Monday, April 11, 2022

DWTS moves to Disney +

If you’re holding out on paying for a streaming service you’re soon to be left behind.  Broadcast network shows are starting to migrate to streaming services in clearly what is a sign of the future.  

The latest:  After 32 seasons, ABC announced last Friday that DANCING WITH THE STARS will move to Disney + next year.  It’s the first live reality show to go the streaming route, but more are a’ comin’.  (This would mean so much more to me if I ever watched DWTS). 

Amazon will have NFL Thursday Night Football starting this fall with the great Al Michaels calling the games.  (That I will watch.)

And two streaming services are featuring MLB games this season.  Friday Night Baseball on Apple + and Peacock will have Sunday morning games.  East coast Peacock games will start at 11:30.  Especially on the west coast it’s baseball for breakfast.  (I’m sure the players are going to love reporting to the ballpark at like 8 AM on Sunday after being out all night on Saturday.)   What’s also significant about this arrangement is that the chosen streaming games will be exclusive to those services.  In other words, if Apple + is televising a Red Sox game, NESN can not show it.  You want to see your beloved Red Sox?  Pony up the money for Apple +.  

And trust me, this is just the beginning.

It is not inconceivable to me that at some point the Super Bowl and World Series will be behind pay walls (and you’ll STILL have commercials).   I’d say the Oscars too, but nobody is going to pay to see that shit. 

Network shows are going to start moving to streaming services.  And eventually, broadcast networks will be showing series that have already streamed.  They’ll become the equivalent of the old neighborhood cineplex showing first run films a month after they’ve run everywhere else.  

It’s coming.  You heard it here first… or close to first. 


Mike Barer said...

Can the World Series afford to go to just streaming? As I have said before, it just doesn't seem like it is anywhere near what it used to be. Of course, I don't have the ratings to back it up, but I'm old enough to remember when the world practically stopped when Series time came.

Brian Phillips said...

This isn't good.

What that means is that swaths of the country will not be able to watch certain things. Some parts of the country do not have broadband access.
If given the choice between paying X dollars or internet access or putting food on the table for my family, the choice is easy.

ddrabk said...

Putting the Oscars behind a paywall will be a slap in the face...

Too soon?

N. Zakharenko said...

Ken, have you been hanging out with Jeff Zucker lately and his wacko TV theories?

The genius who predicted that people would be sick of Jay Leno in a few years time, by then Conan would be bigger than Johnny Carson.

Or his later masterstroke of stripping Leno at 10 pm, predicting that prime time would end at 10pm (9pm central) across all the networks within a few years.

Yeah right, Criswell.

One magic word prevents all this - advertisers -
the lifeblood of Commercial TV

The biggies want maximum audiences to sell their new model Cars etc.
To survive, the networks must continue to present new must see programming.

Not second hand shows suitable only for adjustable ladders and "how much would you pay for..." ads.

Mike McCann said...

This is the point where baseball -- so desperate for new revenue -- begins to screw its most loyal, lifelong fans.

By taking away easy access to home team telecasts, they're in effect punishing their best customers.

Let's compare this "whack-a-mole" tactic of putting MLB games on as many different outlets (FOX, ESPN, TBS, Apple+, Peacock) as possible.

So far, in a season three days old, Yankee fans had to go to their local YES Network for Friday's opener. Saturday's second game with the Red Sox was available on both YES and FS1. And Sunday night's game belonged exclusively to ESPN. The good news, they were available to most New York area fans with cable, satellite or DirecTV stream. Whenever Apple + swipes a game, you'll have to go to that service (free for now, but soon to be behind a pay wall). And this will be the first year ever where the Yankees local package has no regular TV games. The 20 or so that used to go to Channel 11, now belong to Amazon in a separate package. The only Yankee games on TV will be from the FOX Saturday night package. Maybe three or four this summer.

Let's compare that to the NFL. Most Rams games are on FOX. Some on CBS. Sunday nights belong to NBC. Meaning that anyone with a TV and "antenna" (yes, you can still pick up local stations "over the air") can see their favorite team. Maybe ESPN grabs a Rams game for Monday night -- they still have to make it available to local TV station (thought not necessarily the same ones that air the Sunday games). And if the Rams are scheduled for a Thursday, that game goes to Amazon Prime -- as well as a local station. So all 17 Rams regular season games can be seen for anyone with a TV and an antenna. No "fee" or "additional charge."

Which sport has the smarter TV policy? Which major sport doesn't slap their lifelong fans with games vanishing from sight?

The answer: the number-one pro sport in the USA. And, message to Mr. Manfred, that sport isn't MLB.

. said...

This is an unwelcome complication for those still traumatized by the separate schedules of the NBC Red and NBC Blue networks.

That Red/Blue setup that was 90 years ahead of it’s time. Based then on pushpin colors, it would be a veritable linchpin to life today.

iamr4man said...

Do you remember when PayTV was outlawed in California? It was back in 1964 and it was just getting started. I clearly. remember asking my dad why he was voting against it since you didn’t have to buy it if you didn’t want to. He said that eventually we would have to pay for shows that we (then) got for free. Most people in California felt the same way as my dad did and Pay TV was made illegal until the State Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional. Here’s an LA Times article on the vote in case you’re interested:

maxdebryn said...

Discovery Plus is merging with HBOMax, too. It all seems like the streaming services will be the "new" networks very soon, with the resultant fees. Such a sadness. And I expect that the streamers will start to add more commercials, as well, so it will be just like starting over.

Steve said...

Shows moving to streaming and or streaming shows going the other way has been going on a little bit for several years.

Navy Seals and Evil went from CBS to Paramount+ streaming. Community and AP Bio aired on NBC and had final seasons air on streaming platforms. Lucifer went from Fox to Netflix. This route seems to be most common for a struggling show to limp along for another season or two before cancellation.

Going the other way is a bit rarer, but seems to be a method to try and generate interest for the streaming platforms. Older seasons air much delayed on broadcast channels just before new seasons start streaming. The Flight Attendant was a HBO Max streaming exclusive from late 2020 that started airing on TBS within the last few weeks and was heavily promoted during March Madness. The new season starts streaming in ten days. The Good Fight (The Good Wife spinoff) on CBS All Access (now Paramount+) has aired seasons on CBS during the summer with new seasons airing in the fall.

Michael said...

Well, the Final Four was cable-only this year, so it's already a-happening. Now it's just "when", not "if".

Jeff Boice said...

I suppose free local television will survive in some form because of the need to alert people on local news and weather emergencies. But the local newscasts are just a shadow of what they were 10-20 years ago.

Have you noticed Fox is still cutting back on their sports? They allowed Buck and Aikman to leave, gave up on golf, and let Thursday night NFL go to Amazon. Speculation is they're saving money for a big purchase, or maybe they'll sell Fox Sports.

Dumbest broadcasting move of the 21st Century (to date)- Sinclair buying all those regional sports networks.

Joseph Scarbrough said...

Streaming may be the future, but we're not there yet. Not everybody has streaming, because not everybody doesn't have reliable internet. You know why? Because infrastructure in America sucks. A lot of rural areas don't have access to internet, but their states won't use any of that infrastructure money to ensure that internet is accessible to people - particularly in these red states that don't want anything to do with whatever "Sleepy Joe" tries to do for the country . . . take my state, for example: our main roads are absolutely terrible with cracks, potholes, uneven lanes, rough pavement, but what is our state spending that infrastructure money on? Roundabouts in residential neighborhoods. What's the point of roundabouts, and why do we need those more than we need our interstates and highways desperately repaired?

Everybody is just trying to make everything more and more exclusive so only a privileged few can see them . . . entertainment is becoming like American politics: quality entertainment is only being reserved for those privileged few, while leaving behind only the mind-numbing garbage behind as still easily accessible for people who have not these services, which is one reason why it's so easy for many of these rednecks and MAGAts to continue watching Fox News: they still have broadcast television in their areas, so they have easy access to that as their news source.

But honestly, screw Disney and Disney+. They're the reason why the Muppets are struggling to find and maintain a mainstream audience in this day and age: after that 2015 ABC "sitcom" of theirs flopped (because Disney tried too hard to turn it into THE BIG MODERN MUPPET BANG OFFICE FAMILY THEORY), any new Muppet content we get, they just dump it straight to Disney+, where it doesn't reach a broader or wider audience, which continues to obscure the Muppets to the point that the masses don't even know who they are anymore, unless they're familiar with SESAME STREET on PBS.

Manic Man said...

personally? I don't watch modern shows.. what I have seen don't seam to be any good to me.. The only shows I watch on TV are old shows in the UK (there are some great channels FINALLY showing old British shows and comedies which are HIGHLY overlooked most of the time. Hell, in the USA you seam to show alot of old shows which are worth repeating but we barely get the same treatment in the UK, and yet many of our shows were later remade in the USA and called 'Ground breaking' (despite, in most cases, being very poor versions)... maybe being in my 30s, i'm just too old for modern TV core demographics.. I got alot of what i like, and can get, on physical media, still trying to get them to release some stuff that seams to be unreleased, released but oh well..

Masked Scheduler said...

Ken I know you follow me on Twitter and have been on your podcast. You know I have been consistant in predicting this for years. All television regresses to the mean. The streamers will become the networks, AVOD will replace stations and SVOD will be the premium channels and broadband providers will replace cable and satellite. At the end of the day it will revert back to what was but it will cost us significantly more. I guess the only good thing is Nielsen may become obsolete as there are different ways to measure all this.

Ted. said...

I've said this before: Commercials on streaming services are far worse than commercials on broadcast TV. They're glitchy (and can delay a program or stop it from playing completely when they download incorrectly). They're mostly boring and repetitious (sometimes the same commercial plays 5 times on the same program). They frequently include public-service announcements, because the service couldn't sell enough commercials but still wants to prove that your time belongs to them. And not only can't you skip them or even fast-forward through them, they ruin your ability to rewind or fast-forward the program itself (either because that function has been disabled or because you immediately get another group of commercials playing as soon as you try).

The fact that streamers are focusing more than ever on a commercial-based business model -- such as Amazon moving half its content from commercial-free Prime to commercial-loaded IMDB-TV -- is a very bad sign. And if more and more sports events are broadcast that way, I imagine the services will quickly learn what an outspoken bunch fans tend to be.

-bee said...

"...eventually, broadcast networks will be showing series that have already streamed. They’ll become the equivalent of the old neighborhood cineplex showing first run films a month after they’ve run everywhere else."

That's a great observation - I think you're right.

I have long said the old economic model for network TV based on ratings/advertising revenue was in big trouble as the US middle class shrinks. A few people hold more and more of this country's wealth as people have less and less disposable income. What do ratings matter if too few people are in the market for new cars?

Subscribers are replacing 'ratings'. It will be interesting though, how streaming networks will fight for new subscribers assuming not everyone will want or be able to subscribe to everything.

I don't think broadcast TV will ever go away. The bandwidth is too important to retain control over lest it fall into the 'wrong' hands. It makes sense they will use it for streaming reruns. CBS did this one year with the first seasons of "The Good Fight" and one of the Star Trek shows.

There were a lot of bad things about the 'old days' of the 1960s - 1980's but the good thing is it was a level playing field for all levels of society, rich or poor - it was more egalitarian. Now I guess another element of status will be how many streaming services one can afford with free network TV for the 'poors'.

benson said...

Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.

You can pay for cable/dish or you can pay for streaming services.

"Cut the cord and save money" they said. Horse Hockey!

I'm not sure who I'm more PO'd at. All this programming was on FREE tv. And now, we're paying for it. This is absolutely stupid.

Ultimately it's our own damn fault.

blinky said...

Hey Ken, You may have written this but have you seen it with light Sabers?

Mitch said...

I never watched DWTS, but now that I would have to pay a service to watch it? I won't miss IT! You betcha!......NOT

The Chicago Cubs became America's team because it was the only thing on in the afternoons on WGN network (home games were only during the day, they didn't have lights until 1988). Now the new owners moved them off WGN to a subscription service, so they can make more money. This doesn't help the fans. Almost 100% of the Cub fans I know don't subscribe. They are losing more people than the Catholic church!


DBenson said...

Another nightmare scenario: Broadcast TV will become ever-more reliant on "sponsored" content. The dirty little trick of infomercials masquerading as local news segments will blossom into whole lobbyist-subsidized shows, making OAN and Sinclair look like real journalism in comparison. If accurate information becomes a luxury item, we're dead.

Cap'n Bob said...

My wife loves DWTS and I hate it. So good, it'll be out of my life.

Michael said...

Streaming also requires constant availability. Those servers, and the electricity to run them 24/7, aren't free. Price increases at Amazon and Netflix and the increasing number of shows on IMDBTV aren't just the result of greed (although it's there). Think about Apple: OK, the newest iPhone costs $1400 (for example). Is the income from those sales enough to pay Apple's internet overhead? Probably not. Compared to the antenna model, where the major expense was hardware upgrades that might last for a few years, the streaming model requires a constantly increasing capacity, especially as more people turn to it. Broadcast TV could reach an equilibrium point: enough hardward and capacity to meet demand without constant expansion. Not so with streaming. In effect, the more people stream, the greater the demand for that data, the more demand for resources to supply said data, and the more demand for revenue to pay for those resources. In short, there may be no way for streaming to ever reach an equilibrium point.

Kudos to the comment that mentioned cord cutting. I also remember the "Let me pay for what I want ala carte! It'll be cheapter!" Only at first.

Also, kudos to the observation about local TV news. Sinclair is buying up and gutting dozens of local stations. In our market, they bought the flagship station, the gold standard in news since I was a kid. They have steadily lowered quality, replaced longtime fixtures at the station to cut salaries, and replaced the outstanding local coverage with taped pieces for national syndicates. It's disgusting.

Fried Astaire said...
“ ‘Bread and circuses’ is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal, a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century CE and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts. In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace, by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal, who coined the phrase, used it to decry the "selfishness" of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase implies a population's erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.”

DWTS to go streaming? Folks PAYING to watch dance-disabled non-celebs — the type of entertainment that would’ve killed vaudeville decades earlier, possibly in its crib?

It’s another shark-jumping moment for Democracy, the latest harbinger of the United States of Fascism. “Bread and circuses”— formerly provided for “free” —or “cheaply” — by the wealthy and their politicians — have become distractions of increasingly lesser quality, for which we’re now charged, or charged exponentially more...

Previous Government and FCC
• Bans on station monopolies, along with liquor/drug/legal/medical ads, AND
• Requirements— if any — for equal time, news and public service, ad time limitations, and quality programming,

Have given way to a broadcast landscape — the public airwaves — where right wing radio networks rule and scripted programs have been dumped for cheap, lowest denominator “reality” TV series — as staged as the criminally-fixed game shows of the 1950s.

Where the networks, monopolistic leagues, and the government
once — as a distraction— guaranteed fans free or cheap access to games —
They now price gouge to fund fascism
e.g. FoxSports or the Cubs, owned by the fascist Ricketts, exclusively broadcast regionally by fascist Sinclair.

Instead of cities selling teams the invaluable rights to use their city names, teams sell naming rights to venues that taxpayers funded

Liggie said...

-- I danced Argentine tango socially for a few years, so I watched "DWTS" religiously at the start to learn new tango moves for my lessons, "milongas" (social dances) and occasional festivals. It was also one of the few shows our politically divided family could watch together. We even attended a couple of their touring shows in the local sports arena. I stopped watching, however, the year the celebrities included Paula Deen.

-- At least the Seattle Sounders have elected to keep their local broadcasts on terrestrial channels, currently the Fox affiliate and an independent station, recognizing that not all of their fans have streaming services or even cable. Root Sports Northwest only broadcasts game replays, typically a couple of hours after the game ends.

-- @Cliff: There was also the Atlanta Braves gaining a national fandom through TBS, even in the '80s when they absolutely stank.

Liggie said...

BTW, I wonder if the Oscars should approach Graham Norton or James Corden to host? They've emceed several award shows and events, they have great rapports with celebrities, and audiences seem to like them a lot.

JessyS said...

The streamers will go the way of the zeppelin. Not only isn't the infrastructure not there, we are likely going to see new broadcast networks replace what we currently have. Nobody has time to pay for Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, ESPN Plus, HBO Max, Peacock, ABC Plus, Apple TV, Netflix, Hallmark Movies Now, and so on. The only thing saving the networks, as of now, is the NFL, but given the inflation that is roaring through the country, the current NFL deals, set to expire in 2033, will likely be voided at the end of this year, and it will be the same for most other sports because it costs money to lug satellite broadcast trucks across the nation.

As for "Dancing with the Stars," just put the show out of its misery because the ratings have been going down hard the last few seasons. This leads back to my original statement. The streamers will go the way of the dinosaur. While I realize that some people maybe be hooked on one company's streaming services, it doesn't take a genius to realize that streamers are where TV shows go to die.

JessyS said...

@ Michael

You bring up more good points. Maybe Ken should do a follow-up on streaming by researching pros and cons of streaming. One big test is for Amazon's NFL coverage as we could have over 40 million people trying to view the game on their site. That could be a public relations disaster much worse than the 2007 Week 17 matchup between the New England Patriots and New York Giants as the Patriots have been trying for an undefeated season. That game was scheduled for NFL Network only, but the league let NBC and CBS broadcast the game while FOX got the rematch in the Super Bowl. The system is already strained with the Zoom network and now they want to add sports?

Kevin FitzMaurice said...

A teacher I had in the seventies used to turn on the classroom TV to keep an eye on the Cubs on WGN.

SueK2001 said...

I used to wath DWTS but the season of Sean Spicer about killed it for me.
My Mom and I would make an evening of it and call each other between breaks to rate the dances. It was our night.
Then, Tom Bergeron was fired and we both discovered 911 on Fox. We now watch that. A lot more fun and no Tyra Banks.
I have no interest in ever seeing it again. It's time has passed years ago. It shall die a fast death on Disney Plus.

Wayne said...

the tech exists to stream any tv show or movie you want. Wouldn't it be great if for a reasonable price, you could watch an episode of Big Wave Dave?

Leighton said...

One major network flaw? The GD REPEATS. Netflix dumps entire episodes. Other streamers faithfully drop an episode each week, regardless. Sometimes just ten episodes, but ALWAYS every week.

Meanwhile, the networks keep repeating shows, randomly. You NEVER KNOW, when you're getting a new episode of anything. Oh, it's the "holidays"? Not showing anything new for two months. Oh, the sweeps are coming up? Time for repeats till then.

It's fucking insane.

There was a time, when the end of MARCH, was the conclusion of a network series original season run. Now, it's dragged out as long as possible, with HALF the episodes that once were produced.

8 episodes for a streaming series, dropped at once, or consistently every week, works better than 18 network episodes shown randomly from Sept through May. Why the HELL, would I try to keep up with network programming?

Mark said...

They already tried this with the Tony awards. I recorded the show that aired on CBS in September, and there were no acting awards. I googled it and discovered the acting awards had aired on a separate show on Paramount+. They claimed they needed four hours to do everything they wanted to do and CBS wouldn't give them four hours, so they split the show and put the acting awards on Paramount+ and the performances and other awards on CBS. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Who is going to subscribe to Paramount+ to see Broadway acting awards, especially since you can watch the speeches later on YouTube?

jeff said...

May I remind all that are complaining here that you have a library nearby that can provide hundreds of thousands of hours of free - and commercial-free - entertainment.

Roger Owen Green said...

My wife is a big fan of DWTS - me, not so much. But it might be the excuse to get Disney+, which I've been avoiding, so I can finally see the Beatles, of whom I AM a big fan.

d. scott said...

I understand why Ken thinks shows will become exclusive to a streaming service. There's money to be made from doing that. But the same motive to make money will lead to "exclusive" shows being aired later on free TV, where money is made through advertising. Many of the streaming services are owned by television networks and other streaming services may own the networks in the future.
Eventually many things will be available on free TV, only later, and viewers will face the decision of whether to pay now or watch it for free on TV, which has been the case for movies for a long time.
I think the exclusive model only works for sports because most people want to see them live, before the outcome is widely known.

Sean from Liverpool said...

This has been happening in the UK for a few years where shows are on BBC iPlayer or All4 before they're on BBC TV or Channel 4 respectively. Except these streaming sites don't cost anything extra to watch.

Greg Ehrbar said...

It's a mad scramble and fascinating to observe, isn't it?

With the long-awaited ten-year restoration of Cinerama’s feature The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (which seemed hopelessly lost due to neglect and damage), there have been a lot of recent articles and podcasts about the 15-year story of Cinerama and it is a strange if not precise parallel to streaming.

Cinerama came along in 1952 before there were stereo records, wide-screen movies, Disneyland, or much on TV but the film industry was desperately afraid of TV. The process costs a fortune and mostly yielded travelogues. Only two narrative features were made, simultaneously -- How the West Was Won, which was the big star cowboy feature, and Brothers Grimm, which was the classic-style family fantasy. "West" was a smash, "Grimm" was a moderate hit, but both were so expensive that only a mega-hit could justify the cost.

Cinerama soon became a name rather than a true process. While it was originally better than IMAX, it suffered the same fate and was eventually marketed as a shadow of its former self. Since 1962 nobody saw Brothers Grimm except in a poor wide-screen scan with mediocre color and sound, even in recent years on VHS and TCM. Now it is as if an undiscovered fantasy spectacular remerged from burial by the desperate craze that created it and the neglect it suffered because of others’ misguided strategic thinking.

My point is that billions are being poured into one basket with the new "answer" of streaming, each company trying to grab "content" from the other, seemingly unaware that there is a TON of content that is already easily accessibly legally free and that people have their own home libraries as well as public libraries. Many people will not want to buy all these services, and many will have watched all they want from the few they have. Many watch current TV shows just because they're "on" and while they miss them for a while, life goes on.

JS said...

I can't think of one show I'd have to watch on streaming that I couldn't wait to watch on network for free. I pay for 1 streaming service a month. I wait until every episode has dropped, sign up for a month, watch it, and that's it for the month. Sports is different, but even then, it would have to be one incredible game for me to pay for streaming.

MikeN said...

Apple used Katie Nolan as an announcer for MLB. Total disaster.
Ken, you should apply.

MikeN said...

The future of streaming will be with ads. I think it is Peacock that is trying out different tiers right now.

Leighton said...

Comparing Cinerama to "streaming" is bizarre. I can see network/cable/streaming, or Cinerama/3D/IMAX. Streaming is a source providing access.

Greg Ehrbar said...

Now, is that a nice thing to say? What does it prove?
Well, I guess it does prove something.
What you posted about not long ago, Ken. (sigh)
Some of us try to shed light on things.
Some live to mark their territory on it.

Spike de Beauvoir said...

I feel a little stupid trying to follow the intricacies of this discussion...or maybe I'm just easily pleased?

I subscribed to a cable service for a few years because it was really the only option for getting internet so I added a TV package. It cost over $200 a month and didn't even include most premium channels.

Then due to some adverse circumstances, I moved several times. No more cable, started watching free channels on my phone and computer, including PlutoTV, Tubi, Roku, Crackle. The only streamer I paid for was basic Hulu. Recently added HBO Max which is a great value, especially since there are curated TCM movies and shows I enjoy like New Adventures of Old Christine and Mike & Molly. Plus enjoying some wonderful new HBO shows like Julia. So to my taste there's an abundance of great shows to watch including classics like Taxi, Bob Newhart, Frasier, etc. And also sitcoms like Becker, Spin City, The Nanny available on PlutoTV on demand. No comparison to the inflated monthly toll of having cable.

It does seem strange to not be able to get Live TCM without subscription to a streamer that otherwise doesn't interest me, but I'm impressed by the selection of TCM films on HBO Max. Lots of Harold Lloyd, Chaplin, Ozu, Fellini, Doris Day (I recommend a 60s sex comedy double feature with Boys' Night Out and Sunday in New York).

So why would I care about network programming or more expensive streamer subscriptions? It seems a bit murky to me where it's all heading...except I'm so relieved to not need cable anymore.

Wendy M. Grossman said...

Just a few days later...the Guardian notes that British households, coping with a cost of living crisis, are beginning to exit their less-favored streaming services, Disney+ being the first to go. Here's the piece:

Granted, things are different in the UK, in that just about everywhere in the country gets four free-to-air channels, and they are the venues for a lot of top-class domestic production.

But these economic pressures are not unique to Britain, and free-to-air TV still exists in other countries, even in the US. This is going to be a real issue that could help the legacy networks survive longer. Especially since companies like Netflix, although in pole position as a must-have, because it has massive amounts of debt that will become expensive as interest rates rise.