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

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

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

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

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

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

Would someone explain?

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

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

I know. I’m weird and stuff.

  • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only thing I can think of is licencing fees: if Disney don’t actually own the rights to a particular show, then they’re paying fees to be able to provide it on their platform. If the number of people watching that series after subscribing to the service isn’t high enough (and I imagine Disney put a lot of effort into tracking what subscribers are watching in order to determine which series are motivating people to start or continue a subscription), then effectively that series is losing them money.

    It is, however, one of those cost-cutting measures that will bite them in the ass within 6-12 months. Cutting back the catalogue too much and only leaving the super popular stuff available will lead to subscribers going “well I’ve watched everything I want to watch, why am I spending money on this?” sooner than if there’s a wider catalogue with a much broader range. Most people aren’t going to keep subscribing to a streaming service just to watch the same 6 things on a loop.

    There is, ultimately, only one solution to streaming services taking away the stuff you want to watch…

    🏴‍☠️ 🏴‍☠️ 🏴‍☠️

    • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      And this is why I’m thinking I need to have sit down with my partner. We are streaming several platform and I think it’s time to start cutting back. Perhaps cycling through different services throughout the year.

      I miss when it was just all on Netflix. Way too many platforms now…

      • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I have friends who cycle between the different streaming services every 3 months, and it seems to work for them. So that’s definitely viable depending on your viewing habits.

        I miss when it was all just on Netflix too. While I kind of get how the competition of many streaming services is supposed to be better for customers due to the lack of monopolies… it doesn’t feel like the current situation has been better for customers. All it’s done is split the catalogue over multiple services, so now you either pay for access to all of them, or you pay one service for a much smaller catalogue.

        • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s funny you mention monopoly because I was think that as I was posting. I hate monopolies, but in the beginning Netflix was both affordable and had it all. Now, they are all hiking their prices constantly and completely mangling everything.

          • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m beginning to think that what would be in the best interests of customers is all streaming platforms have all the content, so you only need to choose one in order to have access to everything. Then the streaming services would have to compete with each other to offer the best prices and service.

            But obviously it would be less profitable for them, so that’s not going to happen.

            • nybble41@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The monopoly issue won’t be resolved so long as there is artificial exclusivity over the content, i.e. copyright. That’s the most critical monopoly of all. Different streaming services can’t compete on how good they are at streaming because their content isn’t interchangeable; you can’t just swap one show for another even when they’re similar in style and production quality.

              The absolute minimum requirement to resolve this would be obligatory “reasonable and non-discriminatory” mechanical licenses allowing any streaming service to stream any content on equal terms regardless of source.