- Advertisement -spot_img


Entertainment Industry

Radio Facts: New Study Highlights Movie and TV Streaming Sites' Increasing Dominance

The influx of TV Streaming sites and movie streaming services have had a massive impact on how studios and distributors do business in the entertainment industry.

Similarly, the streaming revolution has produced major changes in how consumers worldwide, especially Americans, engage with film and TV. A new study by crowd-sourcing company Piplsay, a market research analyst company, used a survey of 50,000 Americans to highlight some of these trends.

Their survey showed that 60% of respondents spend more time on streaming than pay-TV services, highlighting the increasing dominance of streaming content versus traditional subscription content. Piplsay reports that 38% of Gen Zers watch content exclusively on streaming services, the highest of any age groups.

Source: Piplsay

Three types of VOD (video-on-demand) content dominate the OTT landscape (over-the-top, referring to streaming services offered directly to consumers over the internet). SVOD refers to video-on-demand content made available through a service subscription (Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc). AVOD refers to streaming content that is free to the consumer but advertising-supported, like Tubi TV Shows or movies on Tubi or Crackle TV Shows and movies

TVOD refers to 'transactional' video content, available for a one-time fee (think digital rentals or purchases via Apple, Amazon, etc). The study showed that, of those polled, 60% typically prefer paid SVOD streaming services over free AVOD streaming alternatives.

Source: Piplsay

The vast majority surveyed predominantly consumer content on TVs (58%), with a distant second consuming content mostly on mobile devices (17%), followed by laptops (11%) and desktop computers (8%). A majority of Gen Zers watch content on mobile phones (58%), versus 45% of millennials. These findings are interesting not only for the relevant generational differences, but to highlight that mobility of viewing is not the draw that some might expect.

Source: Piplsay

A whopping 66% of all respondents watch content on a static device (TV, desktop) versus 34% for all mobile devices combined (mobile, laptop, tablet).

This finding suggests that while price, home viewing flexibility, and other streaming attributes may be factored in the proliferation of streaming viewership, the mobility of content may be less of a factor than anticipated. (Of course, factors like watching streaming services on a desktop at work, or watching streaming services at home via mobile devices, may complicate this picture).

The type of content typically viewed showed little variation between Pay TV and OTT, with movies dominating each at 22% of viewed content. TV shows came in a close 2nd for both Pay TV (19%) and OTT (19%), respectively. Rounding out the top 5 content preferences for Pay TV were news programs (13%), sports (12%), and cartoons (10%).

Source: Piplsay

News (11%), sports (10%), and lifestyle (10%), by contrast, rounded out OTT’s top-watched programming. While movies and TV thus dominated both Pay TV and OTT viewing, it is noteworthy for content producers and distributors that cartoons skew towards Pay TV with lifestyle content having a uniquely high showing for OTT subscribers.

Source: Piplsay

Differences in time spent watching content daily between Pay TV and streaming are where things really get interesting. For Pay TV subscribers, a considerable 34% of subscribers watch over 3 hours a day with 25% watching between 2-3 hours of content daily--a combined 59% of subscribers thus watch an average of over two hours of content per day.  17% of respondents don’t watch Pay TV daily, and a combined 24% of respondents watch less than two hours daily.

A substantial 28% of OTT subscribers, by contrast, don’t watch content daily. For those that do, 21% watch more than 3 hours daily, with a near tie for those who watch 2-3 hours (20%) and 1-2 hours (20%) daily. Rounding the findings out, only 11% watch less than an hour of content daily. These findings suggest both that OTT subscribers are more likely to intermittently view content and that, for daily OTT viewers, it’s a relatively even split between content viewing time over one hour daily.

These findings have considerable relevance for entertainment industry professionals that have concerns over the impact of the streaming revolution on the moviegoing public. Piplsay’s findings highlighted that a full third of respondents’ habits have remained the same (compared to three years prior), with 21% attending theaters more than three years ago.

Source: Piplsay

At the same time, a relevant 28% attend theaters less than three years’ prior, and 18% have stopped going to movies in the theater altogether. The study thus highlights that while 54% of respondents’ movie-going habits have not been heavily impacted by the rise of streaming, 46% have reduced their movie-going habits--most worrisome, of course, is the nearly one-fifth of respondents who have stopped going to the theater entirely.

For those who don’t go to the theater often, 44% cite the time and expense of seeing movies in theaters as the major reason for forgoing the theatrical experience.

Source: Piplsay

35% highlight that they’ve predominantly moved towards the streaming space for their viewing experience, with 21% citing a lack of sufficiently quality films as the reasons for their diminished attendance. This suggests a relevant but limited impact of the streaming revolution on the decision to avoid seeing films in theaters, at about 16% of respondents (35% of the 46% that attend theaters less).

For worried industry professionals, time and expenses being largely cited as the reasons for diminished theatrical attendance can be considered somewhat hopeful if the industry can find a way to reduce ticket costs and time incurred. Piplsay does highlight a gender disparity in respondents who attend theaters less than before, with 47% of women citing price as a factor compared to 38% of men.

Finally, for attendees who see films often, the ‘big-screen’ experience proves a major draw for continued theater attendance. One-third of moviegoers polled highlight the importance of the big screen experience as their reason for attending, and 26% cite that both the big-screen experience and fun/social factors form the basis of their reasons for attending the theater--the big-screen theater experience is thus relevant for a whopping 59% of the moviegoing public polled. The highest single factor contributing towards frequent theater attendance, however, is for fun/social experience, at 41%.

Source: Piplsay

Altogether these trends speak to a huge impact of streaming services on the entertainment landscape. Pay TV is still a sizeable chunk of the market at 40%, but the considerable dominance of OTT streaming services highlights the challenges faced by Pay TV to retain subscribers in the new landscape.

The intermittency of streaming-dominant consumers will prove a challenge to ad-supported, ‘free’ VOD services over their SVOD siblings. Paid subscription services care that their monthly subscribers grow, not whether or not paid subscribers watch content daily. By contrast, ad-supported streaming services need as much active views as they can get (much like ad-supported television). As a consequence, the challenge for AVOD services is threefold: like SVOD services, (1) they want to increase the relative share of OTT consumers vs. Pay TV, but they also (2) would benefit from an increase in their relative share vs. paid streaming services, while (3) also finding ways to increase viewer commitment as a means to grow ad-revenue.

The challenge for theatrical distribution that the streaming revolution poses is also considerable. The ‘big screen’ experience is still a draw, but consumers’ feeling that the money or time spent going to the theater is increasingly burdensome is a strong counter-pressure (along with many feeling that the quality of movies isn’t enough of a draw to mobilize them to the theater). 

The ease and low-commitment of home viewing in the new streaming world supports a flexibility with movie viewership which makes experimenting with more novel films an easier draw for audiences. At the same time, theaters need to highlight ways to make movie-going more desirable with and accessible to audiences, while production companies aiming for theatrical distribution need to pay careful attention to the quality of their films to survive against the growing streaming landscape.

This all will continue to get more complicated as new major streaming players like Warner Bros.’ HBO Max and NBCUniversal’s Peacock take the field this year. Can Pay TV and theater chains find ways to draw audience eyes and pocketbooks away from increasingly tense streaming alternatives? That’s the big question. As the Piplsay study highlights, the streaming revolution hasn’t yet produced a resounding ‘no’ on that score, but it is safe to say the biggest challenges are far from over.

New Study Highlights Movie and TV Streaming Sites' Increasing Dominance

The influx of TV Streaming sites and movie streaming services have had a massive impact on how studios and distributors do business in the entertainment industry.Similarly, the streaming revolution has produced major changes in how consumers worldwide, especially Americans, engage with film and TV. A new study by crowd-sourcing company Piplsay, a market research analyst company, used a survey of 50,000 Americans to highlight some of these trends. Their survey showed that 60% of respondents spend more time on streaming than pay-TV services, highlighting the increasing dominance of streaming content versus traditional subscription content.

Global Music Recording Market Report 2018/023 – Drivers and Restraints of Growth – ResearchAndMarkets.com

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Music Recording Market Global Briefing 2018" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.North America was the largest region in the music recording market in 2017, accounting for around 55% market share. Western Europe was the second largest region accounting for around 22% market share.

The Entertainment Industry’s Dangerous Game of ‘Ego and Tenure’

radiofacts.com Stephanie Mills statement about R&B on a TV One appearance made the rounds recently and her point is incredibly valid but she also leaves a couple of things out. In this appearance, she talks about how fake the industry can be and that the love that we give is often not reciprocated amongst industry brethren. "Keep in mind when you are invited to someone's house, you are the entertainment" the veteran R&B singer states on this appearance. and she is correct... BUT

"...if what you are doing does not have perceived VALUE you are pretty much just DONE"

Stephanie states what many of us in the industry already know to be true. The people we work with and do business with are rarely our true friends but so is the girl at the Starbucks we get coffee from or our favorite teller at the bank. While there are always exceptions we must never forget we work in a lifestyle industry. This means it's an industry that has no set hours or standard work rules. You can eat with people you work with, drink with people you work with and go to events with people you work within any industry but in OUR industry the difference is it's all part of the job. In any other industry, you may have developed a true friendship with these instances. Can we have TRUE friends in the entertainment industry? You will have to wait to find that out when you are out of work or in need, then let me know how that works out for you. BTW, don't call me, just send me an email. I consider clients my BEST friends, they can hate me to the core but I STILL consider them my friends because they believe in and respect what I do and at the end of the day this is a business and "what we DO" is paramount. Notice I said "DO" not "DID." (my dark humor is always ready) The entertainment industry has always been based on who's hot over who's not. Living in LA for half my life, taught me many lessons, one of the greatest ones is that fame is fleeting and those who reinvent themselves have the best chance at legacy and longevity but it can mostly be done when the stage is still yours (pertaining to maintaining a career in the industry per se). Click Next to read more The first time I learned the value of "friends" over "business" was when I was a radio PD. I got fired and all my new friends were nowhere to be found. I was calling them for support and to let them know I needed work, but unbeknownst to me my stock plummetted and my value was non-existent to them. There was nothing that I could do for them. There were one or two people who picked up the phone but 98% of them did not. Of course, when I got another gig they all reappeared and asked "where have you been?" but I had graduated with a mental business degree at that point and the lesson had been learned. I have never been mad at the process. I APPRECIATED the education. Many of us put our blood, sweat, and tears into the game in the early days of our careers so much so that we miss a great amount of time with our families and true friends. These most important things need consistent nurturing in order to maintain a healthy status. Of course, we expect the same level of commitment in return. But one day the industry will be gone, family and friends can last a lifetime. I have literally seen people DIE when the industry is done with them. NOTHING in the industry is more important than your TRUE friends and family.


I'm not into bragging about my tenure because in an industry like ours I think it hurts more than helps. The level of respect that we get is often based on what our current offerings are or for those who know us. If they don't see us OFTEN they don't know us. So, during my (let's just say MANY) years in the industry, I've seen people state their tenure chest out with head held high, not bringing anything to the table and demanding a plate with the current most successful people for past deeds in a past industry. In a perfect world you would get that respect but in a youth-driven industry, with a 16-year-old singer at the head of the table, he's not impressed. You can only be older and valuable when you are current. Long tenures to many mean nothing more than OLD and DATED. What you HAVE done simply doesn't bear the weight to what you ARE doing and if what you are doing does not have perceived VALUE you are pretty much just DONE. Unfortunately, once you are viewed as the old man or woman in the room there are few options except to completely reinvent yourself or exit the industry and build a new house (vs room) somewhere else with your leverage as the foundation. When we make our careers about 'ego and tenure' even when we are currently successful the fall is akin to jumping off a cliff with a defective parachute. It's NEVER been about ego and tenure it's ALWAYS about what you can do and how valuable you are. How you see yourself is not as important as how others see you in our industry so you better see yourself with some other damn options.


Mills comes from a generation of singers who were told to shut up, sing and get your song on the radio. Don't have any political or social views and be satisfied with being a product and brand instead of a human with feelings. The list of artists who were ripped off and often died broke, on drugs or who gave up on the industry is never-ending from her generation but today's artists (thanks to Social Media) have had a crash course in marketing that lets them actually SEE their value firsthand and to be entrepreneurs and their own A&R. They can get addicted to the process of promoting themselves get millions of fans and use that leverage for confidence and branding as a direct connection to outside corporations to generate massive wealth with nobody in the middle the only thing THEY still have to learn is about money.

Expect What You LEAST Expect

Mills is an amazing singer and a true talent but she is not the first talent to speak out during the sunset of their music industry (not entertainment) careers. While everything that she is saying is completely valid, it ALWAYS comes off, unfortunately, as sour grapes at this juncture. It's ALWAYS more relevant and thought-provoking to speak when you have the greatest platform but it's also incredibly risky. We are not used to seeing this version of Stephanie and many times the artists who ARE on top don't want to rock the boat. They know everything that she is saying is true but they look at her statements as "bitter" UNTIL they are in the same position years down the road at which point THEY are perceived the same way.  The IRONY of the situation is at that point it is often too late to make a point because new artists are not trying to hear it. They have to go through it to get to it. The same rule applies for those of us who are not singers or entertainers but who WORK in the music and radio industry. I've seen many people die of broken hearts after a landslide fall from grace when the industry was done with them. They were so caught up in the moment (and some moments last for 30 years) they thought they had friends for life only to find out when they need those people most they are not there. As I have stated MANY times on this site THIS IS A BUSINESS. We must respect that. And a business is only as good as the supply,  demand and in this case CURRENT(cy), as in current and profitability. If there is no longer a demand, people move on to see where the new demand is. We still have a ton of supply or inventory based on what we want to give but the industry no longer wants what certain people are selling. The most valuable asset older industry people have is LEVERAGE. If you can make money within the industry then you can also make it without the industry. The options for using our leverage in other fields are numerous. You can never create a paying career out of telling everyone what's wrong with the industry but you can KEEP a career by constantly reinventing yourself and making sure you have a backup plan. In the industry, things can change in an instant and the best way to respond to that is to expect what you least expect. Ciao

Shelli and Irving Azoff to be honored with City of Hope’s Prestigious 2011 Spirit of Life ® Award

First Time a Married Couple Receives Highest Philanthropic HonorLOS ANGELES - Recognizing that philanthropy is a team effort, City of Hope's Music and Entertainment Industry group will honor Shelli and Irving Azoff with the 2011 Spirit of Life ® Award.

Latest news

- Advertisement -spot_img