People still want the TV and movie experience offered by traditional studios, but social platforms are becoming competitive for their entertainment time—and even more competitive for the business models that studios have relied on. Social video platforms offer a seemingly endless variety of free content, algorithmically optimized for engagement and advertising. They wield advanced ad tech and AI to match advertisers with global audiences, now drawing over half of US ad spending. As the largest among them move into the living room, will they be held to higher standards of quality?
At the same time, the streaming on-demand video (SVOD) revolution has fragmented pay TV audiences, imposed higher costs on studios now operating direct-to-consumer services, and delivered thinner margins for their efforts. It can be a tougher business, yet the premium video experience offered by streamers often sets the bar for quality storytelling, acting, and world-building. How can studios control costs, attract advertisers, and compete for attention? Are there stronger points of collaboration that can benefit both streamers looking to reach global audiences and social platforms that lack high-quality franchises?
This year’s Digital Media Trends lends data to the argument that video entertainment has been disrupted by social platforms, creators, user-generated content (UGC), and advanced modeling for content recommendations and advertising. Such platforms may be establishing the new center of gravity for media and entertainment, drawing more of the time people spend on entertainment and the money that brands spend to reach them.
Our survey of US consumers reveals that media and entertainment companies—including advertisers—are competing for an average of six hours of daily media and entertainment time per person (figure 1). And this number doesn’t seem to be growing.2 Not only is it unlikely that any one form of media will command all six hours, but each user likely has a different mix of SVOD, UGC, social, gaming, music, podcasts, and potentially other forms of digital media that make up these entertainment hours.
Is it our complete lack of originality and obsessive wholesale rehashing and incessant rebooting and remaking of already existing movies that’s to blame?
No, it’s the children who are out of touch.
I can’t remember the last time a movie came out that made me want to go see in theatres. Tickets are so expensive that I only want to go to one or two movies a year. Then with TV I find every show these days has “netflix syndrome” with lazy writing, exposition dumps, dummed down dialogue, I’m just not interested in what they have to offer most of the time.
Careful about mentioning the “Netflix syndrome”, people here are touchy when you call out low effort writing in movies/games. Somehow studios/publishers have been extremely successful in having people establish para-social relationships with their characters and stories regardless of how poorly written they are. This results is very strong antibodies every time anyone calls out the utter lazyness in dialogue, set pieces and exposition.
Dumbed* down (sorry ☹️)
no worries, nice catch!
I can’t remember the last time I wanted to go to a theater. My choices are:
-
Go $20/person to go to a theater and hope I get there early enough to not be in a terrible location, sit on hard-ass uncomfortable seats, pay out the nose for shitty popcorn and candy and hope the people around me aren’t dicks texting on their phones, scrolling IG, or just generally being a nuisance.
-
Pay $20-30 total for a 4k BluRay and sit at home with filet mignon and a nice scotch, lounge in my reclining sofa without distractions. Also I own that movie forever.
Sure the theater has a dope screen and sound engineering but it’s not worth it.
-
Perhaps because Hollywood’s attempt at formulaic content to generate maximum revenue loses it’s charm after you’ve watched the same story over and over? Hmmm … Nah, let’s keep doing it.
The last Marvel offering I saw in a cinema was Avengers: Endgame.
Literally nothing since then has looked like it offered anything different or better, so at most I’ve watched a couple on D+, or torrented them. I just don’t give a shit about any of that stuff any more.
The last Marvel thing I watched was Agatha All Along, which I only finished for the sake of completion. The moment we learned the identity of the kid, I pretty much stopped giving a shit, because at that point it just dropped into being yet another MCU property being used as promotional material for whatever they’ve got coming next.
I really enjoyed S01 or Andor, but I can’t be sure I’ll bother with S02 because I don’t trust them to keep it self-contained, basically requiring me to watch 3 other series so I can have some idea of what’s going on. They pulled that shit with S03 of The Mandalorian, so I never finished it.
At the same time, a lot of the most famous YouTubers/etc are also deeply formulaic. They copy the same trends, use the same formats, and post the same kind of videos.
Gaming YouTubers flock to the same game at the same time or just play the ones that get big views like minecraft/etc, cooking youtubers are all doing “viral remakes” or “rate these 45 types of chicken nugget” or “eat the menu” videos/etc.
There are always solid people doing their own thing, but the social media zeitgeist is just recycled, low effort, high engagement garbage, just like netflix.
Although people are starting to get tired of that as well, we just don’t have an alternative lined up yet
There’s a ton of garbage everywhere. I hesitate before searching for something on YouTube because the results are usually just a pile of fishy mouthed or obviously AI thumbnails and so many of the videos themselves are just low effort. Don’t get me started on AI voiceovers.
Stop making junk, and start making good content, and we’ll watch it. But, as it stands, Creators with zero budget are making better content that the studios with nearly unlimited budget.
No one is pointing out that this was inevitable result of having more options.
When I was a kid, sure we had TV and video games, but they weren’t much. There was no big library, all the better graphics games were recent, and realistically you got a few games a year.
Me and my friends went to the movies cause there honestly wasn’t much better things to do. Having a home theatre meant having a tiny screen and a handful of movies you’ve seen many times if you happen to have a VCR. TV reruns were super old and had 5 mins of ads every 15 mins.
Did they really expect teenagers to be desperate to see a new flic when it’s no longer the only way to see new content?
Let’s not forget cost, either. Most movies back then, even in a theater, were dirt cheap. A summer job or allowance would be enough to pay for a movie, popcorn, drink, and you’d still have plenty leftover for arcades or the mall. Some tiny theaters in small towns would be a dollar or less for admission.
Now? You’re talking $20+ per person for the same experience. Why would anyone spend that kind of money, when that’s three or more hours of work at minimum wage?
I think that’s an issue with whatever State / jurisdiction you’re in.
When I was a teenager it was ~$12 to get a normal (non-VIP ticket) at the big multiplex and minimum wage was $9.50 / hr.
Nowadays it’s $20 to get a normal (non-VIP ticket) at the big multiplex and minimum wage is $17.50.
Literally almost identical, if anything it’s actually slightly more affordable now. I think what you’re describing is entirely an issue with your state government not making sure its citizens are paid fairly, not an issue with the movie theatre industry and their pricing.
When I was a teenager it was ~$12 to get a normal (non-VIP ticket) at the big multiplex and minimum wage was $9.50 / hr.
You young’n. 😉 I’m talking about when minimum wage was, like, $5 and movie prices were $2.50 or less.
But let’s take your example. I’m willing to accept the premise that movie prices have kept pace with wages (they haven’t, due to the varying pay standards you pointed out, but I’ll assume for the sake of argument). What stays relatively consistent are costs like food. Excepting the turmoil of the current US economy, those $20 would go further towards food and other necessities.
So theaters are no longer vying for discretionary income at a few dollars here or there, they’re directly competing against necessary expenses. They’ve priced themselves into a different market, and the idea that they’ve kept pace with wages is too simplified, the way I see it.
As a side note, I would love to see an economist study this. It seems really interesting.
But let’s take your example. I’m willing to accept the premise that movie prices have kept pace with wages (they haven’t, due to the varying pay standards you pointed out, but I’ll assume for the sake of argument).
Yes, but the point is that movies are primarily made in California, so if California raises its minimum wages, then the cost of making movies goes up, and so the cost the consumer would experience at the end is increased. If you live in California and your government increased minimum wage that’s not a big deal, but the issue is arising because some states haven’t raised minimum wage to keep up with inflation, so consumers there see a real cost increase that California consumers don’t.
But at a fundamental level, the problem there is not with California raising their minimum wage to try and keep up with inflation / cost of living, but with the other states for not raising theirs. Those states are effectively artificially lowering labour costs, which makes their consumers pay effectively more for imported goods, so that businesses in the state can be more profitable.
If a state does that to support home grown businesses that keep profits in the hands of workers, that can be a path for establishing an industry that will sustain itself and enrich the state, but in most US states, the companies that benefit are big corporations that funnel the profits to the executives and investors (often out of state) rather than average people, so the average worker is just poorer for no reason and sees inflated costs everywhere.
But yes, overall I generally agree with you that the increased costs people are complaining about are real, just that those costs aren’t the result of the movie industry being greedy, so much as they’re the result of the state level governments and corporations that campaign against minimum wage increases.
I like the way you think
Same can’t be said for the snacks though. Highway robbery, I tell ya.
I don’t have historical pricing on movies theatre snacks available off hand, but I would be willing to bet money their pricing is 100% consistent with what it was 15-20 years ago as well.
Movie theatre popcorn and drinks have always been over priced (at least in my lifetime) and have always been where theatres recoup a ton of costs.
If anything, these days theatres shouldn’t have to charge quite as much for popcorn now that they can make money selling alcohol and food and such as well (at least where I’m at, you can now buy beers and cocktails at the theatres).
Because this isn’t research, its Deloitte selling itself. Obviously, as newer forms of media eclipse the current access means of film and television, the newer generation is going to find itself interested.
Others have touched on this but this also feels downstream from the capitalist hellscape. Most people don’t have a lot of spending money. Movies are pricey and a bad money:time ratio.
I bet if wages were up, more people would go to the theater. I don’t want to spend $40 to watch a movie and eat popcorn, but I’d consider it for $3.
And if they actually produced and marketed original movies rather than generic superhero movie #69
I was going to say something similar to that too. Specifically, the consolidation of power means there’s less smaller companies taking risks. You’d think a big company with Disney money could afford to be weird and experimental, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I say this despite enjoying superhero movies
People are buying the tickets for the sequel slop. If no one bought them then they would have to be weird and experimental but that will only happen if enough of us said no more to these live action remakes and sequels.
That’s another result of people not having enough money to be experimental with their movie choice. If movies are too expensive for you to go regularly, of course most people would choose those that they know are gonna be safe for them to enjoy instead of giving unknown original movies a try.
That’s a bingo! I’m only taking the time and spending the money for a movie I know damned well I’ll enjoy. Guess I’m part of the problem.
Any plan that depends on “and then the common person develops discerning taste” is doomed to fail. Especially considering that even people who are usually picky might enjoy something basic from time to time
I’m 54 so not that young but I find myself watching more very specific videos of subjects I’m interested in than more mainstream movies or tv shows. I mean occasionally I’ll watch a movie or show but probably 90% of the time I’m watching content creators on YouTube or the like.
Same age and my wife and I tend to watch old movies or YouTube. When there are free channels for any well-produced fiction you care for like Omeleto, why bother with Hollywood?
Personally I find real people and everyday life more interesting than the bland reboots and sequels of movies from my youth.
I think it also makes me a more aware person to watch content from people whose lives are totally different than mine, in different countries, with different abilities.
The only good movies and shows I watch are based on sci fi books or computer games that already did the work of building a plot and characters. And there’s a few really comedic writers that do great work- mostly on Apple TV.
Lil younger but same. I should cancel Paramount.
I’m far far far from a younger consumer, and I find that I too have moved almost entirely to online content, mostly in the form of True Crime podcasts and YT channels, History Documentaries, etc…
Especially in non-fiction content, there’s pretty much nothing that paid TV can offer that Social Platforms cannot. It’s the only place where I think this whole internet experiment is actually working as intended; the democratization of knowledge.
I don’t know that I would say “as intended” but it is better than live TV, especially in the educational department. Neil Degrasse Tyson’s yt channel is better than anything on the discovery channel these days. Countless podcasts are better than anything on the history channel. I don’t think they even try to do history anymore. They just air pawn stars reruns 24/7.
I remember a time when the discovery channel, the science channel, and Animal Planet actually had stuff worth watching. I’m pretty sure they’ve replaced it all with garbage reality TV since the business model of cable is basically filling the airwaves so Boomers don’t realize they’ve been paying for something they aren’t watching anymore and finally get around to calling to cancel.
yep, i guess manga/comics/manhwa is somewhat user generated content? but i mostly read those and watch contetn creators aswell
feel like the golden age of movies are over, now its repeative bugdet movies that sell to netflix and so on
True Crime podcasts and YT channels
Female detected! I joke, but I don’t know any men into that content, and I’m ceaselessly amazed at the variety of women who love it. My wife will soon be home, in bed and totally absorbed in watching white trash confess (while trying to lie) to cops about their heinous acts.
I would make one hell of an ugly woman…
I was an archaeology major, hence the history thing. And I’m fascinated by the psychology of crime.
Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining. Creators on the other side, I feel like they do the stuff without script, just making their raw videos without asking if they can put something in the video, it’s entertaining because they make mistakes or have controversial opinions that you can’t see in modern tv.
I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.
Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining.
A lot of slop has wide appeal. And let’s not pretend soap operas and sitcoms and trope genre fiction don’t routinely have wide appeal. The theory that AI can seamlessly replicate pulp fiction / scripted reality TV seems to have held up for the most part, because so much of this content is a canned and formulaic to begin with.
What AIs lack, more than anything, is a face and personality that is distinct to the line of work. There is no real AI “House Style” that gets adhered to. I can pick up a dozen Brian Sanderson novels and get roughly the same experience. But if I ask a Chatbot to “write me a chapter of a Brian Sanderson novel”, what I’m really going to get is a generic jumble of Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Marvel with a few Brian Sanderson tropes thrown in.
I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.
So much of the “spontaneous” content is still heavily scripted and acted on delivery. What makes professional acting impressive is the range - a single person embodying a wide range of personalities and mannerisms. I don’t watch Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis because I’m looking for unpolished delivery.
But the Auteur experience is what draws people in and makes certain works rise above their peer materials. AI has no real artistry. All it does is cut, copy, and paste from a grab bag of established popular materials, hoping it’ll trigger enough nostalgia to be recognized as good.
As styles and tastes shift, I have to wonder what AI is going to look like, given how rooted it is in the moment of instantiation. The long tail will drag, while younger and historically unburdened artists will be out experimenting.
You’re right that good actor makes a difference in average movie. I just want to add that Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis are 67. So those old guys started in theaters where you need to improvise to make people imerse in the play. All they had was a text and their own imagination.
Maybe this lack of improvisation is killing movie industry as I think smaller creators need to improvise a lot and maybe young actors are just like puppets, don’t have this background where they need to put themselves in the role without all this technology around where you can look on everything how other people did it.
Number of technology stimulants these days are insane.
I’ve said it before: there’s good and then there’s good enough. Content that’s “good enough” but easier to access will overshadow content that’s maybe light-years better but harder to acquire. That and attention spans are getting shorter. My kid has the entire Disney library at his fingertips but he’d rather flip between YouTube channels.
What’s crazy to me is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of great old movies that are mostly forgotten.
Look up a movie called “Sorcerer.” Incredible action, fantastic acting, impeccable script.
Full movie.
Can’t show you the old stuff, if we show you the old stuff you wont watch the new stuff
There’s a lemmy sub ‘free movies on Youtube’ or something similar.
Enjoy.
See if you can find the original ‘The Day Of the Jackal’ with Edward Fox. Still the best assassin movie ever made.
Lots of free movies on Tubi. I watched a few old movies that I missed there. I just don’t watch movies much anymore.
Haven’t used that a lot yet.
Yeah it’s called “full movies on YouTube”.
Thanks
First time I hear of Sorcerer, but it sounds awfully similar to this French classic.
Sorcerer is a remake of the original. There are a lot of changes. Both films stand the test of time.
There was an incredibly awful remake using the title ‘Wages Of Fear.’ 2024 on Netflix.
I can testify on that.
In the last two years, I’ve discovered VTubers and streamers in general.
I’ve discovered Geega’s tech talks, Deme’s videogame playthroughs, Michi Mochievee’s amazing (and shocking) IRL lore, VShojo group gaming sessions, Dokibird’s third wheel viral video, Ironmouse’s gremlin moments with Connor, Melody getting raided at the most inopportune times, Henya’s Minecraft trolling exploits, Vedal and Camila’s hopecore video, Neuro-sama’s singing and otherwise general roasting comments on human VTubers, and wholesome gaming streamers like Beacon of Nick.
Not to mention a number of woodworking youtubers teaching about, or otherwise making mistakes when building or restoring furniture.
There’s content for everyone, and traditional TV doesn’t even come close.
It’s like stepping out of a boring office into Alice’s Wonderland.
The creativity is out there and it’s a joy to see what can be without corporate meddling.
The problem with corporate meddling is that they’re increasingly larger and larger percentage of the total wealth in society and the average person doesn’t really have the money to directly pay any of these people so they’re dependence on the women’s Corporation because they’re the only ones who have any money
Yay, my 50 something butt is a younger people.
No it isn’t … 😂 (I’m in the same boat by the way).
If you can injure yourself sleeping, you are NOT younger… 🤣
Sleeping? You should see me get out of bed, stumbling around hunched over for 10 minutes until all my parts agree that, no, it’s not that painful, and, yes, we’ll all start playing nicely soon enough.
I can totally relate to this.
The problem is that this applies to news and information. People are listening to Joe Rogan, who doesn’t try to report the facts, not journalists.
I’m conflicted about Joe Rogan, or at least the concept he had at the start. Clearly he’s fallen down the right-wing rabbit hole but the original intent he had of letting people defend their weird positions is a good one imo. One could argue that the reason the right-wing funnel exists is because there isn’t really space to talk about some of those things on the left.
For example, it’s not crazy to ask questions about vaccines and how they work. However, when people do that those who are educated on the topic will largely assume ill intent by default and treat the people asking questions as if they’re stupid or malicious. There’s some good reasons for that but such an approach is pretty alienating for those who are genuinely seeking information. That leads at least a portion of those people to listen to more right leaning information because they feel like that is the only group taking them seriously.
We need to do better at meeting people where they are instead of assuming they are trying to spread misinformation. Yes it’s true that all the information you need to develop an informed opinion about the vast majority of topics is available on the internet, but finding and understanding that information does take skills and time that not everyone has. In order to understand why a statement or belief is incorrect or misinformed you have to create a space in which it can be discussed without fear and shame driving people away.
Based on the limited amount of his older podcasts that I’ve been exposed to, I do think that Joe genuinely tried to do that, he’s just not particularly well equipped to handle that kind of environment. Over time he fell victim to the same kind of radicalization that he was intending to subvert by letting people share their actual thoughts instead of assuming he already knew what they were going to say.
the original intent he had of letting people defend their weird positions is a good one imo.
If people were meant to defend their weird positions, that would mean that Rogan was supposed to give pushback.
That was clearly never going to happen, because he’d need to seriously investigate his guests claims beforehand.
So instead we got a podcast that’s filled with obvious misinformation with hardly a critical note from Rogan. Dumbing down his audience with BS. Causing more distrust for experts, and anti-intellectualism.
That’s fair. I suppose a better wording would have been “let people articulate their weird positions in their own words”. I think that’s a good thing in conceptual form. However, as you noted, it doesn’t really work if you aren’t equipped to push back and make them address the counter arguments. That’s where Joe is lacking. He’s good at getting people talking and asking layman’s questions but that’s as deep as he can go. He needs to book the guys who can give the rebuttals either on the same show or immediately after.
The big problem with that is potentially: you get one crank against one serious person, the crank can just gish-gallop and the serious person will need hours just to untangle the web of lies.
Yeah well, that’s pretty much where the whole world is at right now. It’s easier to lie than explain the truth
Translation:
Big Social is unsurprisingly winning the competition for individuals’ attention.
Even more reason to seed fedi!
💯
