing, check out some of our favorite products inspired by The Home Edit, and pointers on cleaning your pantry. And why stop there? See Rachael Rays video tutorial on how to fold everything the Marie Kondo way too.

Related Video: The Best Way to Store Food in Your Freezer

!doctype> Arplis - News source http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Arplis-News/~3/Mtcw3iI3l8g/marie-kondo-your-kitchen-with-these-11-amazon-products

[dyernews]

Cutting the Cord? A Guide To Streaming Services and Saving Money

OOver the past few years, the term “cutting the cord” has become a well-worn figure of speech referring to those who cancel their cable or satellite subscriptions and opt to replace them with one or more of the various streaming services. Furthering this “cord cutting trend,” many of the streaming services now offer exclusive content, some of which has shaken up the world of pop culture and entertainment. As a result, there are now some TV buffs who may actually spend more money on TV after they cut the cord — but it doesn’t have to be this way.

While you may not be able to see every new show that hits the proverbial (and increasingly inaccurate) airwaves, there are many ways that you can still save money by ditching cable and opting for streaming. Of course the first step is choosing the platform or platforms that are right for you. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some popular streaming options — including some of the pros and cons of each — as well as some other tips for saving money on streaming:

Comparing the Top Streaming Services

Streaming Service Type Price Range (per month)

Top Dog $8.99-$15.99

Top Dog $5.99-$44.99

Top Dog $9.92-$12.99*

Top Dog $11.99

Linear Extension $5.99-$9.99

 Linear Extension $4.17-$4.99

 Linear Extension $5.99

Premium Channel $14.99

Premium Channel $8.99-$10.99

Premium Channel $8.99

Package Programming $16-$20

Package Programming $54.99

Package Programming $0-$15**

Package Programming $50-$93

Coming Soon $5.83-$6.99

Coming Soon TBA***

Free Service FREE

Free Service FREE****

*Also included with Amazon Prime membership **Included with qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More plans ***Pricing not yet disclosed, service to launch in 2019 ****Requires membership to participating libraries

These days, there’s certainly no shortage of streaming services available. This includes some of the “top dogs” like Netflix and Hulu, but extends to linear networks adding to their brands, premium channels getting in on the action, platforms with bundled streaming channel packages, and even a couple of free options. Below you’ll find details on services in all of these categories including some of what’s good and what’s not so good about each.

Before we dive in, one more thing to note is that the content on each of these services is subject to change as are the pricing and features. Keep this in mind as you’re doing your own research and choosing which platforms may be right for you and your budget.

Top Dog Streaming Services

Netflix. Hulu. Amazon Prime. YouTube. These are probably some of the top names that come to mind when you think of streaming video. What’s more, several of these services have taken the entertainment industry by storm, winning awards for original programming and even reviving some of the shows discarded by the traditional networks. But while you’re surely familiar with these four players it’s still worth taking a closer look.

Netflix

Pricing: $8.99 Basic, $12.99 Standard, $15.99 Premium.

Biggest draw: Original series like Stranger Things and Queer Eye plus original films like Birdbox and Roma, as well as comedy specials, continuations of network shows, and more.

Biggest drawback: Only standard definition streaming at the lowest tier.

Best for: Comedy nerds, TV binge watchers, and those who want to keep up on the most talked-about shows.

Bottom Line: Netflix has been a powerhouse in the streaming service space and is still seen by many as the gold standard (not to mention the first place fans petition to save shows when they get canceled). Despite some price increases over the years, the platform remains competitive on that front as well and has also made headlines for their astronomical investments in content. Whether all of that output is quality is up for debate, but Netflix will likely be a top pick for many cord cutters as they make their selections.

  Hulu

Pricing: Basic – $5.99, No Commercials – $11.99 a month, Hulu with Live TV – $44.99 a month.

Biggest draw: Original series like The Handmaid’s Tale as well as current seasons of select shows on traditional TV.

Biggest drawback: Commercial interruptions on Basic tier.

Best for: Catching up on current television programs.

Bottom Line: Started by many of top media conglomerates, Hulu has found some success in the premium content business thanks to hits like The Handmaid’s Tale. However, some may still recall that Hulu initially offered a freemium model, allowing viewers to catch up on current shows. With the annoying introductory rate and the presence of commercials unless you upgrade to the $11.99 a month tier, some cord cutters may be turned off by Hulu’s current model.

Sidenote: Hulu is likely in for some major changes in the next few years as former 30% owner The Walt Disney Company has recently acquired another 30% as part of their purchase of 21st Century Fox assets, giving them a controlling stake in the platform. On top of that, AT&T just sold their share back to the streamer, so now Disney has 66%. As a result, Hulu is likely to become the “adult” counterpart to Disney+ (more on that later) and could be bundled with that service as well ESPN+.

  Amazon Prime Video

Pricing: Included with Amazon Prime subscription ($119 a year or $12.99 a month) or $8.99 for Prime Video.

Biggest draw: Original series such as Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, Sneaky Pete, Fleabag, and the 2018 Emmy award-winning The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Biggest drawback: Pricey if you’re only using Prime for Prime Video.

Best for: Frequent Amazon shoppers who also love to stay abreast of buzzy and bingeable television.

Bottom Line: By bundling its popular two-day free shipping service Prime with a premium streaming platform, Prime Video definitely stands as a unique player in this space. Additionally, Prime has made a name for itself on the awards stage, most recently earning multiple big awards for The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. While these top titles may not be enough to bring people to Prime on their own, the other benefits of Amazon Prime are certainly worth considering. Of course you can now subscribe to Prime Video by itself… but, considering you could get all of the benefits of Prime for just another $11 (if paid annually), that’s likely not the best course of action.

YouTube Premium (YouTube Red)

Pricing: $11.99 a month.

Biggest draw: Originals like Cobra Kai and series from some of the biggest YouTube stars as well as an ad-free experience across the platform.

Biggest drawback: Not a ton of talked-about shows just yet, relatively high price.

Best for: Those who spend a lot of time consuming YouTube content and want to take advantage of other perks like background play.

Bottom Line: Formerly known as YouTube Red, YouTube Premium has seemingly struggled to market itself as effectively as the other streaming services (as evidenced by the name change). That said, their freemium release of the Karate Kid series Cobra Kai did earn the platform some much-needed buzz. Additionally, Premium does offer some other notable features, such as the aforementioned background play, access to YouTube Music Premium, and the ability to watch any YouTube video ad-free when you’re signed in. As a result, those who love all things YouTube and the stars the platform has produced will likely find more value in this service than others.

Linear Extensions

With those “top dogs” taking a bite out of traditional media’s market share, some networks have created their own streaming options meant to build upon the assets they have and then adding in exclusive content to bring more subscribers on board. Interestingly, there seems to be different methods of pursuing this route. With that, let’s take a look at three examples of what I’m calling “linear extensions”: CBS All Access, ESPN+, and FX+.

CBS All Access

Pricing: $5.99 a month with Limited Commercials, $9.99 a month Commercial Free (15% off when you purchase an annual plan),

Biggest draw: Star Trek: Discovery, Big Brother Live Feeds, full episodes of current and legacy shows, plus live streaming from your local CBS affiliate (including NFL on CBS).

Biggest drawback: Commercials on basic tier, limited number of hit originals at this time.

Best for: Trekkers and those who love CBS’s content library.

Bottom Line: CBS surely had a lot of doubters when it launched its own streaming service but All Access has stayed afloat partially thanks to their series Star Trek: Discovery. On that front, the service has also announced the return of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, once again played by Patrick Stewart. Aside from Star Trek, All Access also hosts a library of classics ranging from I Love Lucy to CSI: Miami. At $5.99, the service is one of the more affordable options, but that tier does include commercials, making it difficult to recommend one way or the other.

ESPN+

Pricing: $4.99 a month or $49.99 a year

Biggest draw: More live sports than you can shake a stick at, the 30 for 30 documentaries catalog, and other exclusive programming.

Biggest drawback: While original series released so far have been enjoyable, nothing has truly hit just yet.

Best for: Sports fans — especially those who follow leagues not typically broadcast on one of the main ESPN channels.

Bottom Line: Lately ESPN+ has made headlines by not only adding UFC content but becoming the exclusive distributor of UFC pay-per-view events through 2025. Beyond those announcements, the platform has been gaining subscribers by continually adding sports content to the platform, including original series, exclusive 30 for 30 documentaries (in addition to hosting other entries on-demand), and of course live events ranging from soccer and tennis to boxing and auto racing. ESPN parent company Disney also promises that more live content will be added to the platform as it continues to make new deals and make even more content from its linear networks available on ESPN+. While it may not be a full replacement for ESPN itself, ESPN+ has seemingly found a market among die-hard sports fans.

FX+

Pricing: $5.99 a month

Biggest draw: Early access to FX Originals series, ad-free streaming, and an on-demand catalog of full season.

Biggest drawback: Requires a TV provider account.

Best for: FX fans who aren’t exactly cutting the cord.

Bottom Line: Considering that FX+ requires that you hold a cable or satellite subscription, it hardly belongs on this list. That said, those only hearing about FX+ might not realize this key hitch, which is why it’s worth noting. Considering that the concept of FX+ may be appealing to fans of American Horror Story and other FX hits, hopefully the network can move to a true direct-to-consumer model in the future.

Sidenote: New FX owners Disney haven’t mentioned FX+ in any of their investor calls or events so it’s unclear if this offering will stick around or eventually get absorbed into Hulu in some way.

Premium Channels

Similar to how some networks now offer streaming companions, there are also premium channels that have gone direct-to-consumer. Given their already premium status, one notable difference here is that most of these services stick to what they already known and don’t really offer much in the way of exclusives. Still, those who can’t live without HBO, Showtime, or Starz may be in luck thanks to these options.

HBO Now

Pricing: $14.99 a month

Biggest draw: Ability to watch hit HBO series like Game of Thrones, Veep, Last Week Tonight, and many more without a cable subscription. It can also be added as a premium to other streaming services such as Hulu and Amazon Prime Video (although the $14.99 a month price stays the same).

Biggest drawback: Aside from library content and on-demand access, HBO Now offers little more than the network itself.

Best for: Game of Thrones junkies who want to cut the cord and similar folk who want HBO without having cable.

Bottom Line: Not to be confused with HBO Go — the streaming counterpart that comes with your traditional HBO subscriptions — HBO Now gives cord cutters access to the channel’s plethora of critically acclaimed and award-winning content. In addition to hosting full seasons for current and previous HBO series, HBO Now also allows users to stream films currently playing on the channel. At $14.99 a month, Now isn’t exactly cheap but, with HBO continually proving to be a television powerhouse, that high price might be worth it many TV enthusiasts.

Showtime

Pricing: $10.99 a month

Biggest draw: Series like Shameless, The Affair, Ray Donovan, and the Jim Carrey-starrer Kidding. Showtime can also be added as a premium to other streaming services such as Hulu and Amazon Prime Video (both $8.99 a month extra).

Biggest drawback: Only includes Showtime content.

Best for: Those who want to watch Showtime’s original series but don’t want a cable subscription.

Bottom Line: Unlike HBO, Showtime offers a slight discount to those adding the premium network to their Hulu or Amazon Prime Video subscriptions. On top of that, even the base price for Showtimes comes in at $4 a month less than Home Box Office. Of course, despite having some major hits over the years, Showtime continues to play second fiddle to HBO in terms of awards glory and buzzed about programming. Thus, it’s likely fair to assume that the same would be true of cord cutters looking to get the most talked-about TV for the best price.

Starz

Pricing: $8.99 a month

Biggest draw: Originals like Power, American Gods, and series from Kevin Hart’s Laugh Out Loud network as well as many recent and random movies.

Biggest drawback: Lacking in originals.

Best for: Fans of Kevin Hart and those who want on-demand access to past Starz series like Party Down.

Bottom Line: Priced at $8.99, a look at the Starz line-up of series and current movies still doesn’t seem to justify that cost. At the same time, with many streaming services, there will always be some film or show that’s available on one service and nowhere else. Because of this, there may still be a market for Starz, especially among those who have come across shows like Power and American Gods or enjoy some of the other series that mega-star Kevin Hart brings to the platform.

Package Streaming Programming

Lest you assume the streaming ecosystem had completely abandoned the notion of a cable package, there are several platforms that essentially recreate the model for the streaming generation. That is to say they include access to some of the same channels you’d find on your TV along with DVR functionality and more. If that sounds up your alley, here’s a look at Philo TV, FuboTV, and AT&T WatchTV, and DirecTV Now.

Philo TV

Pricing: 45 Channels for $16 a month, 58 channel for $20 a month

Biggest draw: Live and on-demand access to many basic cable channels at the base level with the option to add specialty channels for a few dollars more. You can also record and save an unlimited number of shows for up to 30 days.

Biggest drawback: No premium networks or sports options.

Best for: Those who want access to a number of their favorite linear channels without dealing with the cable companies.

Bottom Line: With Philo TV’s basic package including an array of channels like AMC, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, and IFC, this option could fill a cable-sized hole for many cord cutters and comes at an attractive price. As for the upper tier, the additional 13 channels will likely only appeal to a small number of viewers. Finally, with live TV and DVR options included, Philo TV could be a great transitional product for those who will miss certain aspects of their “traditional” television experience.

FuboTV

Pricing: $54.99 a month (85 channels). Latino Plus and Portugues Plus packages also available along with additional programming packages.

Biggest draw: Offers a number of popular entertainment, news, and sports channels along with Cloud DVR features.

Biggest drawback: Starts at a high price and only gets more expensive as you add programming options.

Best for: Cord cutters who still want to view a multiple of sports options as well as top news networks.

Bottom Line: While it doesn’t include ESPN, FuboTV does give users access to several sports stations, including NBCSN, the NFL Network, NBATV and many more — with the option to add 23 more sports channels and even international sports for additional monthly fees. Beyond that, Fubo also includes news ranging from Fox News to CNN to MSNBC while also offer entertainment from AMC, Hallmark, Syfy, and more. You can also add nine Showtime channels for the same price as that channel’s standalone option. Unfortunately, all of this comes a steep price — that recently went up — that may be a turn off to those we aren’t as concerned about watching linear sports and news networks.

AT&T WatchTV

Pricing: Included with qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More plans or $15 a month.

Biggest draw: Access to 35+ channels of live TV in addition to on-demand programming.

Biggest drawback: Although there is some on-demand content, there are no DVR features at this time.

Best for: AT&T Unlimited &More customers who won’t need to pay anything extra to access this service.

Bottom Line: AT&T WatchTV includes a number of popular channels such as CNN, TBS, AMC, and more. Sadly, unlike some of its competitors, users are currently unable to record and save their favorite shows. Because of this, those without AT&T Unlimited &More plans may want to look elsewhere. But, for those who do have qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More or are considering switching, this one’s a no-brainer.

DirecTV Now

Pricing: $50 a month (40+ channels including HBO), $70 a month (50+ channels including HBO and Cinemax), $93 a month (65+ channels).

Biggest draw: Multitude of channels, cloud DVR, and the inclusion of HBO.

Biggest drawback: Pricey overall and DVR function is still technically in beta.

Best for: Those who want more traditional cable or satellite packages but in a streaming format. Also great for those who want ESPN in their streaming bundle.

Bottom Line: Last month, DirecTV owners AT&T did a major overhaul on the packages and pricing of the DirecTV Now service. While the base level now includes the popular HBO, it also costs $50 a month and comes with relatively few entertainment channels (for AMC, you’ll need to go up to the $93 “Entrainment” package that actually excludes HBO). That said there are still some essentials in the “Plus” tier, including Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, all three major 24-hour news networks, and even a couple of ESPNs.

Coming Soon

Sure the streaming service space may already seem crowded but it’s only going to grow. This fall two big players will enter the arena, as Disney and Apple both debut streaming platforms of their own (that, incidentally, both have +s in their name). Although there are still big questions about each of these, it’s still worth taking a look at what we do know about Disney+ and Apple TV+.

Disney Streaming Service

Pricing: $6.99 a month or $69.99 a year

Biggest draw: A new live-action Star Wars series titled The Mandalorian, Marvel shows such as The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, exclusive films and shows, a library of past film and TV content (including 30 seasons of The Simpsons), and will replace Netflix as the streaming home for new Disney/Marvel/Star Wars titles released in 2019 or after.

Biggest drawback: Mostly family-friendly content and the size of the content library and rollout are still unknown.

Best for: Families who love Disney and fanboys who can’t get enough Star Wars and/or Marvel content.

Bottom Line: With more details about Disney+ and its programming finally emerging, it seems the service could deal a blow to Netflix. The strength of the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Fox, and National Geographics brands cannot be denied and the company is making a major investment in content to please fans. Although only a partial line-up is available now, expect a lot more news to emerge as November draws closer.

Launch Date: November 12th, 2019

  Apple TV+

Pricing: TBA

Biggest draw: Huge names from Oprah Winfrey to Steven Spielberg have projects in the works along with the likes of Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, Octavia Spencer, J.J. Abrams, and more.

Biggest drawback: Aside from teases about some of the content, not much is known about the service just yet.

Best for: Those who want to consume high-quality TV and trust Apple to produce it.

Bottom Line: Apple’s foray into streaming content is one that’s been expected for a while but was finally announced in March 2019. In a statement announcing the service, Apple’s Apple’s senior vice president of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue said, “Apple TV+ will be home to some of the highest quality original storytelling that TV and movie lovers have seen yet.” We’ll have to wait until this fall to see if that proves true — and if the price of the platform will make it attractive to your average cord cutter.

Launch Date: Fall 2019

Free Streaming Services

Lastly, if looking at these options has your wallet running scared, there is some good news. Below you’ll find two free options that may help make your life as a cord cutter a little easier. Take a quick look at Pluto TV and Hoopla.

Pluto TV

Pricing: FREE

Biggest draw: Access to live TV channels, both “real” and specially curated.

Biggest drawback: You can only view programs live with no on-demand or DVR options.

Best for: Those who just want something to watch without spending money.

Bottom Line: Pluto TV gives you access to a variety of entertainment without paying a thing. With a diverse line-up of channels ranging from Rifftrax to CNBC, the service could be a great option when you just want to throw something on. While you may need to work a bit to watch your favorites with this service, it’s a nice and certainly affordable supplement to add to your cord cutting mix.  

Hoopla

Pricing: FREE with membership to participating libraries.

Biggest draw: The ability to borrow books, seasons of TV, films, and music.

Biggest drawback: Monthly borrowing limits apply as do daily overall library borrowing limits.

Best for: Revisiting some older series, watching older movie titles, and maybe even checking out new music without spending on audio streaming services.

Bottom Line: If you have a library card, you may already have access to Hoopla without realizing it. Personally, I’ve been impressed with some of the content available on this free platform. The one big downside is that you may encounter borrowing limits that prevent you from watching what you want — especially on weekends and other popular times. Aside from that, this too can be a great option for staying entertained on a strict budget.

Top Tips for Saving on Streaming

Consider bundle deals

Beyond some of the options you may have noticed, such as adding HBO or other premium networks to some services, there may also be other ways you can save by bundling. For example, music lovers and TV lovers can combine Spotify Premium with Hulu (the basic tier) for one price — in fact, that price was recently lowered to where you can get Hulu for free as a Spotify Premium subscriber. Students have it even better as the same bundle plus Showtime comes in at just $4.99 a month. Finally, once Disney+ launches, the Walt Disney Company has said it’s “likely” to bundle the service with ESPN+ and Hulu for a discounted rate.

Pay upfront

As you can see from some of the pricing above, often times you can earn a discount by paying for a full year of service upfront instead of selecting a monthly option. In most cases, this works out to the equivalent of getting two months free, saving you upwards of 15%. While such discounts are available for every service on this list, it may be worth taking advantage of if they are.

Try coupons and promos

Another way you may be able to save money when signing up for streaming services is to look for special promo codes and offers. Take, for example, Ebates, which offers up to $25 cash back for new Hulu subscribers ($15 on Hulu Basic and $25 for Hulu Live). You may also be able to find promo codes on sites like RetailMeNot or DontPayFull. Lastly, there’s always the chance that the services themselves will offer special deals from time to time so it may be worth it to hold out and see what kind of deals you can score.

Look to your phone service

Earlier we also discussed the AT&T WatchTV service, which is included with select AT&T plans. However this isn’t the only example of mobile phone carriers looking to lure customers with free TV. T-Mobile now offers to cover users’ Netflix subscriptions, while some of Sprint’s unlimited plans include a Hulu subscription. It’s worth noting that, with these two carriers are looking to merge, it’s unclear which perk will remain if and when they are united.

Preview your options

Finally, nearly all of the services discussed do offer free trials, ranging from a week to a month. This is the perfect opportunity to explore each platform before committing to buy. In addition to diving into what programs and other content is to be found on each option, you’ll also want to ensure that these services perform well on your preferred devices, maintain an enjoyable and stable interface, and include all of the other features you may be seeking. Pro-tip: before signing up for these free trials, make sure you look up how to cancel if necessary and write down the date you joined so that you don’t forget when you’ll be billed.

With a bevy of streaming services on the market and more to come, the decision to cut the cord now also means figuring out which of these many options is right for you. Ultimately the answer will likely depend on a number of factors, such as what types of programming you’re looking for, what consumption options and devices your prefer, and even what mobile phone service you have. In any case, hopefully this look at some of the most popular platforms as well as some tips for saving when signing up will come in handy as you join the ranks of the cord cutters.

The post Cutting the Cord? A Guide To Streaming Services and Saving Money appeared first on Dyer News.

[sheminecrafts]

Why IGTV should go premium

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion-dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar, either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app)

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day — and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts — it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like Sirius XM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series — and often featuring famous talent from those — but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform — which they could then produce content for — to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of more than 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: They want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer, then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital-intensive — just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium-quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8 percent over the last year, but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; Sirius XM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30 percent cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which — based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work — would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous — owning the Netflix of a new content category — while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2PEXRIM via IFTTT

[technicalsolutions88]

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app).

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but do in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically-oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of  “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories, and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically-oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format.

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens, and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day—and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts—it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like SiriusXM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series—and often featuring famous talent from those—but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform—which they could then produce content for—to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week.

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of over 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: they want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital intensive—just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8% over the last year but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; SiriusXM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors, and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30% cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which—based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work—would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users, and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending, and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic, and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous—owning the Netflix of a new content category—while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

from Mobile – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2PEXRIM ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM: https://techcrunch.com/

[theinvinciblenoob]

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app).

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but do in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically-oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of  “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories, and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically-oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format.

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens, and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day—and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts—it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like SiriusXM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series—and often featuring famous talent from those—but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform—which they could then produce content for—to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week.

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of over 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: they want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital intensive—just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8% over the last year but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; SiriusXM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors, and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30% cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which—based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work—would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users, and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending, and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic, and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous—owning the Netflix of a new content category—while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

via TechCrunch

[marcusflanagan]

Why IGTV should go premium

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app).

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but do in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically-oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of  “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories, and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically-oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format.

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens, and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day—and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts—it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like SiriusXM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series—and often featuring famous talent from those—but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform—which they could then produce content for—to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week.

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of over 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: they want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital intensive—just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8% over the last year but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; SiriusXM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors, and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30% cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which—based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work—would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users, and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending, and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic, and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous—owning the Netflix of a new content category—while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

from TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2PEXRIM

[fmservers]

Why IGTV should go premium

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app).

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but do in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically-oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of  “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories, and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically-oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format.

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens, and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day—and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts—it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like SiriusXM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series—and often featuring famous talent from those—but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform—which they could then produce content for—to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week.

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of over 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: they want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital intensive—just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8% over the last year but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; SiriusXM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors, and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30% cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which—based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work—would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users, and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending, and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic, and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous—owning the Netflix of a new content category—while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

Via Eric Peckham https://techcrunch.com

[zeroviraluniverse-blog]

Best set-top box: the top six streaming media players for 4K and HD TV reviewed

Visit Now - http://zeroviral.com/best-set-top-box-the-top-six-streaming-media-players-for-4k-and-hd-tv-reviewed/

Best set-top box: the top six streaming media players for 4K and HD TV reviewed

If you’re only here because you want to cut the cord and stop the rich, monopolistic cable overlords from siphoning your hard-earned money every month, I only have one thing to say to you: you’ve come to the right place.

Look, we believe that paying for great TV shows and movies shouldn’t cost more than your groceries, and that there’s no better way to save some green every month than ripping that money-sucking cord out of the wall and delivering that long-winded “you’re fired” speech to the cable company.

We’re here to help you make that next buying decision the best one possible by ranking the three best set-top boxes in two categories – for 4K TVs and for Full HD TVs – and tell you which one will best fit your home entertainment center.

So how did we narrow down the field? We looked at the amount of content available on the system – not only the number of apps available, but the quality, too – as well as its feature-set, usability and potential to grow in the coming year. The competition is fiercer than ever in 2018 as the big guns battle for supremacy, but there’s now a capable streamer for every budget. 

The best streaming boxes for 4K TVs

If you’ve recently upgraded to a 4K HDR TV, it’s a safe bet that you want a streaming box that can give you every one of those 3840×2160 pixels. You’re in luck, because most of the major streamers have released 4K upgrades of late. However, so numerous are they that some excellent 4K streaming boxes have been squeezed out of our top three. The super-talented Google Chromecast Ultra just misses out on the podium, as do the Nvidia Shield TV and even the Xbox One S. However, it’s clear that our remaining trio are the best streaming boxes for 4K and HDR content.

WINNER: Apple TV 4K (2017)

Apple’s streaming box gets a 4K HDR shot in the arm

HDR10 and Dolby Vision support

tvOS interface is clean and simple

No Amazon Video

Siri can frustrate

Okay, so Android users may not be invited to its 4K party, but there’s no denying that Apple’s waiting game has paid off. Yes, it’s locked to the Apple ecosystem, but iPhone users will love the tvOS operating system, which looks nothing short of sublime. It packs in the pixels and looks sharper than ever, while a souped-up A10X processor means navigation and app loading is fast.

Whether you go for the 32GB or 64GB storage versions, every streaming app you can think of is here, with one glaring omission; there’s no Amazon Prime Video. However, we do like the 4K HDR ‘room’ within its iTunes movies app, which makes it easier to discover hi-res video content. Dolby Vision is a real asset that few other streaming devices support right now (with Dolby Atmos to follow, we’ve been told), just as impressive is universal search and the addition of Apple Music, the later of which which makes Apple TV a competent jukebox as well as a top-tier movie streamer. And the integration of the proprietary Apple HomeKit smart home tech could be a feature to watch. Our only criticism is that Siri makes too many mistakes.

Read the full review: Apple TV 4K (2017)

RUNNER-UP: Roku Streaming Stick+ (2017)

The brand that started it all goes 4K HDR with exciting results

Platform neutral

Roku OS 8

4x wireless range

No Dolby Vision or Atmos

Why buy a box when a dongle will do? In a move that makes the impressive Roku Premiere+ obsolete, this streaming stick has two incredible advantages; every app you could ever want, plus an improved 802.11ac Wi-Fi antenna that increases the range by four times. That double-act should give the Roku Streaming Stick+ an easy win, and yet we two have two issues with this diminutive dongle. Try as it does, a few niggling issues like slow pop-in time and lack of Dolby support prevent it from winning top accolades.

Also unwelcome is a proprietary power cable, but this Roku beats the Chromecast Ultra by shipping with a remote that has a microphone built-in for voice search, and dedicated media buttons for Netflix, Sling, Hulu and PlayStation Vue. Also in Roku OS 8 is Amazon Video, Amazon Music, YouTube, Crackle, Vudu, Pandora, Spotify, Deezer, VEVO, SiriusXM and TuneIn. There’s also a free network of films and TV shows the company has licensed from studios like Columbia and Paramount amid a dizzying 3,000+ streaming channels. Tiny reservations aside, this peerlessly egalitarian approach to streaming make this a hugely impressive and good value product.

Read the full review: Roku Streaming Stick+ (2017)

RUNNER-UP: Amazon Fire TV (2017)

With a fantastic redesign comes support for 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos

4K HDR & Dolby Atmos

Great value

Not much 4K content

Remote has no volume control

If you are already on the Amazon train with a Prime account and plenty of Amazon Echo units dotted around the house, then the Amazon Fire TV (2017) will slot into your home with ease.

Despite being one of the core apps of the streaming age, getting Amazon Video is not easy. It’s not available on Apple TV or Google’s Chromecast products, but Amazon Fire TV devices are much more than merely workarounds to the giant retailer’s own video content. 

A discrete box of media tricks that can sit unobtrusively in your home, the latest Amazon Fire TV device is smaller than ever and incredibly easy to install and use. Redesigned as a dongle that plugs directly into your TV’s HDMI slot, it does require a separate power connection. However, it also comes with an excellent remote control that allows you to use Alexa voice commands to control playback, which is a boon to anyone who has embraced the Amazon Echo range of smart speakers. The interface itself is similar to Apple TV, and includes a host of Fire TV apps – including Amazon Video, obviously – as well as Netflix. However, the flipside of Amazon Prime Video not being available on other streamers is that Google’s YouTube is not available on this device.

4K HDR content, though sparse, looks great, though performance depends on the strength of your Wi-Fi network. Dolby Atmos support is welcome, too, but barely visible. Minor niggles aside, we enthusiastically recommend this latest Fire TV. 

Read the full review: Amazon Fire TV (2017)

[arplis]

Arplis - News: Marie Kondo Your Kitchen With These 11 Amazon Products

Marie Kondo has made an art form out of home organization. Through her KonMari Method, she encourages you to only keep items in your home that spark joy (and to purge the rest). She brings her concept to life in her now famous Netflix series called Tidying Up with Marie Kondo and while details on a second season have yet to emerge, she recently debuted her own online shop to highlight items she loves.

This $89 rabbit-ear storage box, for instance, is definitely adorable, but if youre on a budget, you can find sleek and super useful organizing items on Amazon too. We rounded up our favorite picks to de-clutter your kitchen, because even if you missed spring cleaning, its never too late to get everything in order.

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing, $9.69 on Amazon

Marie Kondos best-selling book details how to implement her KonMari method in your own home.

Buy Now

For Your Pantry

Royal Air-Tight Food Storage Container Set, 10 for $54.98 on Amazon

Royal/Amazon

Weve been seeing a ton of #pantrygoals images on our Instagram feed lately from both celebs and normal people like us (look at Khloe Kardashians pantry for major inspo). One product every image seems to have in common is clear stackable food storage containers. These containers are great because they allow you to see whats inside, they stack for maximum storage space, and they help to create uniformity and harmony in your pantry.Buy Now

SimpleHouseware Stackable Can Rack Organizer, $19.87 on Amazon (originally $29.99)

SimpleHouseware/Amazon

Wrangle those canned goods with this stackable can rack organizer. It can hold up to 36 cans and comes with adjustable dividers so you can make just about any size can fit.Buy Now

ClosetMaid Adjustable 8-Tier Wall and Door Rack, $31.99 on Amazon

ClosetMaid/Amazon

Get extra space out of your pantry with this hanging door rack. You can use this for any overflow items you might have laying around, from canned goods and paper towels to spices and baking items.Buy Now

mDesign Turntable Storage Container, $17.99 on Amazon

Amazon

Lazy Susans may be more of a Home Edit thing, but theyre great for storing snacks, baking supplies, and other pantry items. Upgrade to a mod pale pink model and we think Marie might approve.Buy Now

Related Reading: The Top 100 Cookbooks, Kitchen Gadgets & Pantry Items on Chowhound

For Your Kitchen Drawers

Joseph Joseph Kitchen Drawer Organizer Tray for Cutlery, $9.99 on Amazon

Joseph Joseph/Amazon

At press time, this was the number one ranked item in Amazons Movers and ShakersHome and Kitchen category, which means this item is #trending in a big way and we can see why. The last thing you want to do when youre starving is struggle to find a fork because its buried underneath a million utensils. This kitchen drawer organizer gives each piece of cutlery its own home, which helps keep things chaos-free.Buy Now

STORi Clear Plastic Vanity and Desk Drawer Organizers, 6 for $14.99 (originally $19.99)

STORi/Amazon

The infamous junk drawer. We all have one, but Marie encourages us to tackle even that area. Whatever you decide to store in this prized real estate space, the key to keeping it tidy is to give each item a place to call home. To fully organize it, Marie suggests taking everything out of the drawer, organizing items into categories, deciding what to keep/purge, and then placing similar items into their own container, like these see-through trays in various sizes.Buy Now

For Your Cupboards

YouCopia Chefs Edition SpiceStack 30-Bottle Spice Organizer with Universal Drawers, $41.32 on Amazon

YouCopia/Amazon

As one reviewer puts it, The racks themselves are fantasticI love them to death. This might sound a little dramatic for a spice organizer, but we feel you. This spice organizer can fit 30 full-size or 60 half-size round or square spice bottles. The drawers pull out and lower to display spices at eye level so you can quickly see your inventory when making your grocery list. Genius!Buy Now

Extreme Matters Heavy Duty Pan Organizer, $29.95 on Amazon

Extreme Matters/Amazon

Do you shove all of your pans into the cabinet and then run away as quickly as possible before you can hear everything come crashing down? Stop living your life in fear and buy this organizer to make things just a little bit easier. This rack can be used vertically or horizontally, depending on the size of your cabinets, and fits 5 pans. After reading the reviews, it looks like people have also used this rack to organize extra dishes, so this product is definitely versatile.Buy Now

To Create Extra Storage Space

AmazonBasics 3-Shelf Shelving Unit, $39.99 on Amazon

Amazon

If you dont have the space, then no matter how well you organize your items, you will always feel like things look cramped and cluttered. This 3-tier shelving unit will solve that space dilemma and give you more room to organize your excess items. You can either fit this inside your pantry if its large enough, or keep it out in your kitchen or mudroom.Buy Now

For Under the Sink

BINO Woven Plastic Storage Basket, 3 for $34.99 on Amazon

BINO/Amazon

Just because no one usually sees underneath your sink, doesnt mean youre off the hook for organizing this space. Use these chic baskets to place cleaning supplies, rubber gloves, a dish brush, extra garbage bags, etcOnce organized, you wont have to cringe every time you open this cupboard.Buy Now

For Your Fridge

Sorbus Fridge and Freezer Bins, 6 for $27.50 on Amazon

Amazon

Youve Marie Kondod your pantry, kitchen drawers, cupboards, and even underneath the sink, but you need to show your fridge some love as well. Using the same method you did for the other areas of your kitchen, organize your food into categories and decide what to keep and throw away. Next, place similar items into containers and stack away to save space and a little bit of sanity since youll now know where everything is. You get 2 wide drawers, 2 narrow drawers, 1 can dispenser, and 1 egg drawer in this set. Use them all in your fridge and freezer, or split them up between there and your pantry, depending on your specific needs.Buy Now

Related Reading: Fridge Organizing Photos to Inspire You to Clean Your Own

If youre eager to keep on organizing, check out some of our favorite products inspired by The Home Edit, and pointers on cleaning your pantry. And why stop there? See Rachael Rays video tutorial on how to fold everything the Marie Kondo way too.

Related Video: The Best Way to Store Food in Your Freezer

!doctype> Arplis - News source https://arplis.com/blogs/news/marie-kondo-your-kitchen-with-these-11-amazon-products

[sheminecrafts]

Why IGTV should go premium

It’s been four months since Facebook launched IGTV, with the goal of creating a destination for longer-form Instagram videos. Is it shaping up to be a high-profile flop, or could this be the company’s next multi-billion-dollar business?

IGTV, which features videos up to 60 minutes versus Instagram’s normal 60-second limit, hasn’t made much of a splash yet. Since there are no ads yet, it hasn’t made a dollar, either. But, it offers Facebook the opportunity to dominate a new category of premium video, and to develop a subscription business that better aligns with high-quality content.

Facebook worked with numerous media brands and celebrities to shoot high-quality, vertical videos for IGTV’s launch on June 20, as both a dedicated app and a section within the main Instagram app. But IGTV has been quiet since. I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with media executives that almost no one is creating content specifically for IGTV and that the audience on IGTV remains small relative to the distribution of videos on Snapchat or Facebook. Most videos on it are repurposed from a brand’s or influencer’s Snapchat account (at best) or YouTube channel (more common). Digiday heard the same feedback.

Instagram announced IGTV on June 20 as a way for users to post videos up to 1 hour long in a dedicated section of the app (and separate app)

Facebook’s goal should be to make IGTV a major property in its own right, distinct from the Instagram feed. To do that, the company should follow the concept embodied in the “IGTV” name and re-envision what television shows native to the format of an Instagram user would look like.

Its team should leverage the playbook of top TV streaming services like Netflix and Hulu in developing original series with top talent in Hollywood to anchor their own subscription service, but in it a new format of shows produced specifically for the vertically oriented, distraction-filled screen of a smartphone.

Mobile video is going premium

Of the 6+ hours per day that Americans spend on digital media, the majority on that is now on their phone (most of it on social and entertainment activities) and video viewing has grown with it. In addition to the decline in linear television viewing and rise of “over-the-top” streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, we’ve seen the creation of a whole new category of video: mobile native video.

Starting at its most basic iteration with everyday users’ recordings for Snapchat Stories, Instagram Stories and YouTube vlogs, mobile video is a very different viewing environment with a lot more competition for attention. Mobile video is watched as people are going about their day. They might commit a few minutes at a time, but not hour-long blocks, and there are distracting text messages and push notifications overlaid on the screen as they watch.

“Stories” on the major social apps have advanced vertically oriented, mobile native videos as their own content format

When I spoke recently with Jesús Chavez, CEO of the mobile-focused production company Vertical Networks in Los Angeles, he emphasized that successful episodic videos on mobile aren’t just normal TV clips with changes to the “packaging” (cropped for vertical, thumbnails selected to get clicks, etc.). The way episodes are written and shot has to be completely different to succeed. Chavez put it in terms of the higher “density” of mobile-native videos: packing more activity into a short time window, with faster dialogue, fewer setup shots, split screens and other tactics.

With the growing amount of time people spend watching videos on their social apps each day — and the flood of subpar videos chasing view counts — it makes sense that they would desire a premium content option. We have seen this scenario before as ad-dependent radio gave rise to subscription satellite radio like Sirius XM and ad-dependent network TV gave rise to pay-TV channels like HBO. What that looks like in this context is a trusted service with the same high bar for riveting storytelling of popular films and TV series — and often featuring famous talent from those — but native to the vertical, smartphone environment.

If IGTV pursues this path, it would compete most directly with Quibi, the new venture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman are raising $2 billion to launch (and was temporarily called NewTV until their announcement at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last Wednesday). They are developing a big library of exclusive shows by iconic directors like Guillermo del Toro and Jason Blum crafted specifically for smartphones through their upcoming subscription-based app.

Quibi’s funding is coming from the world’s largest studios (Disney, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, MGM, NBCU, Viacom, Alibaba, etc.) whose executives see substantial enough opportunity in such a platform — which they could then produce content for — to write nine-figure checks.

TechCrunch’s Josh Constine argued last year Snapchat should go in a similar “HBO of mobile” direction as well, albeit ad-supported rather than a subscription model. The company indeed seems to be stepping further in this direction with last week’s announcement of Snapchat Originals, although it has announced and then canceled original content plans before.

Snapchat announced its Snap Originals last week

Facebook is the best positioned to win

Facebook is the best positioned to seize this opportunity, and IGTV is the vehicle for doing so. Without even considering integrations with the Facebook, Messenger or WhatsApp apps, Facebook is starting with a base of more than 1 billion monthly active users on Instagram alone. That’s an enormous audience to expose these original shows to, and an audience who don’t need to create or sign into a separate account to explore what’s playing on IGTV. Broader distribution is also a selling point for creative talent: They want their shows to be seen by large audiences.

The user data that makes Facebook rivaled only by Google in targeted advertising would give IGTV’s recommendation algorithms a distinct advantage in pushing users to the IGTV shows most relevant to their interests and most popular among their friends.

The social nature of Instagram is an advantage in driving awareness and engagement around IGTV shows: Instagram users could see when someone they follow watches or “likes” a show (pending their privacy settings). An obvious feature would be to allow users to discuss or review a show by sharing it to their main Instagram feed with a comment; their followers would see a clip or trailer, then be able to click-through to the full show in IGTV with one tap.

Developing and acquiring a library of must-see, high-quality original productions is massively capital-intensive — just ask Netflix about the $13 billion it’s spending this year. Targeting premium-quality mobile video will be no different. That’s why Katzenberg and Whitman are raising a $2 billion war chest for Quibi and budgeting production costs of $100,000-150,000 per minute on par with top TV shows. Facebook has $42 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. It can easily outspend Quibi and Snap in financing and marketing original shows by a mix of newcomers and Hollywood icons.

Snap can’t afford (financially) to compete head-on and doesn’t have the same scale of distribution. It is at 188 million daily active users and no longer growing rapidly (up 8 percent over the last year, but DAUs actually shrunk by 3 million last quarter). Snapchat is also a much more private interface: it doesn’t enable users to see each others’ activity like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify and others do to encourage content discovery. Snap is more likely to create a hub for ad-supported mobile-first shows for teens and early-twentysomethings rather than rival Quibi or IGTV in creating a more broadly popular Netflix or Hulu of mobile-native shows.

It’s time to go freemium

Investing substantial capital upfront is especially necessary for a company launching a subscription tier: consumers must see enough compelling content behind the paywall from the start, and enough new content regularly added, to find an ongoing subscription worthwhile.

There is currently no monetization of IGTV. It is sitting in experimentation mode as Facebook watches how people use it. If any company can drive enough ad revenue solely from short commercials to still profit on high-cost, high-quality episodic shows on mobile, it’s Facebook. But a freemium subscription model makes more sense for IGTV. From a financial standpoint, building IGTV into its own profitable P&L while making substantial content investments likely demands more revenue than ads alone will generate.

Of equal importance is incentive alignment. Subscriptions are defined by “time well spent” rather time spent and clicks made: quality over quantity. This is the environment in which premium content of other formats has thrived too; Sirius XM as the breakout on radio, HBO on linear TV, Netflix in OTT originals. The type of content IGTV will incentivize, and the creative talent they’ll attract, will be much higher quality when the incentives are to create must-see shows that drive new subscribers than when the incentives are to create videos that optimize for views.

Could there be a “Netflix for mobile native video” with shows shot in vertical format specifically for viewing on smartphone?

The optimization for views (to drive ad revenue) have been the model that media companies creating content for Facebook have operated on for the last decade. The toxicity of this has been a top news story over the last year with Facebook acknowledging many of the issues with clickbait and sensationalism and vowing changes.

Over the years, Facebook has dragged media companies up and down with changes to its newsfeed algorithm that forced them to make dramatic changes to their content strategies (often with layoffs and restructuring). It has burned bridges with media companies in the process; especially after last January, how to reduce dependence on Facebook platforms has become a common discussion point among digital content executives. If Facebook wants to get top producers, directors and production companies investing their time and resources in developing a new format of high-quality video series for IGTV, it needs an incentives-aligned business model they can trust to stay consistent.

Imagine a free, ad-supported tier for videos by influencers and media partners (plus select “IGTV Originals”) to draw in Instagram users, then a $3-8/month subscription tier for access to all IGTV Originals and an ad-free viewing experience. (By comparison, Quibi plans to charge a $5/month subscription with ads with the option of $8/month for its ad-free tier.)

Looking at the growth of Netflix in traditional TV streaming, a subscription-based business should be a welcome addition to Facebook’s portfolio of leading content-sharing platforms. This wouldn’t be its first expansion beyond ad revenue: the newest major division of Facebook, Oculus, generates revenue from hardware sales and a 30 percent cut of the revenue to VR apps in the Oculus app store (similar to Apple’s cut of iOS app revenue). Facebook is also testing a dating app which — based on the freemium business model Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other leading dating apps have proven to work — would be natural to add a subscription tier to.

Facebook is facing more public scrutiny (and government regulation) on data privacy and its ad targeting than ever before. Incorporating subscriptions and transaction fees as revenue streams benefits the company financially, creates a healthier alignment of incentives with users and eases the public criticism of how Facebook is using people’s data. Facebook is already testing subscriptions to Facebook Groups and has even explored offering a subscription alternative to advertising across its core social platforms. It is quite unlikely to do the latter, but developing revenue streams beyond ads is clearly something the company’s leadership is contemplating.

The path forward

IGTV needs to make product changes if it heads in this direction. Right now videos can’t link together to form a series (i.e. one show with multiple episodes) and discoverability is very weak. Beyond seeing recent videos by those you follow, videos that are trending and a selection of recommendations, you can only search for channels to follow (based on name). There’s no way to search for specific videos or shows, no way to browse channels or videos by topic and no way to see what people you follow are watching.

It would be a missed opportunity not to vie for this. The upside is enormous — owning the Netflix of a new content category — while the downside is fairly minimal for a company with such a large balance sheet.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2Euiwy4 via IFTTT

[dyernews]

Cutting the Cord? A Guide To Streaming Services and Saving Money

Over the past few years, the term “cutting the cord” has become a well-worn figure of speech referring to those who cancel their cable or satellite subscriptions and opt to replace them with one or more of the various streaming services. Noticing the trend, the slate of these streamers has increased, with many also offering exclusive content that’s shaken up the world of pop culture and entertainment. As a result, there are now some TV buffs who may actually spend more money on TV after they cut the cord — but it doesn’t have to be this way.

While you may not be able to see every new show that hits the proverbial (and increasingly inaccurate) airwaves, there are many ways that you can still save money by ditching cable and opting for streaming. Of course the first step is choosing the platform or platforms that are right for you. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some popular streaming options — including some of the pros and cons of each — as well as some other tips for saving money on streaming:

Comparing the Top Streaming Services

Streaming Service Type Price Range (per month)

Top Dog $7.99-$13.99

Top Dog $5.99-$39.99

Top Dog $9.92-$12.99*

Top Dog $11.99

Linear Extension $5.99-$9.99

 Linear Extension $4.17-$4.99

 Linear Extension $5.99

Premium Channel $14.99

Premium Channel $8.99-$10.99

Premium Channel $8.99

Package Programming $16-$20

Package Programming $44.99-$49.99

Package Programming $0-$15**

Package Programming $40-$75

Coming Soon TBA***

Free Service FREE

Free Service FREE****

*Included with Amazon Prime membership *Included with qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More plans ***Pricing not yet disclosed, service to launch in 2019 ****Requires membership to participating libraries

These days, there’s certainly no shortage of streaming services available. This includes some of the “top dogs” like Netflix and Hulu but extends to linear networks adding to their brands, premium channels getting in on the action, platforms with bundled streaming channel packages, and even a couple of free options. Below you’ll find details on services in all of these categories including some of what’s good and what’s not so good about each.

Before we dive in, one more thing to note is that the content on each of these services is subject to change as are the pricing and features. Keep this in mind as you’re doing your own research and choosing which platforms may be right for you and your budget.

Top Dog Streaming Services

Netflix. Hulu. Amazon Prime. YouTube. These are probably some of the top names that come to mind when you think of streaming video. What’s more, several of these services have taken the entertainment industry by storm, winning awards for original programming and even reviving some of the shows discarded by the traditional networks. But while you’re surely familiar with these four players it’s still worth taking a closer look.

Netflix

Pricing: $7.99 Basic, $10.99 Standard, $13.99 Premium

Biggest draw: Original series like Stranger Things, Queer Eye, and The Defenders as well as comedy specials, continuations of network shows, and more.

Biggest drawback: Only standard definition streaming at lowest tier.

Best for: Comedy nerds, TV binge watchers, and those who want to keep up on the most talked-about shows.

Bottom Line: Netflix has been a powerhouse in the streaming service space and is still seen by many as the gold standard (not to mention the first place fans petition to save shows when they get cancelled). Despite some price increases over the years, the platform remains competitive on that front as well and has also made headlines for their astronomical investments in content. Whether all of that output is quality is up for debate, but Netflix will likely be a top pick for many cord cutters as they make their selections.

Hulu

Pricing: Basic – $5.99 for your first year ($7.99 a month after), No Commercials – $11.99 a month, Hulu with Live TV – $39.99 a month.

Biggest draw: Original series like The Handmaid’s Tale as well as current seasons of select shows on traditional TV.

Biggest drawback: Commercial interruptions on Basic tier.

Best for: Catching up on current television programs.

Bottom Line: Owned by many of top media conglomerates, Hulu has found some success in the premium content business thanks to hits like The Handmaid’s Tale. However, some may still recall that Hulu initially offered a freemium model, allowing viewers to catch up on current shows. With the annoying introductory rate and the presence of commercials unless you upgrade to the $11.99 a month tier, some cord cutters may be turned off by Hulu’s current model.

Sidenote: Hulu could be in for some major changes in the next few years as 30% owner The Walt Disney Company is set to purchase assets from fellow 30% owner 21st Century Fox, likely giving them a controlling stake in the platform. Many believe Disney will look to Hulu to become the “adult” counterpart to the family-friendly streaming services they plan to launch in 2019 (more on that later).

Amazon Prime Video

Pricing: Included with Amazon Prime subscription ($119 a year or $12.99 a month)

Biggest draw: Original series such as Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, Sneaky Pete, Fleabag, and the 2018 Emmy award winning The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Biggest drawback: Pricey if you’re only using Prime for Prime Video

Best for: Frequent Amazon shoppers who also love to stay abreast of buzzy and bingeable television.

Bottom Line: By bundling its popular two-day free shipping service Prime with a premium streaming platform, Prime Video definitely stands as a unique player in this space. Additionally, Prime has made a name for itself on the awards stage, most recently earning multiple big awards for The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. While these top titles may not be enough to bring people to Prime on their own, the other benefits of Amazon Prime are certainly worth considering.

YouTube Premium (YouTube Red)

Pricing: $11.99 a month

Biggest draw: Originals like Cobra Kai and series from some of the biggest YouTube stars as well as an ad-free experience across the platform.

Biggest drawback: Not a ton of talked-about shows just yet, relatively high price.

Best for: Those who spend a lot of time consuming YouTube content and want to take advantage of other perks like background play.

Bottom Line: Formerly known as YouTube Red, YouTube Premium has seemingly struggled to market itself as effectively as other streaming services (as evidenced by the name change). That said, their freemium release of the Karate Kid series Cobra Kai did earn the platform some much-needed buzz. Additionally, Premium does offer some other notable features such as the aforementioned background play, access to YouTube Music Premium, and the ability to watch any YouTube video ad-free when you’re signed in. As a result, those who love all things YouTube and the stars the platform has produced will likely find more value in this service than others.

Linear Extensions

With those “top dogs” taking a bite out of traditional media’s market share, some networks have created their own streaming options meant to build upon the assets they have and then adding in exclusive content to bring more subscribers on board. Interestingly, there seems to be different methods of pursuing this route. With that, let’s take a look at three examples of what I’m calling “linear extensions”: CBS All Access, ESPN+, and FX+.

CBS All Access

Pricing: $5.99 a month with Limited Commercials, $9.99 a month Commercial Free (15% off when you purchase an annual plan)

Biggest draw: Star Trek: Discovery, Big Brother Live Feeds, full episodes of current and legacy shows, plus live streaming from your local CBS affiliate (including NFL on CBS).

Biggest drawback: Commercials on basic tier, limited number of hit originals at this time.

Best for: Trekkers and those who love CBS’s content library.

Bottom Line: CBS surely had a lot of doubters when it launched its own streaming service but All Access has stayed afloat partially thanks to their series Star Trek: Discovery. On that front, the service has also announced the return of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, once again played by Patrick Stewart. Aside from Star Trek, All Access also hosts a library of classic ranging from I Love Lucy to CSI: Miami. At $5.99, the service is one of the more affordable options but that tier does include commercials, making it difficult to recommend one way or the other.

ESPN+

Pricing: $4.99 a month or $49.99 a year

Biggest draw: More live sports than you can shake a stick at, the 30 for 30 documentaries catalog, and other exclusive programming.

Biggest drawback: While original series released so far have been enjoyable, nothing has truly hit just yet.

Best for: Sports fans — especially those who follow leagues not typically broadcast on one of the main ESPN channels.

Bottom Line: Just this month, ESPN+ announced that it had reached 1 million paid subscribers. This milestone comes as the platform has continually been adding sports content to the platform, including original series, exclusive 30 for 30 documentaries (in addition to hosting other entries on-demand), and of course live events ranging from soccer and tennis to boxing and auto racing. ESPN parent company Disney also promises that more live content will be added to the platform as it continues to make new deals and make even more content from its linear networks available on ESPN+. While it may not be a full replacement for ESPN itself, ESPN+ has seemingly found a market among die-hard sports fans.

FX+

Pricing: $5.99 a month

Biggest draw: Early access to FX Originals series, ad-free streaming, and an on-demand catalog of full season.

Biggest drawback: Requires a TV provider account.

Best for: FX fans who aren’t exactly cutting the cord.

Bottom Line: Considering that FX+ requires that you hold a cable or satellite subscription, it hardly belongs on this list. That said, those only hearing about FX+ might not realize this key hitch, which is why it’s worth noting. Considering that the concept of FX+ may be appealing to fans of American Horror Story and other FX hits, hopefully the network can move to a true direct-to-consumer model in the future.

Premium Channels

Similar to how some networks now offer streaming companions, there are also premium channels that have gone direct-to-consumer. Given their already premium status, one notable difference here is that most of these services stick to what they already known and don’t really offer much in the way of exclusives. Still, those who can’t live without HBO, Showtime, or Starz may be in luck thanks to these options.

HBO Now

Pricing: $14.99 a month

Biggest draw: Ability to watch hit HBO series like Game of Thrones, Veep, Last Week Tonight, and many more without a cable subscription. It can also be added as a premium to other streaming services such as Hulu and Amazon Prime Video (although the $14.99 a month price stays the same).

Biggest drawback: Aside from library content and on-demand access, HBO Now offers little more than the network itself.

Best for: Game of Thrones junkies who want to cut the cord and similar folk who want HBO without having cable.

Bottom Line: Not to be confused with HBO Go — the streaming counterpart that comes with your traditional HBO subscriptions — HBO Now gives cord cutters access to the channel’s plethora of critically acclaimed and award-winning content. In addition to hosting full seasons for current and previous HBO series, HBO Now also allows users to stream films currently playing on the channel. At $14.99 a month, Now isn’t exactly cheap but, with HBO continually proving to be a television powerhouse, that high price might be worth it many TV enthusiasts.

Showtime

Pricing: $10.99 a month

Biggest draw: Series like Shameless, The Affair, Ray Donovan, and the new Jim Carrey-starrer Kidding. Showtime can also be added as a premium to other streaming services such as Hulu and Amazon Prime Video (both $8.99 a month extra).

Biggest drawback: Only includes Showtime content.

Best for: Those who want to watch Showtime’s original series but don’t want a cable subscription.

Bottom Line: Unlike HBO, Showtime offers a slight discount to those adding the premium network to their Hulu or Amazon Prime Video subscriptions. On top of that, even the base price for Showtimes comes in at $4 a month less than Home Box Office. Of course, despite having some major hits over the years, Showtime continues to play second fiddle to HBO in terms of awards glory and buzzed about programming. Thus, it’s likely fair to assume that the same would be true of cord cutters looking to get the most talked-about TV for the best price.

Starz

Pricing: $8.99 a month

Biggest draw: Originals like Power, American Gods, and series from Kevin Hart’s Laugh Out Loud network as well as many recent and random movies.

Biggest drawback: Lacking in originals.

Best for: Fans of Kevin Hart and those who want on-demand access to past Starz series like Party Down.

Bottom Line: Priced at $8.99, a look at the Starz line-up of series and current movies still doesn’t seem to justify that cost. At the same time, with many streaming services, there will always be some film or show that’s available on one service and nowhere else. Because of this, there may still be a market for Starz, especially among those who have come across shows like Power and American Gods or enjoy some of the other series that mega-star Kevin Hart brings to the platform.

Package Streaming Programming

Lest you assume the streaming ecosystem had completely abandoned the notion of a cable package, there are several platforms that essentially recreate the model for the streaming generation. That is to say they include access to some of the same channels you’d find on your TV along with DVR functionality and more. If that sounds up your alley, here’s a look at Philo TV, FuboTV, and AT&T WatchTV, and DirecTV Now.

Philo TV

Pricing: 40 Channels for $16 a month, 49 channel for $20 a month

Biggest draw: Live and on-demand access to many basic cable channels at the base level with the option to add specialty channels for a few dollars more.You can also record and save an unlimited number of shows for up to 30 days.

Biggest drawback: No premium networks or sports options.

Best for: Those who want access to a number of their favorite linear channel without dealing with the cable companies.

Bottom Line: With Philo TV’s basic package including an array of channels like AMC, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, and IFC, this option could fill a cable-sized hole for many cord cutters and comes at an attractive price. As for the upper tier, the additional nine channels will likely only appeal to a small number of viewers. Finally, with live TV and DVR options included, Philo TV could be a great transitional product for those who will miss certain aspects of their “traditional” television experience.

FuboTV

Pricing: $44.99 a month (55+ channels) or $49.99 a month (75+ channels). Fubo Latino and Fubo Portugues packages also available along with additional programming packages.

Biggest draw: Offers a number of popular entertainment, news, and sports channels along with Cloud DVR features.

Biggest drawback: Starts at a high price and only gets more expensive as you add programming options.

Best for: Cord cutters who still want to view a multiple of sports options as well as top news networks.

Bottom Line: While it doesn’t include ESPN, FuboTV does give users access to several sports stations, including NBCSN, the NFL Network, NBATV and many more — with the option to add 22 more sports channels and even international sports for additional monthly fees. Beyond that, Fubo also includes news ranging from Fox News to CNN to MSNBC while also offer entertainment from AMC, Hallmark, Syfy, and more. You can also add nine Showtime channels for the same price as that channel’s standalone option. Unfortunately, all of this comes a steep price that may be a turn off to those we aren’t as concerned about watching linear sports and news networks.

AT&T WatchTV

Pricing: Included with qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More plans or $15 a month.

Biggest draw: Access to 30+ channels of live TV in addition to on-demand programming.

Biggest drawback: Although there is some on-demand content, there are no DVR features at this time.

Best for: AT&T Unlimited &More customers who won’t need to pay anything extra to access this service.

Bottom Line: AT&T WatchTV includes a number of popular channels such as CNN, TBS, AMC, and more. Sadly, unlike some of its competitors, users are currently unable to record and save their favorite shows. Because of this, those without AT&T Unlimited &More plans may want to look elsewhere. But, for those who do have qualifying AT&T Unlimited &More or are considering switching, this one’s a no-brainer.

DirecTV Now

Pricing: $40 a month (65+ channels), $55 a month (85+ channels), $65 a month (105+ channels), $75 a month (125+ channels).

Biggest draw: Multitude of channels, cloud DVR, and ability to add premium networks for relatively cheaps (HBO and Cinemax: $5 each, Showtime and Starz: $8 each).

Biggest drawback: Pricey overall and DVR function is still technically in beta.

Best for: Those who want more traditional cable or satellite packages but in a streaming format. Also great for those who want ESPN in their streaming bundle.

Bottom Line: Like the cable and satellite bundles you’re surely familiar with, DirecTV Now gets more expensive as you add more channels to your lineup. However, even at the base level, the service does include some heavy-hitters like FX, AMC, Nickelodeon, and even ESPN (and ESPN2). Plus, adding premium channels like HBO and Showtime to DirecTV Now comes in cheaper than the standalone options for those respective networks. Understandably, those looking to get away from DirecTV and the like may not be too enthusiastic to keep the company on their monthly bill, but this path could be prove to be a reasonable one for some customers.

Coming Soon

Given my obsession with Disney, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention that The Walt Disney Company has unveiled plans to launch their own streaming service sometime in 2019. While details are fairly sparse, some programming has been announced with new tidbits arriving all the time. With this and the implications Disney’s offering could have for its competitors, here’s a little bit of what you can expect from this soon-to-be option.

Disney Streaming Service

Pricing: Unknown, but CEO Bob Iger has said it will come in at a price point lower than Netflix.

Biggest draw: A new live-action Star Wars series, exclusive films and shows, an unannounced library of other content, and will replace Netflix as the streaming home for new Disney/Marvel/Star Wars titles released in 2019 or after.

Biggest drawback: Will likely only include Disney content and there are many details left to learn.

Best for: Families who love Disney and fanboys who can’t get enough Star Wars and/or Marvel content.

Bottom Line: Many observers are paying close attention to Disney’s big swing at Netflix and it will be interesting to see what comes of the project. Disney has already enjoyed some early success with ESPN+, but this unnamed service is a completely different beast. While there are still many details to be ironed out, this upcoming service will mean changes for Netflix and others.

Free Streaming Services

Lastly, if looking at these options has your wallet running scared, there is some good news. Below you’ll find two free options that may help make your life as a cord cutter a little easier. Take a quick look at Pluto TV and Hoopla.

Pluto TV

Pricing: FREE

Biggest draw: Access to live TV channels, both “real” and specially curated.

Biggest drawback: You can only view programs live with no on-demand or DVR options.

Best for: Those who just want something to watch without spending money.

Bottom Line: Pluto TV gives you access to a variety of entertainment without paying a thing. With a diverse line-up of channels ranging from Rifftrax to CNBC, the service could be a great option when you just want to throw something on. While you may need to work a bit to watch your favorites with this service, it’s a nice and certainly affordable supplement to add to your cord cutting mix.  

Hoopla

Pricing: FREE with membership to participating libraries.

Biggest draw: The ability to borrow books, seasons of TV, films, and music.

Biggest drawback: Monthly borrowing limits apply as do daily overall library borrowing limits.

Best for: Revisiting some older series, watching older movie titles, and maybe even checking out new music without spending on audio streaming services.

Bottom Line: If you have a library card, you may alreay have access to Hoopla without realizing it. Personally, I’ve been impressed with some of the content available on this free platform. The one big downside is that you may encounter borrowing limits that prevent you from watching what you want — especially on weekends and other popular times. Aside from that, this too can be a great options for staying entertained on a strict budget.

Top Tips for Saving on Streaming

Consider bundle deals

Beyond some of the options you may have noticed, such as adding HBO or other premium networks to some services, there may also be other ways you can save by bundling. For example, music lovers and TV lovers can combine Spotify Premium with Hulu (the basic tier) for only $12.99 a month. Students have it even better as the same bundle plus Showtime comes in at just $4.99 a month.

Try coupons and promos

Another way you may be able to save money when signing up for streaming services is to look for special promo codes and offers. Take, for example, Ebates, which offers up to $25 cash back for new Hulu subscribers ($15 on Hulu Basic and $25 for Hulu Live). You may also be able to find promo codes on sites like RetailMeNot or DontPayFull. Lastly, there’s always the chance that the services themselves will offer special deals from time to time so it may be worth it to hold out and see what kind of deals you can score.

Look to your phone service

Earlier we also discussed the AT&T WatchTV service, which is included with select AT&T plans. However this isn’t the only example of mobile phone carriers looking to lure customers with free TV. T-Mobile now offers to cover users’ Netflix subscriptions, while some of Sprint’s unlimited plans include a Hulu subscription. It’s worth noting that, with these two carriers are looking to merge, it’s unclear which perk will remain if and when they are united.

Preview your options

Finally, nearly all of the services discussed do offer free trials, ranging from a week to a month. This is the perfect opportunity to explore each platform before committing to buy. In addition to diving into what programs and other content is to be found on each option, you’ll also want to ensure that these services perform well on your preferred devices, maintain an enjoyable and stable interface, and include all of the other features you may be seeking. Pro-tip: before signing up for these free trials, make sure you look up how to cancel if necessary and write down the date you joined so that you don’t forget when you’ll be billed.

With a bevy of streaming services on the market and more to come, the decision to cut the cord now also means figuring out which of these many options is right for you. Ultimately the answer will likely depend on a number of factors, such as what types of programming you’re looking for, what consumption options and devices your prefer, and even what mobile phone service you have. In any case, hopefully this look at some of the most popular platforms as well as some tips for saving when signing up will come in handy as you join the ranks of the cord cutters.

The post Cutting the Cord? A Guide To Streaming Services and Saving Money appeared first on Dyer News.