NBC's Peacock service debuts on July 15, subscriptions range from free to $10 a month

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2020
NBC will enter an increasingly crowded streaming market this July with Peacock, a subscription service that combines popular NBCUniversal shows with a handful of key properties licensed from other Hollywood players.




Comcast and NBCUniversal laid out pricing and availability details for Peacock on Thursday, saying the service will launch on April 15 for Comcast's Xfinity TV and broadband-only customers prior to a wide rollout in the U.S. on July 15. Customers will access the service through one of three subscription tiers: a free tier with limited content called Peacock Free; an ad-supported Peacock Premium tier with access to all content for $5 a month (free for Comcast Xfinity TV and broadband subscribers, as well as select Cox Communications customers); and an ad-free Peacock Premium tier priced at $10 a month.

As reported by Variety, Peacock Free customers gain access to about 7,500 hours of content including next-day streaming of select broadcast TV series, full seasons of older series, movies, daily news and sports including the Olympics, select episodes of Peacock originals, and limited specials like "SNL Vault," "Family Movie Night" and "Olympic Profiles." Peacock Premium ups the ante with 15,000 hours of live and on-demand content including live sports and pre-air access to late-night shows.

In all, the service boasts more than 600 movies and 400 series from a wide swath of genres.

"This is a very exciting time for our company, as we chart the future of entertainment," said NBCU chairman Steve Burke. "We have one of the most enviable collections of media brands and the strongest ad sales track record in the business. Capitalizing on these key strengths, we are taking a unique approach to streaming that brings value to customers, advertisers and shareholders."

Like competitor Disney, NBC is enticing prospective users with exclusives from its vast collection of properties, including "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation." Other shows, like "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," will remain available on alternative streaming platforms including Hulu, which was home to NBCU content prior to its takeover by Disney in 2019. Hulu is expected to retain a number of series, but will likely lose rights to next-day streaming of popular weekly shows.

A deep content library and relatively low barrier of entry -- $5 a month with ads is less than half the price of Netflix and Disney+ with ESPN, but the same price as Apple TV+ -- make Peacock an attractive option for cord cutters looking to jump from cable packages to direct streaming services. Still, with seemingly every major content owner stepping into the streaming arena, customers will inevitably be forced to choose a core group of services. How the competition will shake out remains to be seen.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    The unique aspect of this is the Comcast connection — basically you get Premium (ad-supported) free if you get your internet through them. That’s a decent incentive. 

    With regard to tvOS hardware, will they go the Netflix route, or will they follow the CBS All Access model and participate in Channels in the tv app? Probably somewhere in between?
    doozydozen
  • Reply 2 of 22
    It’s clear the future of TV is subscription apps. Every one of the big content holders knows this. And their transition to a streaming content company will make them a prime takeover target... again.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    Oh enough! I’m not subscribing to all these streaming services. This is not what I had in mind when “cutting the cord.” Although Disney will be okay, many of these services are going to shut down and then they’ll be begging Netflix to take back their shows. Either that, someone will find a way to put all these services under one, flat-rate plan with perhaps one app. Combine that with my HD antenna with free broadcasting on the regular idiot box, then that’s a better starting point,
    techno
  • Reply 4 of 22
    Sounds like a bundling strategy to get people to chose Comcast Internet.
    Phobos7
  • Reply 5 of 22
    technotechno Posts: 737member
    I honestly think the people that make these decisions are so out of touch that they have no clue the average person can't afford all of these subscriptions. They are executives that have lots of disposable income. Most do not.
    entropysjcs2305Phobos7
  • Reply 6 of 22
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,767member
    the monk said:
    Oh enough! I’m not subscribing to all these streaming services. This is not what I had in mind when “cutting the cord.” Although Disney will be okay, many of these services are going to shut down and then they’ll be begging Netflix to take back their shows. Either that, someone will find a way to put all these services under one, flat-rate plan with perhaps one app. Combine that with my HD antenna with free broadcasting on the regular idiot box, then that’s a better starting point,
    It sounds like you’re describing cable tv. On an app. With local on the side. 
    mwhiteOfer
  • Reply 7 of 22
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    techno said:
    I honestly think the people that make these decisions are so out of touch that they have no clue the average person can't afford all of these subscriptions. They are executives that have lots of disposable income. Most do not.
    Why do you believe it is thought people will get all the services? I and I assume other people subscribe to a service for a while to watch some tent-pole show, then cancel for a while. Plenty of people will sub for a while to watch The Office. 
  • Reply 8 of 22
    Live news broadcasts and same day screening of other shows should really entice me to signup for premium service. See, that’s the problem without cable there is no legal live tv available. What’s next?
  • Reply 9 of 22
    Japhey said:
    the monk said:
    Oh enough! I’m not subscribing to all these streaming services. This is not what I had in mind when “cutting the cord.” Although Disney will be okay, many of these services are going to shut down and then they’ll be begging Netflix to take back their shows. Either that, someone will find a way to put all these services under one, flat-rate plan with perhaps one app. Combine that with my HD antenna with free broadcasting on the regular idiot box, then that’s a better starting point,
    It sounds like you’re describing cable tv. On an app. With local on the side. 
    Sure.  I’d like to see a less expensive version. That cable bill was a waste.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    Sounds like a bundling strategy to get people to chose Comcast Internet.
    Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever will I give those crooks another dime. At three different service addresses they have lied to me, refused to provide written contracts, and snuck in additional features without consent.

    Comcast is, without exception, the single most disreputable company on the planet. Thankfully our telco offers gigabit fiber (and unmetered data) for less than what Comcast charges for an inferior product. 
    edited January 2020 dedgecko
  • Reply 11 of 22
    techno said:
    I honestly think the people that make these decisions are so out of touch that they have no clue the average person can't afford all of these subscriptions. They are executives that have lots of disposable income. Most do not.
    I agree. I have Disney+ which Verizon is paying the first year. Apple+ which is also complimentary for the first year. I doubt I will keep them after the initial trial. After a couple of Disney movies for the kids in the first few days; I have used again. I’ve been watching the Servant and Morning show and Dickinson but nothing so far is a must have.  
  • Reply 12 of 22
    I agree. I have Disney+ which Verizon is paying the first year. Apple+ which is also complimentary for the first year. I doubt I will keep them after the initial trial. After a couple of Disney movies for the kids in the first few days; I have not used again. I’ve been watching the Servant and Morning show and Dickinson but nothing so far is a must have.  
  • Reply 13 of 22
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    For some reason this prompts me to think of Captain Peacock
    Phobos7
  • Reply 14 of 22
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    the monk said:
    Oh enough! I’m not subscribing to all these streaming services. This is not what I had in mind when “cutting the cord.” Although Disney will be okay, many of these services are going to shut down and then they’ll be begging Netflix to take back their shows. Either that, someone will find a way to put all these services under one, flat-rate plan with perhaps one app. Combine that with my HD antenna with free broadcasting on the regular idiot box, then that’s a better starting point,

    Yeh, as others have said, putting them all under one plan is essentially just another cable bill.

    But, there's more to it than that:   cable typically provides hundreds of channels few of which ever get seen.  But it still charges premium dollars for them.   Essentially cable companies are able to sell high priced bundles that are big on quantity but short on quality.

    Theoretically, streaming subscriptions could fix that.   But that will have its own problems:  Will you subscribe to a streaming service simply because you like one of their shows?  That is essentially the cable model (quantity over quality).  While that might be financially acceptable over one subscription, what happens when you do that with 5 or 10 subscriptions?

    Plus, dividing things up into individual subscriptions will promote additional tribalism in the U.S. where each tribe will only subscribe to those services that tell them what they want to hear -- and the opposing voices will not only not be heard but forever eliminated.

    This will have a lot of ramifications as it rolls out into society.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    techno said:
    I honestly think the people that make these decisions are so out of touch that they have no clue the average person can't afford all of these subscriptions. They are executives that have lots of disposable income. Most do not.
    Why do you believe it is thought people will get all the services? I and I assume other people subscribe to a service for a while to watch some tent-pole show, then cancel for a while. Plenty of people will sub for a while to watch The Office. 
    The winners will be those who do the best job of managing things as people turn their subscriptions on and off. Prime Video does this well, and it is what the tv app is modeled after. The "Channels" concept. Amazon has the bandwidth to pull it off. So does Apple.

    One place where you can maybe glimpse the future is PBS. We currently have two PBS video subscriptions -- a PBS "Passport" membership that works with the PBS Video app, and the PBS-Masterpiece "channel" within Prime Video. The PBS Video app works well, but the selection is limited, especially when it comes to "Walter's Choice" -- only a few of them are available, or they'll only have one season of something instead of being up-to-date. But the Prime Video channel has all of the "Walter Presents" material. Everything plays smoothly and is easy to find. I don't know if this is a licensing difference, or bandwidth limitations, or what.

    http://www.walterpresents.com

    So when this year is out, we'll likely just stick with Amazon for PBS, unless tv Channels has it by then with the same selection.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    YP101YP101 Posts: 159member
    I could not watch everyday for netflix(t-mobile+$4 per month).
    If I adding new subscription base service then I would add dsney+ for my child.
    I don't mind watch ad. I might get the free version.

  • Reply 17 of 22
    A deep content library and relatively low barrier of entry — $5 a month with ads is less than half the price of Netflix and Disney+ with ESPN, but the same price as Apple TV+ — make Peacock an attractive option for cord cutters looking to jump from cable packages to direct streaming services.
    I like how we're comparing with the Disney+/ESPN+ bundle to try to make this look more attractive. Disney+ alone or ESPN+ alone are both in this range and don't include commercials. Heck, for less than Netflix, I can get Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu with ads. That bundle is only a few dollars more than the ad free package from The Peacock. This is most comparable to CBS All Access which I don't subscribe to because it isn't a good deal.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    techno said:
    I honestly think the people that make these decisions are so out of touch that they have no clue the average person can't afford all of these subscriptions. They are executives that have lots of disposable income. Most do not.
    Why do you believe it is thought people will get all the services? I and I assume other people subscribe to a service for a while to watch some tent-pole show, then cancel for a while. Plenty of people will sub for a while to watch The Office. 
    The winners will be those who do the best job of managing things as people turn their subscriptions on and off. Prime Video does this well, and it is what the tv app is modeled after. The "Channels" concept. Amazon has the bandwidth to pull it off. So does Apple.

    One place where you can maybe glimpse the future is PBS. We currently have two PBS video subscriptions -- a PBS "Passport" membership that works with the PBS Video app, and the PBS-Masterpiece "channel" within Prime Video. The PBS Video app works well, but the selection is limited, especially when it comes to "Walter's Choice" -- only a few of them are available, or they'll only have one season of something instead of being up-to-date. But the Prime Video channel has all of the "Walter Presents" material. Everything plays smoothly and is easy to find. I don't know if this is a licensing difference, or bandwidth limitations, or what.

    http://www.walterpresents.com

    So when this year is out, we'll likely just stick with Amazon for PBS, unless tv Channels has it by then with the same selection.
    If I was to pick an Channel that Apple TV+ is most like, it would be PBS. That doesn’t bode well when the free subscriptions run out at the end of the year.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Oh look, yet another case of “want to see this one show? Subscribe to yet another streaming service!”

    NO!!!

    One streaming platform, ok.
    Two, maybe, if there’s a lot of content.

    More?

    One streaming platform each for access to content from every single studio whose content we used to get on Netflix?

    PISS OFF!!!
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 20 of 22
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dysamoria said:
    Oh look, yet another case of “want to see this one show? Subscribe to yet another streaming service!”

    NO!!!

    One streaming platform, ok.
    Two, maybe, if there’s a lot of content.

    More?

    One streaming platform each for access to content from every single studio whose content we used to get on Netflix?

    PISS OFF!!!

    Yes, America has, for decades now, been stuck on TV as a way to fill their idle moments.   One wonders how far the corporates can push that till it breaks and Americans return to other ways to fill their time.   For myself, I watch at most about 30-60 minutes a day and none of it is new material -- it's mostly DVDs and even VCR for even older shows. 

    I have friends who watch very little TV -- but still pay hundreds each month for cable.   I keep wondering how long they will support that rip-off.
    edited January 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.