Maybe start by, I dunno, actually promoting your shows? Other than 3-4 shows, the rest are completely ignored by the marketing department
250
NachoNutritious2 days ago
+40
This past year with Severance season 2 on Apple and Wednesday/Stranger Things on Netflix is the first time I’ve seen streamers actually do legit marketing campaigns with cross promotion like legacy media does.
Normally they just drop a single trailer on YouTube and call it job done
40
predator-handshake2 days ago
+28
That’s one of the 3-4 shows. The others are pluribus, ted lasso and to an extent, morning show
28
ArtOfWarfare1 day ago
+6
Don’t they advertise For All Mankind? I can’t say I’ve seen them advertise Morning Show… I actually thought Ted Lasso and Morning Show had ended it’s been so long since I’ve heard about them.
6
Couldnotbehelpd1 day ago
+2
Ted Lasso did end but they’re resurrecting it
2
RSomnambulist2 days ago
+4
Netflix keeps advertising Apex on Peacock. Like, a lot.
4
ijakinov2 days ago
+12
Marketing is a double edged sword. Yeah you can increase viewers and subs but you also could spend more than the value you get out of it. Apple likely focused marketing on shows they believe would be worth it and let people find the other stuff more organically or cheaper marketing. I think what slows their growth the most is not their lack of marketing for certain shows but their overall streaming strategy is just a slower hill to climb. Critics love many Apple shows and they do pretty well award season. It’s fan praise them as like HBO. But we need to remember HBO though( with a few really strong hits) was a service people got for licensed movies and many of those most acclaimed shows were not highly watched. It’s the same with movies, the movies that people love by companies like A24 ones are not the movies that usually dominate the box office. People simply have different tastes in content and marketing isn’t likely gojng to change that.
12
bilyl2 days ago
+2
100%, streaming has completely different incentives. Unless their major driver is ads, marketing for a show should be balanced with whether it meaningfully drives subscription revenue. And unless it’s a halo show I don’t know if it makes sense.
2
bossclifford23 hr ago
+1
just curious: what does it actually bring to a viewer like us if they market or not? i love their shows and would rather they spend money on the show than marketing
1
predator-handshake23 hr ago
Well, there was a brilliant show named Pachinko that came out on Apple TV. They never marketed it. It got cancelled after season 2 due to low viewership so we didn’t get the conclusion.
Not marketing their shows has consequences
0
bossclifford20 hr ago
+1
apple cancels far fewer shows per show than other streamers. they’re making six seasons of for all mankind, a show for which i’ve never met a person in real life that’s watched it, for example
1
predator-handshake13 hr ago
+1
They cancel shows due to poor viewership. When a show is more expensive than the people it brings in, it’s axed.
Also, that’s very anecdotal. FAM is constantly in their top 10 and has a massive following online. The FAM sub is very active.
1
the_ion2 days ago
+294
that is concerning - I feel like it is the only streaming service that is any good anymore.
294
uraniummusic2 days ago
+64
HBO still produces some top-shelf material (and some clunkers), but Apple is giving them a run for their money
64
Love-That-Danhausen2 days ago
+23
It’s impossible to not have some clunkers here and there.
23
dont_quote_me_please2 days ago
+12
No ads (except their own stuff), full 4K, best bitrate (I think)
12
the_ion2 days ago
The discovery merger watered them down (cost cutting, reality TV focus) and now I am worried about the next phase for them. But I do agree. HBO was my #1 streamer for the longest time, but I do think Apple edged them out on the newer content they are producing.
Somebody said that HBO has an advantage due to how long they have been in the game and the back catalog - and I do agree with that statement as well. But who knows what content will be cut in the name of tax write-offs in the next two years?
0
Saar132 days ago
+31
This was literally an "Apple insider" speaking anonymously to Deadline. They shouldn't change anything (maybe a shake-up in the marketing team would be good). Everyone has something to say about what the new Apple CEO will or won't do, and probably nobody knows anything.
31
kriscrox2 days ago
+3
I feel it has so many shows with potential but Apple’s insistence on making everything Apple Glossy ruins more than half of them.
3
Kyuubee2 days ago
+1
Apple is basically at HBO level in terms of quality, especially with sci-fi series. The quality is there, they just don't have the quantity yet.
The problem is HBO did not build their catalog overnight, it took decades to get there. Apple doesn't really have a shortcut to bulk up its lineup unless it starts sacrificing quality, and if it does that it risks pushing people away.
1
tarzic2 days ago
+14
Damn. At first I thought it was: John Ternus is a fan of the Apple TV device, but wants to make it more competitive (such as by encouraging developers to actually make their apps and games support it).
Welp, I guess I'll just continue using it with the same 6 or so apps, lol
14
longjumpingtote2 days ago
+47
> “If anything, John wants to make it more competitive,” says one Apple insider.
I read that as he wants to broaden the content, it's not competetive because there's not enough content.
47
FreshestCremeFraiche2 days ago
+16
This is really the problem IMO. The original series have been great, movies have been a mixed bag with some highlights, it’s overall good original content compared to what the other streaming sites put out under their own label. But Netflix doesn’t just have originals, they have a ton of licensed content, kids content, etc which makes it more of a viable 1 stop shop. Apple TV+ kind of has to be your second, third, etc subscription
16
ascagnel____1 day ago
+3
They did licensed content for a while, but like everything else about that service, it was poorly promoted.
3
mbn88072 days ago
+3
They just need a back catalogue, maybe buy Lionsgate or someone like that.
3
Saar132 days ago
+16
I hope they don't change their content strategy, but I really hope they change their marketing strategy. They know that focusing only on a few original shows is a challenge and growth is slower, but they're getting there. I don't think they'll change much, because Apple follows Jobs' philosophy of being the "intersection between technology and the liberal arts" and doesn't usually make any abrupt changes in direction. And forget about Apple buying a studio. They already have a lot of antitrust regulators watching them, and I doubt a $4 trillion company would attract more attention by buying a Hollywood studio.
16
buttchugreferee2 days ago
+34
Does that include not making us wait multiple years between seasons of shows like Severance and Pluribus?
34
notmyrlacc2 days ago
+20
I just want more Foundation. Season 1 was rough (except for the Empire stuff), but the rest really got good.
20
buttchugreferee2 days ago
+7
Having read the books, I was pleasantly surprised about Foundation.
It was faaar from perfect, but I had plenty of fun with it.
7
LimerickJim2 days ago
+3
It builds around the central premise of the Foundation series but takes influences from other sci fi settings. There's a few things like the AI revolt or Spacers that come directly from Dune/40k.
Asimov had really interesting ideas but was a relatively weak writer/storyteller. I find the changes string together his best concepts into a more compelling story.
3
skylinenick2 days ago
+8
Foundation (the show) accidentally created a far more interesting TV story to tell with the Empire, and I could give two shits about the actual Foundation plotline at this point. Lean in to what worked
8
Bofoz2 days ago
-3
That's why I stopped watching after season 1. Everything with the Cleons was great. Everything else... 🥴
-3
skylinenick2 days ago
+5
You should pick it back up, the show is definitely aware that the Cleons are a major character. I still think it’s a very uneven show, but worth a watch. The Empire storyline remains strong
5
Bionic_Bromando2 days ago
I loved Season 1, trying season 2 and its just so bad, I don’t know what happened
0
m1ndwipe1 day ago
+3
No, it means making less shows like that and more shows about LA realtors.
3
Toby_O_Notoby19 hr ago
+1
TBF, Apple is pretty good with their release schedule. The problem is their two most hyped shows are the ones with the delays. So far they've managed yearly releases with:
- Slow Horses
- Your Friends & Neighbours
- Shrinking
- Mythic Quest
- Dickenson
- Pachinko
- Silo
Etc.
The only astrix is For All Mankind which was pretty much yearly until the last season which took forever (possibly because of Star City).
1
Zalakael2 days ago
+4
Just in time for the Cosmere adaptations. *Great.*
4
ManuMora982 days ago
+1
I hope the Mistborn movie does well so they keep making them
1
SarlacFace2 days ago
+22
So they're gonna enshittify it. Gotcha.
22
OverPotato23222 days ago
Thats Pretty much how capitalism works (Disney and Netflix have done the same thing)
0
Locke662 days ago
+6
The Netflix cancellation rate is ridiculous. I was looking through a list of "recommended" shows when browsing the other day and it's no exaggeration to say 90% of them were 1-2 seasons then cancelled. As the platform matures it's really starting to show that they aren't building a great backlog of stuff to revisit.
6
ijakinov2 days ago
The industry cancellation rate is 60-70% for new shows, Netflix historically has been in the same range. Netflix also doesn’t usually pilots to test out ideas they just let people make whole season. Everybody cancels stuff all the time Netflix makes way more content than everyone else and people meme about it so it seems like they do it at a higher rate. A bunch of the old shows that people like from HBO were cancelled too like deadwood, Rome, Carnivale and sort of the wire.
0
ScreamingChicken2 days ago
+3
Give us the next season of Pachinko, please.
3
DancinWithWolves2 days ago
+3
Love apply tv exactly how it is.
High quality, not a TON of shit, not shoved down your throat.
3
Puzzled-Ad15642 days ago
+5
Is any Apple show a rewatchable like Seinfeld, friends, The Office? They need one of those types of shows where if you can’t find something to watch, you just go with old reliable. But it’s not that kind of streaming service.
5
r1ngr2 days ago
+4
Ted Lasso
4
mirusan012 days ago
+4
Nah it’s not really close to one of those shows tbh
4
huebomont2 days ago
+2
Ted Lasso is dire
2
GonzAnt2 days ago
+2
Shrinking as well
2
Any-Type-63312 days ago
+1
Maybe Acapulco
1
s2the9sublime2 days ago
+2
That's a shame. I'm afraid this will be the beginning of the end. Kind of similar to Remedy Games making the decision to hire an ex-gambling platform CEO and recent EA executive.
2
dafones2 days ago
+2
Oh, I was hoping he was talking about the device.
Annual refreshes would be good for adoption.
(Doesn’t mean you have to buy one every year, just that every year is a good time to buy).
2
LuinAelin1 day ago
+1
Talking about the device.
Some people think you need it to access the service l. They definitely need to change that
1
Megalomania-Ghandi1 day ago
+2
Translation: we are going to raise the price.
2
jawstrock2 days ago
+4
Shoulda bought WBD
4
OverPotato23222 days ago
+5
They don't want to risk taking on a ton of debt and plus, the nepo baby Ellison would still throw a tantrum)
5
ijakinov2 days ago
+2
I’d argue it was likely more strategic reasoning than debt stopping them. Corporate debt is not inherently good but it’s not like consumer resolving debt, it’s not some scary looming problem that’s fast growing and going to overwhelm a company, especially one like Apple. Companies often use debt as tool.
Buying WBD (even excluding the legacy business) involves buying into a bunch of businesses that Apple has likely no interest being in, it involves a lot of assets that likely don’t value that gets baked into the price. The elephant in the room is that the company is valued high partly for its box office revenue which is a revenue stream that arguably might not have a bright feature. Netflix took the approach of embracing the industry because they’d be buying themselves into it. But Apple might be more bearish of the industry or if not might not like the effort they’d need to make WBD be to their standards.
2
jawstrock2 days ago
Yeah, true. Apple could have done such awesome things with those IPs though given they still care about quality and generally produce high quality stuff. Wouldve been nice.
0
UskyldigeX2 days ago
+1
Something smaller like MGM maybe.
1
OverPotato23222 days ago
+2
A24 is a possibility but Cue said their not doing M&As (ofc that could always change in the future but that's not the case right now)
2
timshel_life2 days ago
+1
I agree, needs more reality tv shows, especially the dating ones. Also, maybe a new D*** Wolf show.
1
oppairate2 days ago
+1
everyone is really ready to assume the worst about this. “competitive” could mean all kinds of things.
1
lospollosakhis2 days ago
+1
Competitive sounds like code word for quantity rather than quality.
1
SillyGoatGruff2 days ago
+1
Sounds like new ceo speak for "price increases and ads"
1
tinieblast1 day ago
+1
please pick up the OA mr ternus (he shouted into the void)
1
Excuse_my_GRAMMER1 day ago
+1
Sweet mother of god John
open up the that sweeet Apple wallet Slaaaaaam!! It on an HBO acquisition..
the DC franchise alone will pay off x10
1
kingcolbe1 day ago
+1
Here’s a thought maybe stop having two years between seasons for example a show I’m interested in is filming right now. It probably won’t air until September of next year.
1
LuinAelin1 day ago
+1
They need to promote better and hanve more acquired stuff.
People join netflix for things like stranger things, they stay to watch things like Brooklyn 99 and movies
1
gargolito1 day ago
+1
Translation: lower the quality to maximize profits.
1
Informal_Process22389 hr ago
+1
There are very few things to watch there and the user interface is very annoying because it has tiny font size to begin with and when you hover over a title a shadow hangs over the text making it obscured.
1
dittbub2 days ago
+1
So, ads then?
1
Ethos_Logos2 days ago
+1
Hey if they wanna make it free, I’ll give it a try.
1
NeuHundred1 day ago
+1
It used to be free for a year when you got a new Macbook or iPad, IIRC.
1
Ethos_Logos1 day ago
+1
I had a 3 month trial, but I was under the impression that it was the type to auto-renew once the trial was over.
Some folks might be good at cancelling them in time to stop the auto-renew, I’m not one of them. Since I know that about myself, I just decline those offers.
1
harry_powell2 days ago
+1
They should have some quality control. There’s good shows on Apple TV but that’s because they produce an enormous amount of it.
1
NotClayMerritt2 days ago
+1
Translation:
We're gonna raise prices and commission less things you like in a trade off for expensive slop that stars that one name everyone knows.
1
Neurojazz2 days ago
+1
No amount of marketing is going to replace the poor content. Zero braincells in these corporations.
1
Admylet091 day ago
+1
Wish they would’ve bought WB
1
dudumob2 days ago
-1
if they want to be more competitive they need to stop giving af about quality. they seem to be the only streaming service to still care about quality shows not meant for second screening.
-1
DROOPY18242 days ago
+2
Low key kind of ironic considering they pioneered and sell the screens.
2
CineDog2 days ago
-2
Buy Warner Bros please
-2
the_great_ashby2 days ago
-2
Just buy WBD my guy. Do a favor to you and everybody else.
82 Comments