Ed, each of these services are certainly competing nose to nose. For subscribers first, and then for time. The days of choosing between three simultaneous network fixed offerings are certainly long gone, but every network and service is competing for minutes of time. It's now multidimensional , yes, but Netflix which grew for many reasons including that studios gave it content for pennies on the dollar (Jeff Zucker was right) now has many smart challengers and it has to figure out how to grow ad impressions and not just subscribers.  I remember the articles years ago describing how Netflix data resources and system were so sophisticated they understood viewers better than anyone. Maybe that's no longer so, or maybe it never was?  

'"Awards...! That's all they do out here. 'Best Facist Dictator: Adolph Hitler...!'" Woody Allen as Alvy Singer in "Annie Hall..."

Dave even at their height DVR/R recorder usage never amounted to mare than 15% of all viewing and it was mostly the prime time entertainment shows and specials. 

I'm not saying that appointment viewing is dead. In fact, it accounts for most of linear TV and some streaming viewing so, that's probably about half of our total TV viewing time. However, the way that Netflix and, for that matter, most other paid streaming services, are organized focuses almost entirely on the on-demand function. As a result--in my humle opinion---while it may look ---based on subscriber tallies and Nielsen viewing "share" data--- as if these services are competing nose to nose with eachother, actually, they aren't. And the practise of allowing subscribers to subscribe or cancel anytime they wish--instead of requiring long term contracts--or cancellation notices--- contributes to the less orderly situation.

@Joel Rubinson: Congratulations.

Uh, I'm spooked by the potential of phone salespeople tweaking their pitch according to what AI identifies as the prospect's mood.

Ed, I wouldn't be so quick to write off "appontment viewing" as a behavior. Yes. Much has changed, but we've had video casette recorders, DVRs and on-demand viewing in the majority of US households for more than 30 years, so the idea of watching something "now or never" hasn't really been a reality since the 1980s. So, dropping new episodes weekly and maintaining shooting schedule during the season has proven very successful for streamers Like Apple TV+ and HBO MAX. And, Netflix has even started to test the concept with a toe in the water with half-season drops. The point is, even in an on-demand world you can drive viewers to develop daily and weekly viewership habits if you are smart, disciplined and long-term focused. It would behoove Neflix to do that or in will soon face a race to the bottom on subscription costs. And, in that world, it will lose to Amazon Prime and Google/YouTube.

Good analysis. I beat you to it by a month! https://blog.joelrubinson.net/2026/06/where-the-advertising-landscape-is-headed-by-2030-and-why-and-what-to-do-about-it/

As I just posted on another forum, the main difference between the old days and what Netflix faces now is the demise of appointment viweing in streaming, at least. In olden times viewers were obliged to make spcific choices hour after hour, day after day between truly warring networks, TV stations and, to a lesser extent, cable channels. You either watched a show or you missed it--period. 

But now, everything on streamig--or almost everything--is on-demand. FASTs excepted, consumers are no longer forced to make hard and sometimes difficult choices--or go without. This puts a blurry haze over the once vital distinctions in program quality, how the shows were scheduled, the imporatnce of time slots and lead-ins, etc. that organized consumer behavior where "TV" was concerned. The various program content services are no longer warring, face to face with eachother. And consumers are left to their own devices as to content selections, whether to drop or keep a service after seeing some new show it just made available, etc. In other words with the freedon of on-demand, we have lost much of our loyalties to individual shows or channels. We can access them anytimec we want and this leaves Netflix in a quandry--can it really be all things to all segments--or is a sharper focus needed?

100% Jack, and as you know well from your Turner days, it only starts with programming. If they can't also run a strategic, effective and efficient tune-in promotion and marketing program, they will never be able to predictably build, retain and grow the audiences they need on that programming.

Programming for subscription revenue is so very different than programming for ad revenue. Setting a balance is now their challenge. Doable, of course. 

Tech giants will be swooping in....Neftlx already has exclusive rights to air the 2027 & 2031 Women's World Cup.

I can imagine the Men's airing on Apple TV since they certainly have more cash than any broadcast network apart from Disney.

Given Trump's history of obviously flagrant falsehoods and exaggeration, why would anyone ever believe what he says?  He is the king of "fake news". 

Kids need to be kids let them play as you said Gord and good article as well.

You are right! It was a great idea by Colossus and covered by "Agency Daily" on May 21:  www.mediapost.com/publications/article/415237/colossus-inserts-kayem-hot-dogs-into-historic-amer.html?edition=142680

This has been a case study in flushing news and programming brand equity down the toilet by opinion writers (VERY different job than journalist) and TV news virgins. They don't even know that they don't know, but are sure they are smartest people in the room.
They're not....

Terrific idea when when Colossus in Boston did the Exact same idea for Kayem a couple of monthds ago... 

https://whdh.com/news/kayem-mfa-unveil-traveling-art-exhibit-featuring-historic-american-figures-with-hot-dogs/

If I understand it correctly, Nielsen is trying to replace hand written diaries with a system where a respondent tells it what was listened to via a smart phone--in smaller markets. But the problem with the diaries was that they were obtaining bad information---listening time overstated, station reach understated, etc. Has the new, "call it in" system been validated against meter measurements to show that the bad data problem has been dealt with?

AI Chatbots are functionally most equivalent to interns. A team of good interns. Anyone who has managed interns know that they come with a mix of costs and benefits. Giving everyone interns is mostly helpful but not remotely revolutionary. It's too bad that the entire AI ecosystem is clogged with people at every level who's self-interest is to overhype the technology, both positively and negatively.

I like going to the movie theater I go once a month which I just saw Master Of The Universe this past weekend was pretty good I enjoyed it.

Gord is right that as consumers we are being poorly treated. But we are only partly at fault. Industry consolidation has led to less competition which means fewer brand and product options for us. Consolidation also contributes to informal collusion and sameness among brands. 

Refrigerators? Yes, but let's look at the biggest offenders: automobiles. I thought they were for transportation, but I was wrong. Unabashed luxury, entertainment, phone, the internet, email, even massages while you drive. And at an average price of over $49,000 (for a "car," not necessarily the ubiquitous SUV), that's a lot of non-transportation-related add-ons.

But seriously, I didn't ask for any of this.  

Sounds like you're saying Make America Great Again - huh Gord? :-)

Dan, I agree with you about the familiarity bias in such surveys. Also, I can't imagine what a respondent is thinking about when answering about his "degree of "trust" in the CBS or ABC TV network news?   So what does a low score for CBS among Democrats mean--a response to the recent shakeup at "60 Minutes"--maybe? But does it also apply to the network's nightly news, its early AM show, its weekend political interviews? And more to the point, does any of this affect the response to advertising on those networks? 

The best way to go at the "trust" thing is to do it on a show by show basis--but that kind of specific questionning is impossible for the online researchers as it takes too long to execute. So, instead, we get highly impressionistic evaluations which may provide some interesting directional evidence--but little more.