Bearcat |
01-03-2025 08:08 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRichard
(Post 17887444)
Weren't you one of the ones who refused to boycott Peacock? I think there were several people here basically saying... well what can you do? If you were one of those people you have nobody to blame but yourself.
I don't care that they had a 30 day free subscription... I don't care if you actually already had Peacock. Everyone should have streamed that game from someplace like one of these sites and gave them no revenue from it.
And if they doubled down on it after that, continue to do it. If everyone would have stuck to their guns for a short while we wouldn't be dealing with the bullshit now. You reap what you sow.
|
They've had one Peacock exclusive game and 2 Netflix games... we'd still be dealing with it.
I'm sure a ton of casual fans already don't watch games on these services if they don't already pay for that service... and I think that's the main issue with your theory.
27 million people watched the WC game on Peacock and only 3 million were new subscribers, and probably a huge chunk of that spent all of $5 or whatever it was and cancelled immediately.
I believe it was also already the lowest rated of WC weekend last year... would a few million less force them to shut it down already? I dunno, pretty doubtful, IMO.
Netflix has a much larger user base, making new subscribers far less important, similar to Prime... and again, casual fans aren't really going to care. They most likely already have Netflix and will watch because it's the NFL, and their subscriber base can hit record rarings for the NFL now without needing people to sign up... just like Prime.
|