I have often wondered how subscription services survive with original content. Wanting to draw more subscribers does not feel sufficient compared to the production costs. Subscription services before HBO didn't ignore advertisers. These days I can't even enjoy a movie in the theater without vile advertisement.

https://www.wired.com/story/ne...=pocket-newtab-en-us

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

I think it depends on your meaning of original content. There are plenty of subscription services that are doing quite well with homemade original content of very low production value. There is an audience for watching paint dry if you put it up. The latest craze is for people to watch other people play video games.

I don't get that one at all. The appeal of the channels hosting original content of people in various stages of undress is easier to understand, if nothing else.

But Amazon and Netflix making high budget movies and shows worked well a few years back when it was new and there were less channels to compete with them. The pool of potential new subscribers was large. But now they are all trying to make their own content and few viewers have not made their choices of channels. No one can join up to every service, even at $15 a month. So there comes a point, like it does in every good pyramid scheme, when the new entries can't support the needs of the existing ones. The new content then has to be watered down or halted, or advertisers have to be found to contribute to it.

That's where we are now. Subscription fees are going to go up on the major platforms if you don't want ads, or even if you accept some ads, and the smaller platforms will fold up or be bought up. On the other hand, those more underground channels of truly questionable original content will be able to thrive just fine on a minimum fee.