Peacock increases its prices by $3
Peacock has announced that it is increasing its subscription prices by $3. This is the third price hike in 3 years.
The cheapest plan, which is the ad-supported Peacock Premium plan, will cost $10.99 per month (up from $7.99/month). Peacock Premium Plus, which is the ad-free subscription, will cost $16.99 per month (up from $13.99). The new prices come into effect from July 23.
Variety reports that NBCUniversal executives believed that Peacock is underpriced compared to its rivals. Not anymore it isn't. 9to5Mac notes that ad-supported plans for Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu subscriptions cost $9.99 per month, while Netflix and Paramount+ offer their ad-supported plan for $7.99 per month. Even Apple TV+ costs $9.99 per month. Peacock is now more expensive than the rest.
Believing that the streaming service is underpriced is some flawed logic, considering that Peacock is only available in the U.S. Most of the other services are available in multiple Countries. Peacock has many live sports including NFL, NBA, WWE, Premier League, Golf, etc. This is likely the reason why the company has hiked its prices. But that is a good way to lose subscribers, and users are angry.
Not everyone watches sports, many people don't watch any, and even if you count those who like sports, they probably just like one or maybe two. The fact that Peacock is bundling sports and TV/Movies together is the problem. It would probably benefit subscribers if the company offered a lower tier plan without the sports content. Take a look at Apple, it has an MLS Season Pass, which is optional. Speaking of which, Apple is also working on adding more sports content to its plans. Following the success of F1 The Movie, the Cupertino company wants to get the streaming rights for Formula 1 racing.
Peacock is said to be testing a "Select" tier with NBC and Bravo seasons along with some other titles, for $7.99 per month. The streaming service reportedly has 41 million subscribers.
They are only one that doesn’t work on Linux. Absolutely stupid. Peacock is the only streaming service that is stuck in 2008….
Totally get it—when free access online is the norm around you, paying feels more like showing off than necessity. It makes way more sense to spend money on essentials like healthy food than on endless subscriptions. As you said, “when you can go free, go free; when you have to pay, just pay”—it’s smart, not cheating.
Try the Public Library; ours offers some incredible deals in literature, modern and classic DVDs, digital magazines, ebooks, audiobooks, Mango [for language learning], and, usually, there are some highly literate individuals who are more than willing to discuss any recent topic with erudition.
Streaming–highly addictive and passive. One show after another, and the viewer doesn’t even remember the names of the shows or characters or understand the deeper layers involved in movies {if there was one}.
Well at first I was convinced that cutting the cord was a good option. But the fragmentation of streaming where you need to buy multiple services at ever increasing prices is starting to become less of a value. I don’t plan on going back to cable, or satellite that’s for sure. But I will pick my streaming services more carefully.
at this rate they arte going I might have to go back to my old days of Jack Sparrow.
Wow—a 40% hike on the ad-supported plan and a new ‘Select’ tier at $7.99!?Seems like streaming is inching back toward cable pricing. In the fantasy gaming world of Jalwaa (jalwaa-game.com), we deliberately structure economy tiers to offer clear value—seasonal passes with exclusive perks contrasted against free, ad-supported access. Studying how Peacock balances tiering and user sentiment actually inspired our own pricing model. Hope they keep content-rich tiers robust enough to retain subscribers!
I subscribed to Peacock when they offered one year for a total of $30. $7.99 seemed too high for the slim offerings they have. Adding three dollars to that makes it absurdly expensive.
I have been sailing the seas since 1998. I pay $0 a month. I enjoy better quality, no buffering, offline access, and no geo blocks or woke edits.
@Blackbeard,
I’m in a country where experiencing stuff for free on the internet is the norm. Even grandparents are doing it. When you live in such a country and every neighboring country is the same, it’s unbearably hard to feel bad for doing it. The ones who actually choose to pay despite being able to experience stuff for free are actually snobs who want to flex that they have disposable income. I’d rather use that money to buy proper meat, vegetables and other healthy food.
So when I see articles like this, from my perspective, it doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t even make me feel angry, I’ve paid for B2P games, I’ve paid subscriptions in online games to unlock benefits or buy content otherwise inaccessible and that’s fine. It’s not about cheating your way around the rules – when you can go free, go free, when you have to pay, just pay and be done with it.
Indeed. I’ve seen recently a TV report about the amazing amount of money spent by Americans (and they mustn’t be the only ones) for subscriptions to various Internet services, mainly streaming : for some, the equivalent of their apartment rent. So as you write it, “when you can go free, go free, when you have to pay, just pay and be done with it.”. This is not cheating, this is wise.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that those of us who do pay as we breathe “are actually snobs who want to flex that they have disposable income”. If indeed free stuff, moreover spending the time and effort to find it is considered as incompatible with their social status and triggers caution given “quality has a price”, for some others it is only ignorance (no to mention a total lack of basic education) which may push them to pay, pay and pay again : it’s like a citizen’s rights and many of us not up to date with what they exactly include.
I too on occasion dust off my trusty parrot. I mean, we can’t subscribe to them all.
Having said that, do you not pay for the few services that give you the most value? Do you not want to support the services that provide you the content you value?
In my opinion, there are only few services that absolutely have value. I am not talking about value to price. Just about content I would like to have on demand.
HULU for a lot of good old ABC and Fox stuff, plus FX originals and some of its own originals.
Apple TV for great TV originals.
Paramount+ could join this club if they keep South Park and cancel Star Trek (for how long can you mutilate a dead body?) under new ownership.
Peacock is worth something for sitcoms and comedic dramas because they have most of them.
The rest of the services maybe deserve one month subscription if they have something original from time to time.
Are you responding to me?
If you are, how would I know that?
I responded to your post, but not exactly to you (basically my opinion without need for conversation). Most post on forums are not there to debate. Just opinion in the void unless somebody reads it.
You raised the point that some streamers provide services that are worth paying for. I shared what services are worth subscribing for.
Yep, sports are the problem. I do not watch any sports. So those league licensing fees that raise subscription prices are net negative for me. I wish sports were an add-on price option. Streaming services becoming more like cable packages where you had to pay for ESPN, Fox Sports and local Sport networks which were like 30%-50% of the total price.