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.

  • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Darren@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

  • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Viri4thus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      I can’t remember the last time I wanted to go to a theater. My choices are:

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    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?

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      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?

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    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.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        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

        • dontbelasagne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          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.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            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

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    HEY IT’S FREEEEED!!!

    Guys. Remember that? Remember Fred? That’s how we’re going to look back on todays social media content. It will be cringeworthy embarrassments. Meanwhile go watch Fraiser. Go watch Friends. Go watch The Office. Hindsight is 20/20, but those shows hold up decades later. Do you think “Dance hype craze” video 574 is going to be something we remember fondly in 2040?

    Holy shit. 2040. I’m going to be so old. My knees are going to hurt.

    • humiddragonslayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Dropout, New Smosh and even most of the video essay YouTubers that are on Nebula would like to have a word with you

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.