Digital subscribers: Between freedom and constraint

Abstract

This article addresses the features, affordances, and limitations that emerge when purchasing and using digital subscriptions, particularly streaming entertainment services. Using a qualitative approach through 15 in-depth interviews with European subscribers of digital services such as Netflix or Spotify Premium, the research inquired into the users’ personal experience with digital subscriptions. The results show two scenarios: in one, subscribers enjoy the flexibility and freedom offered with the digital subscription services to customize their media consumption and entertainment preferences; on the other, digital subscriptions limit and restrict the activity of their subscribers, for example, by fragmenting audiovisual content on different platforms.

Keywords

digital entertainment digital platforms digital subscriptions qualitative interviews streaming subscribers

Introduction

In recent years, inspired by digital technologies (Fosker and Cheung, 2021), many companies in diverse sectors have moved from a business model based on advertising or the sale of goods to a subscription-based model (Klopčič et al., 2020). Although the media industry has long been a pioneer and benchmark in incorporating subscriptions (Jain, 2020a), this model has recently boomed as it has been adopted by other business sectors as diverse as transportation or personal care, leading to something close to a 400% growth in the subscription-based model in less than a decade (López, 2020).

From a business perspective, the implementation of a subscription-based economy can be seen as a strategy that, among other things, allows companies to gain greater control over their intellectual property while securing a stable source of revenue (Kelly, 2022). According to other perspectives (Forbes, 2021), the subscription economy is not only related to the digitalization of commerce, but also to a change in the possibilities and goals of consumers, especially young people who, in the face of economic instability, may find subscriptions a more financially accessible model than buying goods (Jain, 2020b). Thus, the rise of subscriptions would not only reflect a change in the paradigm of consumption preferences – as suggested by Wilkins (2019) when he argues that consumers now value access more than ownership – but also a consequence of the contradictions of late capitalism that may prevent the definitive acquisition of goods or products (Cocola-Gant, 2019).

Regarding digital subscriptions, for years the implementation of subscriptions in digital journalism has been a common phenomenon, with paywalls employed by an increasing number of portals and news media outlets to obtain a constant source of revenue (Hill, 2020). Another area in which digital subscriptions are well established is in academia, where digital subscriptions are required to access the scholarly journals – usually paid to the publishers who own them. In the leisure industry, the audiovisual entertainment industry is emblematic of digital subscriptions with such services as Netflix, although sectors like the software or gaming industries are also increasingly incorporating digital subscription services like those of Adobe or Microsoft for software, or Xbox Game Pass or PS Plus for video games (Gordon and Hill, 2022; Wilkins, 2019).

Previous research on subscriptions and their digitalization has focused on topics like subscriptions to news outlets (Chyi, 2012; Herbert and Thurman, 2007; Nechushtai and Zalmanson, 2021) or streaming services (Burroughs and Rugg, 2014; Podara et al., 2021). In addition, the work of Arditi (2018, 2021) on digital subscriptions can be considered crucial, especially in the analysis of the industrial aspect of this payment system. However, there is a research gap concerning the repercussions that digital subscriptions services such as Disney+ or Amazon Prime have on the subscribers themselves – in their broad dimension of subscription-based and not only as digital entertainment services.

Consequently, this article sets out to address the experience of access and use of digital subscription services in an attempt to understand what are the main features, elements, and factors involved in the use of such services. Unlike the work by Arditi, here the emphasis is on the who rather than on the what; that is, rather than studying the industrial framework of digital subscriptions, the aim is to explore the experience of digital subscribers.

Literature review

The role of digital platforms

The current boom in the implementation and use of digital subscription-based services can be associated with more general aspects of the changes happening in the digital ecosystem that directly impact consumers’ experiences, for example, purchasing and consuming media from digital entertainment services. First, about these changes, we can mention the phenomenon of platformization (Nieborg and Poell, 2018), which refers to the organization of cultural industries and practices according to the parameters of digital platforms. Consistent with this, Prey (2020) argues that platforms, such as Spotify, are not neutral systems; instead, they exert a power that comes from the involvement of such platforms in the capitalist system and the digital ecosystem, as when music streaming services typify the dynamics of platform economics (Towse, 2020). As a token of this power, while focusing on streaming services, Tattersall Wallin and Nolin (2020) consider that what defines the streaming ecosystem is centralized providers with the capacity to distribute intangible content across multiple media.

Consequently, digital platforms exercise power as gatekeepers through various mechanisms such as algorithmic power (Bucher, 2018), algo-torial power (Bonini and Gandini, 2019), or curatorial power (Prey, 2020); these arise because of the ability of algorithms to direct the activity of individuals in digital environments. At this point, it is necessary to recall Striphas (2015) definition of algorithmic culture as the “enfolding of human thought, conduct, organization and expression into the logic of big data and large-scale computation” (p. 396). Therefore, we could say that, although algorithms do not control what users may or may not consume on digital platforms, such as many subscription services, they guide this activity in a determinant way (Lobato, 2018).

One of the results of the technological evolution of these recommendation systems is the personalization of the media experience in which platforms presume their users’ preferences (Turow, 2017). For example, streaming services generate highly personalized experiences through planned differentiation that seeks to shape their users’ preferences (Rodríguez Ortega, 2023; Webster, 2021). One consequence of this customization closely linked to algorithmic power and culture is the commercial exploitation that digital platforms conduct of their users’ data (Kübler et al., 2021). Such as when streaming platforms use the data generated by their subscribers not only to produce more accurate recommendations but also to gain an advantage over their competitors (Colbjørnsen, 2021; Kübler et al., 2021).

As a result of the integration and the relationships generated between all the elements involved in the configuration, development, and implementation of digital platforms, the parameters that guide personal activity in the digital environment continue to change (García et al., 2022). In terms of digital entertainment, perhaps Netflix, as a transnational broadcaster (Castro et al., 2021; Wayne and Castro, 2021), is the platform that best exemplifies these changes. It is also the case with on-demand culture (Tryon, 2013), in which consumers enjoy the possibilities of choice and immediacy (Pilipets, 2019). Their interactions with content improve the linear experience of traditional television (Wayne, 2018). Still, it does not necessarily contribute to democratizing cultural omnivorousness (Weingartner, 2021).

Digital subscriptions and streaming services

Regarding digital subscriptions, it is necessary to consider that a significant part of these services are streaming content providers focused on entertainment. The academic debate has incorporated terms such as “streaming culture” (Burroughs and Rugg, 2014) or “streaming age” (Podara et al., 2021). Streaming does not refer to a medium but to a form of delivery marked, among other things, by the fragmentation of audiences (Burroughs and Rugg, 2014; Podara et al., 2021), it could also be considered as “a concept that metaphorically unites people across industries, practices, and content” (Spilker and Colbjørnsen, 2020: 1222). Additionally, in the grand scheme of digital platforms, the economic logic that guides the streaming business is the result of what Arditi (2018) considers a strategy of capitalism to ensure an “ever-increasing consumption of goods” (p. 7), which is achieved through the transition from the limited tangible cultural products that a person can collect to the virtually unlimited catalogs of streaming, available as long as the user is willing to subscribe to a service (Arditi, 2018; Lotz, 2021).

At this time it is useful to take up some notions explored by Arditi (2021) in Streaming Culture: Subscription Platforms and the Unending Consumption of Culture. Inevitably, in the emerging streaming culture, “content owners can choose one platform to stream their content, and consumers must subscribe to multiple platforms if they want to consume this content” (p. 17). Consequently, to access the content they like, consumers are forced to “perpetually subscribe” (p. 36). Arditi insists that the subscription streaming business results in more efficient ways for content creators to earn revenue while increasing their ability to control and limit the cultural content users can access.

One consequence of the rise of streaming culture and the expansion of the digital subscription business is what is popularly known as streaming wars (Watercutter, 2020): companies such as Disney or Apple compete for economic and cultural predominance in the streaming market (Wayne, 2022). However, Lobato and Lotz (2021) consider that reducing the competition between content providers to the mere term of streaming wars prevents us from appreciating the multiple dimensions involved in this industrial, cultural, and technological phenomenon, such as the characteristics of the content, the different business models, or the broader industrial context of the digital platforms.

Regarding the individual experience of subscribers to digital streaming services, on the one hand, the characteristics of streaming allow the use of this broadcast model in personal situations that entail meaningful experiences for people (Hagen and Lüders, 2017), such as binge-watching (Castro et al., 2021). On the other hand, consumers of music, video, or other content available by subscription become service users but may cease to own cultural artifacts (Arditi, 2018). Since the structure of the platforms make it difficult to archive content and favors the exploration of catalogs, cultural products become ephemeral and transience (Lüders, 2021). In addition, subscribers can’t exhaust the entire platform catalog, such as Prime Video’s, thus subscriptions become an endless road that, if abandoned, leaves consumers without media content (Arditi, 2021).

On the other hand, there are different perspectives on why people are motivated to hire or maintain a subscription service. Given that, historically, the media industry has used the subscription model more than other sectors, several authors have focused their attention on the business factors of the news outlets, for example, business or marketing strategies aimed at gaining subscribers (Chyi, 2012; Herbert and Thurman, 2007; Nechushtai and Zalmanson, 2021). As research has focused on the personal motivations of subscribers, elements such as preserving a social status (Chen and Thorson, 2021), ensuring the stability of the self-concept (Savary and Dhar, 2020), or accessing quality or exclusive content (Lim, 2016) appear as factors which influence the purchase or continuation of a subscription to a digital service.

Polymedia of digital subscriptions?

In another vein, how users employ and make sense of the diversity of media, platforms, and devices available – which digital subscription services are now also included – has been classified as media repertoire (Hasebrink and Hepp, 2017) or relational order (Burchell, 2017), among others. Through these concepts researchers explore aspects such as use patterns, users’ perceptions about their media and technologies or the interrelationship between the media used by individuals.

Digital anthropology has developed the concept of polymedia, a way of analyzing the appropriations, uses and relationships generated between users and digital technologies. It is considered an environment of communicative opportunities in which the available variety of media allows users to take advantage of the characteristics of each medium to manage their social relationships (Madianou, 2015; Madianou and Miller, 2012a, 2012b). It is possible to theorize about the extension of polymedia environments toward the management that subscribers make of their digital services if, as it occurs in platformization and the organization of culture according to the logic of digital platforms (Nieborg and Poell, 2018; Prey, 2020), we take into consideration the polymediation of life (Herbig et al., 2014) which leads to an expansion and extrapolation of polymedia features beyond the management of personal ties.

Considering polymedia is an environment of affordances in which the decision to employ a particular medium entails communicative meaning (Madianou and Miller, 2012a, 2012b), and given that the differences between media are defined by the decision people make to use one medium and not another (Madianou, 2015), then, could the choice to pay for or use some digital subscription service also carry meaning, not necessarily communicative, but perhaps emotional or recreational?, for example, when subscribers must choose among the different catalogs of video platforms or the highly similar music libraries of music streaming services (Lobato and Lotz, 2021). From polymedia theory, it is feasible to assume that the vast repertoire of digital subscription services is consolidated as a particular environment in which users acquire the ability and obligation to choose the services they contract and use the choices that arise in polymedia environments (Madianou, 2015; Madianou and Miller, 2012a, 2012b).

Taking the above into consideration, this study will asks the two following questions, (1) how do users exploit and perceive their digital subscription services?, and (2) what affordances and limitations do they experience in their usage of digital subscriptions?

Methodology

This article investigates the characteristics, potentialities, and limitations that emerge in the purchasing and usage habits, and in the ensuing perception of digital subscription services from the users’ point of view. Consequently, the study used a qualitative approach applying 15 in-depth interviews with young adult users of digital subscriptions. The research was limited to people between 20 and 30 years old with European citizenship and residence. Therefore, the project recruited the participants through purposeful sampling.

The interviews were conducted between April and July 2022. Before the interview session, each participant had to complete a questionnaire about personal data and the digital services to which they had subscribed. Because the participants live in different countries, all interviews were conducted via Zoom with an average duration of 40 minutes; some were in English, others were in Spanish and translated afterward. Through the interviews we addressed several topics regarding the experience of digital subscriptions, from the types of subscriptions and habits of use to their perception and thoughts about the business of digital subscriptions.

The average age of the 15 people interviewed was 25, from 8 European nations. Eleven identified themselves as female and the remaining four as male. Some are working while others are students. In addition to age and origin, the prerequisite to participate was that they use more than one digital subscription service, regardless of whether or not they paid for them. On the other hand, although it was not a requirement, all participants should use their digital subscription services at least a couple of times per week. Pseudonyms were used to protect the anonymity of these individuals (Table 1).

Table 1.

Participant characteristics.

Pseudonym	Gender	Age	Country
Nicoleta	Female	24	Romania
Julija	Female	26	Slovenia
Gaspard	Male	28	France
Marcella	Female	25	Italy
Laura	Female	27	Spain
Emma	Female	23	Germany
Elora	Female	26	Germany
Bluma	Female	25	Germany
Esther	Female	23	France
Germán	Male	25	Spain
Cameron	Male	27	Scotland
Odetta	Female	21	Germany
Selma	Female	25	Germany
Ewa	Female	26	Poland
Filippo	Male	25	Italy

From the 10th interview onward, the appearance of new patterns in the participants’ testimonies decreased considerably, however, 15 interviews were conducted to ensure theoretical saturation (Gubrium et al., 2012). Following the example of Badiei and Popkova (2021), the qualitative coding and analysis were conducted in two stages: one of open coding followed by focused coding to first identify the most relevant categories and then determine the main themes into which the results would be divided (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011).

Results

Although this study was interested in all forms of digital subscriptions, streaming entertainment services make up the majority of subscriptions used by respondents, thus, the relevance of SVODs (subscription video on demand) has been predominant, while subscriptions to music platforms occupy a more modest place in the preferences of the participants. Subscriptions to other types of services (video games, fitness, etc.) play a marginal role in respondents’ digital activities

Digital subscription strategies

Different findings have emerged regarding the participant’s strategies to manage their digital subscriptions, whether it is the motivations for starting or canceling a subscription, the periods chosen for their subscriptions, or the possibility of sharing subscriptions with others, among other aspects reviewed below.

First, several strategies on beginning, keeping, and canceling digital subscriptions stand out. The quality and size of the services’ catalogs are the primary motivation to begin a subscription. As Laura points out, subscribing depends on “the content, that is, if the content is good: good series, good movies.” Once subscribed, platforms’ new releases are the predominant factor for participants to keep their subscriptions. To quote Esther, “The main reason [to keep a subscription] is if the platform announces the release of new movies or series.” Finally, although cancelation is not a common practice, the most frequent reasons for canceling are people’s budgets or a drastic increase in subscription prices. “If they raise the price too much and I feel it’s no longer worth being subscribed to that service, I would cancel it,” says Cameron. But canceling a subscription doesn’t necessarily mean it’s definitive. As Nicoleta reminds us, “It’s easy to cancel a subscription and then come back later,” so canceling can be a pause in the subscription that may be resumed later. Another repeated practice is to stop using the service but continue paying the subscription. For example, Cameron’s Netflix account had remained active at times when he wasn’t using it, “It’s just that, with Netflix, I share the account with my ex, and I don’t know, maybe at times when I was not using it he was still using it; someone was always using the account.”

Several perspectives emerged in the interviews on the payment options for digital subscriptions. First, participants’ opinions on monthly and annual subscriptions were divided. Some prefer monthly subscriptions and not having to pay more at once. In Julija’s case, she favors monthly payments “because I feel it less because it is less money that I have to pay at once and I feel I have more control over, like I can cancel it any month.” Others find advantages in annual subscriptions: the total expense is lower, and they don’t have to be mindful of paying every month. For example, Filippo prefers one annual payment because “I’m sure that I have the service for all the year, and because it is cheaper also.”

Also, several categories were found concerning who pays for the subscriptions: there are subscriptions paid by the owner, others paid jointly with friends, family, or partners, and others that are owned by someone else who allows the participants to use them. Gaspard recounts, “I pay for HBO Max, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Spotify Premium. I share the rest with friends or my girlfriend.” Non-shared accounts – either because they have no one to share them with or because they do not want to – bear the mark of the owners’ taste, as Bluma tells us,

Spotify is my own, like my music account, I used it with my boyfriend until one point that my Spotify was completely filled with his songs, not mine, and that was a reason I pushed him out because I wanted my own Spotify.

However, sharing accounts is a widespread practice among respondents, for the convenience of splitting the cost, wishing to share them with family and friends, or for of the chance to have a partner or someone else share one or more accounts with them. “Netflix and Amazon are from my boyfriend. Actually Netflix is his dad’s, but he has many profiles, so we use one. And Spotify, I have it for myself,” comments Ewa on the shared and individual accounts she uses. Other testimonials, such as Marcella’s, reflect how friends can share their subscriptions with interviewees,

I think four people pay, they are very close friends of my boyfriend, but since we don’t use it very much, that’s why they shared it with us because we don’t use it very much, we didn’t want our account.

Passwords are a relevant aspect of these shared subscriptions. Unlike services such as social media where users have a personal password, in shared accounts, the users share the same password. A common practice in this regard is the generation and sharing of passwords with common emotional or symbolic meanings. As Selma says about a shared password,

My brother created it for Netflix, but it’s the same one he uses for other things, for example, emails [accounts], which I created for him before, when he was too young, so it’s a bit of a family thing and also has a very personal meaning.

The platform’s recommendations are another interesting factor concerning shared subscriptions. Recommendations are influenced by the use of different people in the same profile, which alters the recommended content. Elora shares her experience with this type of recommendation,

On Netflix, sometimes my siblings or my parents, they watch on my profile. I mean, we have one account but different profiles, so sometimes they get confused or want to be silly and use my profile, so the recommendations are sometimes very weird because if another family member watches something on your profile.

Perceptions on the subscription business model

The research also inquired into the understanding and opinions the interviewees have on the digital subscription business and industry. From what originates and sustains this business model to the possibilities of improving their digital subscriptions.

The interviewees recognize some factors of the subscription model that justify its existence, for example, so platforms can produce more content or pay content creators. As Odetta explains,

I think it’s reasonable because I think it is not possible to offer all the available content for free to everyone because also the artist of the movies or music or something, they also get paid for that and also for making available the content.

Regarding the cost to them or to others of their subscriptions, the consensus is that it is fair, either for how much they use them or for the amount of subscriptions they have. Elora reflects,

I mean, as a student, I would say maybe [the price is] too much, but because it’s not only one service, I think it’s fine, the 20 euros are fine. If only Netflix costs 20 euros a month, I would say no, I’m not going to use it anymore because it’s too much.

During the survey the notion of bundling all the content spread across multiple platforms into a single subscription service arose persistently – albeit differentiated by the type of content: a single platform for video and another for music – making the subscriber’s experience more convenient and cheaper. Additionally, when asked about whether they prefer to buy cultural products individually or pay for subscriptions, the interviewees recognized some advantages of acquiring cultural objects, especially books, such as the possibility of having them indefinitely, but most prefer to pay for subscriptions and have access to vast catalogs for much less money than it would cost to buy them in their entirety. Germán clarifies,

I prefer the option of a platform that allows me to access it whenever I can, having paid for it, and if a title that I like more and I want to enjoy more often, for whatever reason, or simply as a collector’s item, I’d rather buy it myself, but no, I prefer subscriptions.

Freedom and constraint

In general, the content of the interviews allows us to observe a scenario in which users of digital subscriptions enjoy the opportunities these give them to shape their entertainment habits according to their preferences. Yet, digital subscribers must adhere to the structure dictated by the subscription industry on issues such as the fragmentation of content on different platforms.

Positive perceptions and responses to the interaction with digital subscriptions are connected to the freedom to shape their media consumption temporally and spatially according to their preferences. These services are always available, easily accessible, and with flexible payment options, and users can select content without the restrictions of a model like linear television. As a sample, Emma’s explanation,

I think the most thing [that I enjoy about digital subscriptions] is freedom because you can see a movie whenever you want, wherever you are, and for example, you can make like a trip, you only need to have Wi-Fi and then you can see a movie at night if you want, I think that’s freedom.

Another aspect of digital subscriptions that receive a positive response is the vast number of options available for consumption. The possibility offered by some platforms to download their content and the unlimited access to the catalogs that digital subscriptions offer is also welcome. For example, Esther notes that she is pleased to “have the ability to choose what I want to watch and not buy at the Apple Store or go to the movies. I think it’s the power to choose.”

Among participants there are negative reactions about the content they like being scattered in multiple services. It forces them either to pay more to gain access or waste time browsing between platforms to find something they enjoy. In this regard, Gaspard admits, “And what I don’t like I would say is the fact that there are so many platforms, after Netflix [emerged], every digital multinational started to create their platform and, in the end, well, now there are so many that I don’t know.” A large amount of content available in these subscription services represents an advantage for respondents, it also causes a disadvantage. As a result, participants report feeling confused, overwhelmed, or lost when they must make their way through the vast catalogs of the various platforms to find the content they like. Like Nicoleta, for whom “it can be overwhelming when I have so many options like you can make a wishlist and then get lost.” Likewise, when it comes to series or movies, it causes discomfort among subscribers if they are missing from the catalog, are taken down, or do not include all the episodes. This has happened to Odetta, “sometimes, let’s say series, will disappear from a streaming platform and maybe I’m watching a series which has like many seasons and then it just disappears so I cannot finish it, this is like a bit annoying.”

In addition to the above, it has been observed in these young adults the need to have digital subscriptions or use the ones they have, even if this makes them feel some minor discontent. A type of FOMO (fear of missing out) appeared in some of the respondents, who have assured that they feel the need to contract digital subscriptions or not cancel the ones they have, not only to not run out of the contents available but also to be part of the conversations and dynamics of their social circles regarding the subscription services. “When they offer something that I want, and sometimes like if my friends have it and they say it’s good, so I want to try it as well,” says Julija. Another perception that is quite common among the participants is the need to feel that they are taking advantage of the subscriptions they have, that is, that the money invested in them translates into a constant use of these services. Like Esther, who thinks that

If you divide the price, it is not very expensive, but for one person, it depends on its use, if you watch only three movies a month it is very expensive, but if you use it every day or at least four times a week it is fine, it is advantageous.

Discussion

The first research question of this article was about how users exploit and perceive their digital subscription services. In this sense, the purchase and use of digital subscriptions by the participants is an important activity within their entertainment and leisure habits, besides being a constant and well-established practice due to the experience of years of contact between the participants and their digital subscription services. The findings consolidate the hypotheses of the existence of a “streaming culture” (Burroughs and Rugg, 2014) or “streaming age” (Podara et al., 2021) since most of the subscription services used by those who collaborated in the research are SVODs. In addition, the catalogs of these platforms appear as determinants for subscribers to decide to start, maintain or cancel a subscription. The results show that the larger, better, and more updated the catalog of a platform is considered, respondents will have more incentives to start or maintain a subscription.

Shared subscriptions are also significant among respondents, be it for the advantages of splitting the cost of a subscription or the possibility of avoiding it because someone else shares theirs with them. Respondents share accounts for digital subscription services constantly and willingly. Passwords created with a shared meaning and the confusing recommendations offered in shared profiles – which is a variation on the power of algorithms to guide user activity (Bonini and Gandini, 2019; Bucher, 2018; Prey, 2020) – are dynamics of considerable interest in shared accounts, which demonstrate the adjustments, negotiations, or mishaps that can occur in the use of shared subscriptions.

The findings suggest that digital service subscribers exploit the vast and growing repertoire of digital subscriptions available (Burchell, 2017; Hasebrink and Hepp, 2017) due to the constant – and often forced – choosing and transitioning between their different services. This impacts the need to integrate the use of the digital subscription services employed by participants, as if it were a polymedia environment (Madianou, 2015; Madianou and Miller, 2012a, 2012b) of subscriptions in which, what is not on one platform, can be found on a different one. Also, the integration in the use of different services gives meaning to the subscribers’ digital entertainment experience, that is, their streaming consumption habits cannot be understood solely through their activity on a single platform, but through their experience with all of them. Hence, the polymediation of life (Herbig et al., 2014) or the polymedia life (Madianou, 2021) becomes evident in users’ approach to their digital subscription services, when their use of such services acquires characteristics corresponding to polymedia communicative environments such as taking advantage of the benefits of each service – in matters such as catalog size, exclusive content (Lim, 2016), or price – in the differentiation that subscribers make to integrate and give meaning to their experience of using the totality of their digital subscriptions.

Regarding respondents’ perception of their subscriptions, the results suggest that although they might wish the streaming services were free, they are aware the economic system requires payment in exchange for services, so they have not expressed disagreement regarding paying nor toward the expense involved in purchasing those services. However, as the answer to the second research question will detail, the fragmentation of content, like series or movies, in multiple platforms make the respondents constantly wish for a bundle with a single platform per type of content.

Now, on to the second research query, concerning the affordances and limitations experienced by digital subscribers in their use of such services, the most prominent aspect in the set of affordances experienced by subscribers participating in the study is the flexibility and freedom offered by these services to customize their consumption and entertainment experience (Rodríguez Ortega, 2023; Turow, 2017; Webster, 2021). Subscribers to digital services find some advantages and possibilities in their daily use of these services, whether it is the simplicity of starting, suspending, or canceling a subscription, the convenience of using these services in almost any location or context, or, as occurs in the on-demand culture (Pilipets, 2019; Tryon, 2013), the ability to customize the user experience by being able to consume content according to the users’ habits, routines, or tastes.

On the other hand, as with platformization and its derivative phenomena (Nieborg and Poell, 2018; Prey, 2020; Tattersall Wallin and Nolin, 2020), the limitations suffered by the respondents relate to the dictate of digital platforms, who have the control to determine prices, subscription modalities, and catalogs, and subscribers must follow such imperatives. The fragmentation of content is the most important problem perceived by the participants regarding digital subscriptions. The emergence of new SVODs (Lobato and Lotz, 2021) is seen in most cases negatively among the respondents. The fragmentation forces subscribers to spend more time navigating between platforms to find content they like and, above all, to spend more money to be able to use all or enough platforms where this content is scattered. Accordingly, some respondents have expressed discomfort because they lack the necessary subscriptions to access the content of their choice, or the one talked about in their social circles. This parallels some of the findings by Chen and Thorson (2021) and Savary and Dhar (2020) on the need to have subscriptions to preserve a social status or the stability of the self-concept, respectively.

Having answered the research questions of this study, it is appropriate to discuss some more general aspects derived from the results of the article. First, on the cultural impact of digital subscription services, the use of these services deepens the transformations in media consumption driven by the digitization of media and content (Castro et al., 2021; Hagen and Lüders, 2017). As mentioned, subscriptions expand the options for personalization of leisure activities and consumption of cultural products, not only in the content viewing options that for the interviewees represent an improvement over, for example, elements of traditional television such as fixed schedules or commercial breaks (Wayne, 2018) but also in the different possibilities of contracting or cancelation. Likewise, while, on the one hand, subscriptions consolidate the personalization of digital media in the individual experience of subscribers, they also foster forms of cooperation and integration in cultural consumption, as occurs with shared subscriptions and the subsequent generation of passwords with common meaning in joint purchasing, which reveals some forms of organization required to carry out the management of these shared digital subscriptions.

In addition, regarding the economic aspect of purchasing digital subscriptions, the respondents – some of them students, other with jobs – have expressed that they can afford the subscriptions and that the cost doesn’t represent a problem for them. However, the respondents’ financial capacity cannot be extrapolated to the entire population with similar characteristics, due to economic inequalities it is difficult to assume that everyone can purchase and maintain digital subscription services with an indefinite temporality as the respondents can. On the other hand, although the participating subscribers can afford subscription services, they are able to recognize situations that would create financial difficulties for them and reject them, such as purchasing Disney+, since for some people is considered unnecessary or too expensive, as well as eventual unemployment that would force them to part with some digital subscriptions.

Arditi’s (2018, 2021) insights help to contextualize the results. He notes the shift from ownership to use and the consequent irruption of ever-increasing consumption of goods achieved through the implementation of the almost infinite catalogs of streaming platforms in subscription services. The experience of the respondents seems to confirm these postulates since it reveals a situation in which users need to purchase and maintain their digital subscriptions indefinitely to be able to access new or preferred cultural content, as the author argues. Thus, our research coincides with Arditi’s conclusions by providing evidence of how the power of the platforms results in consolidating a system that limits the subscriber’s power to access and enjoy content beyond the limits of digital subscriptions and that only allows the user to take advantage of the services as long as a subscription is paid.

Hence, it happens that consumers of music, video, or other content available through subscription become mere service users while ceasing to own cultural artifacts (Arditi, 2018). Thus, digital platforms limit the opportunities to archive content while benefiting the exploration of catalogs. Consequently, as testimonies show, cultural products such as series available on Netflix acquire an ephemeral and transitional quality (Lüders, 2021). Moreover, as subscribers cannot consume the platforms’ immense catalogs, a scenario is presented in which subscriptions are consolidated as a type of indefinite consumption and use that, if abandoned, leaves subscribers unable to access the cultural content of their preference as advanced by Arditi (2021).

Finally, the dilemma between buying cultural products and purchasing subscriptions seems resolved among the participants, who opt for the inexhaustible catalogs and the flexibility and freedom of contracting and consuming subscriptions. Except in the case of books, which the respondents still prefer to buy, the favored form of music or audiovisual content consumption is through subscription services. However, despite the advantages of this payment model, participants are aware of the disadvantages of the ephemeral and transience quality of subscriptions and their contents (Lüders, 2021).

Conclusions

To summarize the main perspectives presented in this article, digital subscription services, especially SVODs and other entertainment services, can be considered to occupy a central role in the digital activity and entertainment and media consumption habits of the respondents in this study. On the one hand, digital subscriptions offer flexibility and freedom to subscribers by allowing them to control and decide the configuration of their subscription plans, as well as further the customization of their media consumption habits by selecting how to use such services without having to rely on a centralized model of content transmission, like linear television. On the other hand, digital subscription services limit and restrict the activity of subscribers, for example, with the control that platforms exert over subscription costs, the emergence of more and more competitors in the market that pressure subscribers to purchase more services, or the inability of users to preserve the content available in the catalogs – that is, when series or movies are removed from the catalogs –.

One of the main contributions of this article is to establish an empirical link between polymedia communicative environments and the growing ecosystem of digital subscriptions. The constant passage between services and the integration of their usage to provide meaning to people’s digital entertainment experiences are elements that parallel how polymedia environments conform and function. So, it is possible to argue that the integration and participation of digital subscription services in the activity of its users would form a polymedia environment of digital subscriptions.

It should be noted that the characteristics selected for the participants have limited the survey. Although the geographical origin and residence is diverse – the 15 participants come from 8 different European nations –, all of them live in the same region and share socio-cultural and economic conditions, and the digital subscription platform options available are somewhat similar, or at least may have greater affinity compared to other non-European regions. In addition, because of the age range chosen as a selection criterion, participants share traits and experiences of contact with digital technologies that are likely to differ from other age groups.

Future research could address the impact that aspects such as the recently integrated feature in subscription services like Netflix to limit shared accounts (Long, 2022) or the possibility that various SVODs incorporate ad-supported subscription plans (Peters, 2022) as AVODs (advertising video on demand) do may have on subscribers’ experience of approaching their digital subscription services. As digital subscriptions expand into more and more industries, a further academic exploration into the practices, strategies, and perceptions of subscribers of digital services will be pertinent.

Digital subscribers move between multiple services that offer them flexibility and freedom while forcing them to abide by the rules of digital platforms. The digital subscription model, at least as far as streaming entertainment services are concerned, empowers users’ abilities to shape their cultural consumption experience but leaves them powerless in the face of the ephemeral quality of digital subscriptions, which can be enjoyed as long as they are paid for.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Guillermo Echauri

References

Arditi

(2018) Digital subscriptions: The unending consumption of music in the digital era. Popular Music & Society 41(3): 302–318.

Arditi

(2021) Streaming Culture: Subscription Platforms and the Unending Consumption of Culture. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Badiei

Popkova

(2021) Transnational familyhood in times of imposed separation: How the US-based Iranian students use ICTs to enact relationships with their parents after the Travel Ban. New Media & Society 1–17.

Bonini

Gandini

(2019) “First week is editorial, second week is algorithmic”: Platform gatekeepers and the platformization of music curation. Social Media + Society 5(4): 1–11.

Bucher

(2018) If. . .Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Burchell

(2017) Everyday communication management and perceptions of use: How media users limit and shape their social world. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23(4): 409–424.

Burroughs

Rugg

(2014) Extending the broadcast: Streaming culture and the problems of digital geographies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(3): 365–380.

Castro

Rigby

Cabral

, et al. (2021) The binge-watcher’s journey: Investigating motivations, contexts, and affective states surrounding Netflix viewing. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 27(1): 3–20.

Chen

Thorson

(2021) Perceived individual and societal values of news and paying for subscriptions. Journalism 22(6): 1296–1316.

10.

Chyi

(2012) Paying for what? How much? And why (not)? Predictors of paying intent for multiplatform newspapers. The International Journal on Media Management 14(3): 227–250.

11.

Cocola-Gant

(2019) Gentrification and displacement: Urban inequality in cities of late capitalism. In: Schwanen

van Kempen

(eds) Handbook of Urban Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 297–310.

12.

Colbjørnsen

(2021) The streaming network: Conceptualizing distribution economy, technology, and power in streaming media services. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 27(5): 1264–1287.

13.

Forbes (2021) Convertir a tus clientes en suscriptores, el nuevo modelo de negocio. Available at: https://www.forbes.com.mx/ad-convierte-a-tus-clientes-en-suscriptores-e-impulsa-a-tu-empresa/ (accessed 8 June 2022).

14.

Fosker

Cheung

(2021) Pricing and proposition testing in subscription economies. Applied Marketing Analytics 6(3): 211–220.

15.

García

Martínez

Bonales

(2022) TikTok and Twitch: New media and formulas to impact the Generation Z. ICONO 14 20(1): 1–29.

16.

Gordon

Hill

(2022) Too many game subscription services? Here’s how to choose. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/best-game-subscriptions/ (accessed 20 June 2022).

17.

Gubrium

Holstein

Marvasti

, et al. (eds) (2012) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

18.

Hagen

Lüders

(2017) Social streaming? Navigating music as personal and social. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23(6): 643–659.

19.

Hasebrink

Hepp

(2017) How to research cross-media practices? Investigating media repertoires and media ensembles. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23(4): 362–377.

20.

Herbert

Thurman

(2007) Paid content strategies for news websites: An empirical study of British newspapers’ online business models. Journalism Practice 1(2): 208–226.

21.

Herbig

Herrmann

Tyma

(eds) (2014) Beyond New Media: Discourse and Critique in a Polymediated Age. London: Lexington Books.

22.

Hill

(2020) Paywalls, newsletters, and the new echo chamber. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/paywalls-newsletters-and-the-new-echo-chamber/ (accessed 2 June 2022).

23.

Jain

(2020a) The surprising early history of the subscription model. Available at: https://www-linkedin-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/pulse/surprising-early-history-subscription-model-ajay-jain (accessed 10 June 2022).

24.

Jain

(2020b) Subscription businesses in the 20th century: A look across industries. Available at: https://www-linkedin-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/pulse/subscription-businesses-20th-century-look-across-industries-ajay-jain/ (accessed 10 June 2022).

25.

Kelly

(2022) “This title is no longer available”: Preserving television in the streaming age. Television & New Media 23(1): 3–21.

26.

Klopčič

Hojnik

Bojnec

, et al. (2020) Global transition to the subscription economy: Literature review on business model changes in the media landscape. Managing Global Transitions 18(4): 323–348.

27.

Kübler

Seifert

Kandziora

(2021) Content valuation strategies for digital subscription platforms. Journal of Cultural Economics 45(2): 295–326.

28.

Lim

(2016) Effects of social media users’ attitudes on their perceptions of the attributes of news agency content and their intentions to purchase digital subscriptions. New Media & Society 18(8): 1403–1421.

29.

Lindlof

Taylor

(2011) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Lobato

(2018) Rethinking international TV flows research in the age of Netflix. Television & New Media 19(3): 241–256.

31.

Lobato

Lotz

(2021) Beyond streaming wars: Rethinking competition in video services. Media Industries Journal 8(1): 89–108.

32.

Long

(2022) An update to paid sharing. Available at: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/update-to-paid-sharing (accessed 22 July 2022).

33.

López

(2020) La era del ‘homo suscriptor’. Available at: https://elpais.com/economia/2020-10-31/la-economia-del-producto-ha-muerto-viva-la-suscripcion.html (accessed 8 June 2022).

34.

Lotz

(2021) In between the global and the local: Mapping the geographies of Netflix as a multinational service. International Journal of Cultural Studies 24(2): 195–215.

35.

Lüders

(2021) Pushing music: People’s continued will to archive versus Spotify’s will to make them explore. European Journal of Cultural Studies 24(4): 952–969.

36.

Madianou

(2015) Polymedia and ethnography: Understanding the social in social media. Social Media + Society 1(1): 1–3.

37.

Madianou

(2021) Polymedia life. Pragmatics and Society 12(5): 857–864.

38.

Madianou

Miller

(2012a) Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Madianou

Miller

(2012b) Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies 16(2): 169–187.

40.

Nechushtai

Zalmanson

(2021) ‘Stay informed’, ‘become an insider’ or ‘drive change’: Repackaging newspaper subscriptions in the digital age. Journalism 22(8): 2035–2052.

41.

Nieborg

Poell

(2018) The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society 20(11): 4275–4292.

42.

Peters

(2022) Netflix to partner with Microsoft on new Ad supported subscription plan. Available at: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-partners-with-microsoft (accessed 22 July 2022).

43.

Pilipets

(2019) From Netflix streaming to Netflix and chill: The (dis)connected body of serial binge-viewer. Social Media + Society 5(4): 1–13.

44.

Podara

Matsiola

Kotsakis

, et al. (2021) Generation Z’s screen culture: Understanding younger users’ behaviour in the television streaming age: The case of post-crisis Greece. Critical Studies in Television An International Journal of Television Studies 16(2): 91–109.

45.

Prey

(2020) Locating power in platformization: Music streaming playlists and curatorial power. Social Media + Society 6(2): 1–11.

46.

Rodríguez Ortega

(2023) ‘We pay to buy ourselves’: Netflix, spectators & streaming. Journal of Communication Inquiry 47: 126–144.

47.

Savary

Dhar

(2020) The uncertain self: How self-concept structure affects subscription choice. Journal of Consumer Research 46(5): 887–903.

48.

Spilker

Colbjørnsen

(2020) The dimensions of streaming: Toward a typology of an evolving concept. Media Culture & Society 42(7–8): 1210–1225.

49.

Striphas

(2015) Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4–5): 395–412.

50.

Tattersall Wallin

Nolin

(2020) Time to read: Exploring the timespaces of subscription-based audiobooks. New Media & Society 22(3): 470–488.

51.

Towse

(2020) Dealing with digital: The economic organisation of streamed music. Media Culture & Society 42(7-8): 1461–1478.

52.

Tryon

(2013) On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies. New Brunwswick: Rutgers University Press.

53.

Turow

(2017) Personalization. In: Ouellette

Gray

(eds) Keywords for Media Studies. New York, NY: NYU Press, 135–137.

54.

Watercutter

(2020) The streaming wars could finally end in 2021. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/disney-plus-hbo-max-streaming-wars (accessed 3 July 2022).

55.

Wayne

(2018) Netflix, Amazon, and branded television content in subscription video on-demand portals. Media Culture & Society 40(5): 725–741.

56.

Wayne

(2022) Netflix audience data, streaming industry discourse, and the emerging realities of ‘popular’ television. Media Culture & Society 44(2): 193–209.

57.

Wayne

Castro

(2021) SVOD global expansion in cross-national comparative perspective: Netflix in Israel and Spain. Television & New Media 22(8): 896–913.

58.

Webster

(2021) The promise of personalisation: Exploring how music streaming platforms are shaping the performance of class identities and distinction. New Media & Society 1–23.

59.

Weingartner

(2021) Digital omnivores? How digital media reinforce social inequalities in cultural consumption. New Media & Society 23(11): 3370–3390.

60.

Wilkins

(2019) The rise of the industrial subscription economy. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/04/29/the-rise-of-the-industrial-subscription-economy/?sh=2834b9fe65d8 (accessed 20 June 2022).