The Unsung Hero of Streaming: Why the "+" Deserves Our Respect

The streaming landscape has become a sprawling jungle, a dense thicket of content providers all vying for our attention and, crucially, our subscriptions. In this chaotic environment, a seemingly innocuous symbol has emerged as a ubiquitous identifier, a subtle marker of expanded offerings: the humble "+".

This little plus sign, appended to the names of services like Disney+, Paramount+, and Apple TV+, has become a target of derision, a symbol of corporate branding gone wild. The New York Times, among others, has recently weighed in on the perceived absurdity of this trend. Critics argue that the overuse of the "+" has diluted its meaning, turning it into a meaningless appendage that clutters the already crowded digital space.

And while I understand the frustration, I find myself in the unusual position of defending the "+". In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that it’s a surprisingly useful tool, a navigational aid in the overwhelming sea of streaming options.

Before I delve deeper into my contrarian perspective, let’s acknowledge the sheer volume of "+" services that have flooded the market. We’re not just talking about the aforementioned giants like Disney+ and Paramount+. The list extends to AMC+, BET+, Discovery+, Documentary+, ESPN+, and even the somewhat ambiguous Hulu + Live TV. The "+" has also migrated beyond entertainment, infiltrating Apple’s ecosystem of premium subscriptions, further blurring its original intent.

My defense of the "+" rests on the premise that it serves as a simple, easily understood signifier of "more." It tells the consumer, at a glance, that this is not just a standard offering, but an enhanced experience, a premium tier with added value.

Consider the alternative. Without the "+", differentiating between the basic service and the expanded version becomes a marketing challenge, a potential source of confusion for consumers. This is especially true in cases where the original service is already well-established.

My colleagues might disagree. I recall a particularly scathing blog post from consumer technology reporter Victoria Song, where she thoroughly dismantled the "+" trend, and, by extension, my earlier defense of it. She pointed to examples like Apple News+, arguing that it doesn’t fit the streaming mold, therefore invalidating my argument.

But I maintain that even in the case of Apple News+, the "+" provides valuable information. It signals that this is not just the standard Apple News experience, but a premium subscription that unlocks access to a wider range of publications and features. It’s "Apple News," plus more content, plus more value.

In fact, the case of HBO Max offers a compelling example of how the "+" could have been used to avoid a branding disaster. The ill-fated rollout of HBO Max, with its confusing array of HBO Go, HBO Now, and the eventual transition to simply "Max," was a masterclass in communication failure.

Had AT&T executives opted for HBO+, the message would have been far clearer: this is HBO, with additional content and features. The "+" would have acted as a simple, intuitive indicator of the expanded offering, sparing consumers the headache of deciphering the complex relationship between the various HBO-branded services.

The sheer volume of streaming services competing for our attention underscores the need for simple, easily understood branding. The "+" provides that simplicity. It cuts through the noise, offering a quick and reliable way to differentiate between the basic and premium tiers.

When faced with a plethora of options, consumers are often forced to make snap decisions based on limited information. The "+" provides a crucial piece of information, allowing them to quickly assess the value proposition of each service.

Consider the intuitive understanding we have of services like YouTube TV, Pluto TV, Sling TV, and FuboTV. These names, while diverse, each offer a clear indication of the service’s function. The "+" aims to achieve the same level of intuitive understanding, particularly when attached to a familiar brand like Disney or Paramount. It eliminates the guesswork, allowing consumers to quickly grasp the nature of the offering.

While I defend the "+" in general, I must concede that there are instances where its application is less than ideal. The case of Apple TV+ is a prime example of branding gone awry. The streaming service, Apple TV+, lives within the Apple TV app, which can be accessed through the Apple TV set-top box.

The decision to use the same name for three distinct products – a streaming service, an app, and a hardware device – is baffling. It creates unnecessary confusion and undermines the clarity that the "+" is supposed to provide. While Apple TV+ as a name for the streaming service is perfectly acceptable, its unfortunate association with the app and hardware device creates a branding nightmare.

In conclusion, the proliferation of "+" services might be a bit monotonous, a symptom of a branding trend that has reached its peak. But in a world of endless streaming options, the "+" offers a valuable service: it provides a clear, concise indicator of enhanced value. It helps consumers navigate the complex landscape, making informed decisions about their subscriptions. So, while it might not be the most creative or inspiring branding strategy, let’s give the "+" the credit it deserves. It’s a simple, effective tool that makes our streaming lives just a little bit easier. Leave the "+" alone, it’s doing its job.