Is Peacock only useful as a second service?

No, but that is still the most common way Peacock makes sense. It often works best as a supporting subscription rather than the one service expected to cover everything. The stereotype exists because Peacock's strengths are targeted: specific networks, selected sports, and lower-cost value rather than the broadest possible all-purpose catalogue.

The reason this misconception survives is that Peacock does have a clear centre of gravity. Its strongest case is still people who already know they want NBC, Bravo, selected sports, or a lower-cost complement to a broader streaming stack, which is why people reduce it to a narrower stereotype than it really deserves.

That does not make Peacock weak. It means the service is at its clearest when you already know which part of the library you are paying for. The real test is whether the service still holds up once you move beyond its most obvious audience and ask how it fits your own habits.

That makes Peacock broader than the stereotype, but not infinitely broad. Its strengths remain lower-cost value, NBCUniversal programming, sports relevance, and a clear role as either a targeted main service or a supporting subscription, and those strengths still point more naturally toward some users than others.