"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.)"
I'm basically going to see anything that they make... they're earned that from me.
Part of me wishes that I could just get a $250 "lifetime subscription" to everything they do... they get the money up front. It's not clear to me how they would go about using the money in the current system... maybe they could negotiate for a greater share of the proceeds if they bring financing money to the table; maybe that would make it easier for financiers to say yes. (yup, i said proceeds, not profits, since i'm aware of hollywood accounting). maybe something through patreon might work for this.
I look forward to new great firsts like this one. 15+ years ago TV and Movies were major status differences. Actors/Directors wouldn't besmirch themselves working on tv. It's been interesting seeing this flipflop. Netflix could be the first one to reach budgets that double, triple or more Game of Thrones or parallel on a per-minute basis Avatar and so on but in lengthier form. I had always imagined them bringing their A-game to a Star Wars TV series (maybe copping FireFly elements), and despite the Disney news which is overblown, I still think this could happen.
They have far and away the broadest streaming distribution (75% of it!) in the USA (1) which is a market that already 53% saturated.
And the bull case guys point to international subscription growth - which is still in its infancy - as the reason to hold Netflix forever. (2)
They have much lower infrastructure costs then the previous cable providers without having to build the pipes.
But they also don't benefit from the built in government / monopoly protections that came with that investment in the distribution platform.
So in terms of long game how do they protect themselves?
Own the content.
Disney pulling their rug out earlier this week underscores how fucked Netflix is as just a distributor.
So if, in the end, distribution becomes the new "dumb pipes" at what point do the content providers pull the judo flip and control the distribution and the margin?
Disney again, case in point.
So do we underwrite Netflix's future - aka their current 227 PE! - in their ability to execute on the content side?
They've evolved and executed repeatedly in the 20 years since they started. DVDs by mail->Streaming Online->Original Content->Global Market. One misstep was to try to separate the legacy DVD business as a stand alone brand and charge separately for streaming. That failed pretty spectacularly, so they quickly bailed on the idea[0], said their mea culpas and went on to triple revenues over the 5 years since.
We can expect Netflix to grow into the Earth's TV station, hyperbole and all...
I remember me and others, on HN years ago, complaining about how Netflix was investing too much money into TV and original TV while skimping on its streaming movie catalog (this was around the time its STARZ deal was ending). Turns out their strategy was exactly right. I like watching movies, but nothing gets my return visits like serial TV, such as "Breaking Bad" and "Walking Dead". Investing so much money into "House of Cards" seemed bizarre 5 years ago but now that Netflix has so much exclusive content, it's hard as a longtime subscriber to just quit it. even as someone who now subscribes to Amazon Prime and HBO. I actually like Amazon Prime's library, which can be augmented with content I buy from Amazon separately, enough to quit Netflix. But my parents really like the Netflix shows (and I'll admit to binge watching HoC, as shallow as it is), which is something Prime or HBO will never have.
edit: besides the Netflix-conceived shows, e.g. HoC and "Narcos", there are the Netflix-bought shows, such as Arrested Development and Black Mirror, and what seems like countless comedy specials, such as Louis CK 2017. Back when I thought HoC was a poor investment, I was thinking that one really great show a year wouldn't be enough to keep me subscribing year after year. But Netflix seems to be introducing exclusive content several times a month.
Sorry for the OT, but in trying to find out more about the origins of Narcos, I found out it's directed by José Padilha. No wonder it's good. His Bus 174 was one of the films that most shook me.
Never watched Bus 174, but my first experience with Padilha's work was "Elite Squad" [0], which coincidentally, I watched via Netflix's DVD rental service. And less coincidentally, had the same lead (Wagner Moura) as "Narcos".
Oh, I didn't remember the lead. I liked Elite Squad, but it emphasized more the "action movie" and less the "harrowing portrayal of a real social quagmire". Then again, Bus 174 is a documentary, even if it has plenty of tension, so that's to be expected.
Yep. They are developing an amazing track record of seeing what's going to happen over the next 5-10 years and betting the company on it successfully. I would not choose to bet against Netflix's foresight anytime soon.
2 for 2 = "amazing track record"? Counting the offer they made to Blockbuster as another.
Besides, foresight is not everything. You can see your impending doom and not be able to do anything about it. Have they successfully done something to anticipate the eventually-fragmented endgame the current environment is fomenting?
Even if they see it happening and anticipate the future landscape... What exactly could they do? Invest in making a roku-like platform agnostic layer?
Oh come on, you're reducing the number of major decisions Netflix has had to make over the past 5 years to 2? You're right that Netflix faces a fragmented endgame, that's why they've invested so much money into original and exclusive content. Disney (as is HBO, currently) will be a formidable content rival, but by the time Disney's service rolls out, Netflix will have a strong brand when it comes to Netflix-only content, nevermind the advantage it has from having industry-leading infrastructure and experienced engineering teams.
I actually stopped watching The Walking Dead around the 3rd season, which is about the same time I started reading the comics and eventually got bored of the zombie genre. I've heard the show's gotten even more tedious but I still can't imagine it being as vacuous as HoC's later years (Exhibit A: Tom Yates).
Also, I had meant "Walking Dead" as a favorite of the serials currently available on Netflix and that I personally watched via Netflix. So that leaves out BSG, Star Trek (which I watched years ago), all of HBO's shows, and non-serials like Archer and Futurama. So, most TV :)
Save it locally while you can because Netflix's catalog has shrunk by 50% in the last few years (from 2012 to 2016) and they just lost Disney... I think that in the end, they will basically only serve what they produce. http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size-shrinks-...
Netflix's catalog shrunk when they stopped buying fewer large bundles of dross and focused more on exclusivity, both of those efforts cost more per title and thus fewer titles for the same budget.
Netflix doesn't have to own the content so much as protect against being too reliant on a single provider. The more diverse content production, the more powerful the monopolistic distributor. However, the lead they have now they have escaped Earth's gravity. Before we worry about how they might hold up in the long term we should see at least one competitor showing some kind of traction, which we don't. Not one.
I think Netflix is quite successfully moving away from trying to hold on to old content, to being the platform for accessing the up and coming, with some hits along the way.
If you remember Blockbuster - there were tons of old movies, and yet the real business model was in providing the new.
Netflix started off with providing the old, and has quickly shifted towards providing the new, including creating a bunch of it themselves.
I think the real longterm move for Netflix is to incorporate RottenTomatoes and IMBD into their business.
There is simply too much stuff, and if you can't compete on providing content that's been advertised somewhere else as 'good' (what Disney/Hollywood blockbusters do), then you need to do that yourself.
The way to do that is through the people, the only real cost will be in moderating it.
I shouldn't have to randomly watch 20 minutes of random series to see if I like it - Netflix is going to need to be in the business of providing intelligent suggestions, while educating the casual viewer on who's up and coming etc. You know, internet forums reinvented.
> So if, in the end, distribution becomes the new "dumb pipes" at what point do the content providers pull the judo flip and control the distribution and the margin?
The disney thing is really interesting to me. They don't have enough content to pull me in. Not even close. Netflix does. Sure Disney has a niche, and it's not me.
Realistically though - if each content provider wishes to fragment and stream their own content I'm going to end up not finding any single offering compelling. I'll go back to watching a lot less and paying for nothing.
The fragmentation of the streaming market keeps me from using it; I'd happily pay $x per episode/movie (and do on Google play where the content is there). But I'm not going to subscribe to a streaming service just for one series that I want. I'm curious about the concept of brand loyalty to content producers (Disney being the example here) - do people really think "I'd like to see a Disney movie tonight" or do they just want to see a particular movie or genre? I'm sure there's some brand loyalty for Hugh quality (HBO) or specific interest, but am curious how far this goes.
> do people really think "I'd like to see a Disney movie tonight" or do they just want to see a particular movie or genre?
I don't think it's so much "Let's go see what's on the Disney tonight", and more a question of requirements.
I have a son, who is going to turn 3. There's a decent chance that, within a few years, we're going to need on-demand access to Disney content, even if that means paying like $10/mo that we weren't paying before. If he gets hooked on e.g. Frozen and insists on watching it 10 times a day when we're stuck inside due to weather, then that ten bucks is going to pay for itself pretty quickly.
On the other hand, the other example I think of is the new Ducktales. Before this news, I was wondering: will it be on iTunes? Netflix? Streaming online through some other service? Will I have to torrent it if I want to see it in Canada without paying for a $80/mo cable package and a DVR (fuck you HBO)?
Now, if Disney is launching their own streaming service, there's a good chance that this simplifies the answers. If this streaming service launches in Canada in the first place, then there's a decent chance I can see new episodes there, and if so, there's a decent chance that I can see them day-of, or possibly real-time.
The idea of a streaming service where my kid can sit down when it's time for his favourite cartoon to be on and actually watch it, rather than having to wait for daddy to torrent it for him, is fantastic, and I'll pay $10/mo for that.
> If he gets hooked on e.g. Frozen and insists on watching it 10 times a day when we're stuck inside due to weather, then that ten bucks is going to pay for itself pretty quickly.
Or y'know, just shell out $10 for the dvd which you can probably sell for the same price once he outgrows it
One option for streaming services with thinner content libraries is just to subscribe for a month or two every so often and binge watch their limited good content. The first month is usually free.
> do people really think "I'd like to see a Disney movie tonight" or do they just want to see a particular movie or genre?
As sibling comment mentions, kids of a certain age do want to watch Disney all day. Disney's biggest streaming lure should be the live sports from ESPN which also has lots of loyal viewers. I could envision paying $19/month to both Disney and Netflix in 2020 assuming Netflix's content continues to ramp.
It's nice to be in a position of power. For unknown directors it would be "Coen Brothers land Netflix series" not "Netflix lands Cone Brothers serirs".
34 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 90.0 ms ] thread"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.)"
The Coen brothers hold a special place in my heart. So, so glad to see them headed to Netflix!
Part of me wishes that I could just get a $250 "lifetime subscription" to everything they do... they get the money up front. It's not clear to me how they would go about using the money in the current system... maybe they could negotiate for a greater share of the proceeds if they bring financing money to the table; maybe that would make it easier for financiers to say yes. (yup, i said proceeds, not profits, since i'm aware of hollywood accounting). maybe something through patreon might work for this.
They have far and away the broadest streaming distribution (75% of it!) in the USA (1) which is a market that already 53% saturated.
And the bull case guys point to international subscription growth - which is still in its infancy - as the reason to hold Netflix forever. (2)
They have much lower infrastructure costs then the previous cable providers without having to build the pipes.
But they also don't benefit from the built in government / monopoly protections that came with that investment in the distribution platform.
So in terms of long game how do they protect themselves?
Own the content.
Disney pulling their rug out earlier this week underscores how fucked Netflix is as just a distributor.
So if, in the end, distribution becomes the new "dumb pipes" at what point do the content providers pull the judo flip and control the distribution and the margin?
Disney again, case in point.
So do we underwrite Netflix's future - aka their current 227 PE! - in their ability to execute on the content side?
(1) https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/10/netflix-reaches-75-of-u-s-...
(2) https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/buy-netflix-because-its-inte...
They've evolved and executed repeatedly in the 20 years since they started. DVDs by mail->Streaming Online->Original Content->Global Market. One misstep was to try to separate the legacy DVD business as a stand alone brand and charge separately for streaming. That failed pretty spectacularly, so they quickly bailed on the idea[0], said their mea culpas and went on to triple revenues over the 5 years since.
We can expect Netflix to grow into the Earth's TV station, hyperbole and all...
[0] http://business.time.com/2011/09/19/netflix-admits-it-messed...
You're not paying for their current business, you're paying for their ability to execute now and in the future.
edit: besides the Netflix-conceived shows, e.g. HoC and "Narcos", there are the Netflix-bought shows, such as Arrested Development and Black Mirror, and what seems like countless comedy specials, such as Louis CK 2017. Back when I thought HoC was a poor investment, I was thinking that one really great show a year wouldn't be enough to keep me subscribing year after year. But Netflix seems to be introducing exclusive content several times a month.
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/
Besides, foresight is not everything. You can see your impending doom and not be able to do anything about it. Have they successfully done something to anticipate the eventually-fragmented endgame the current environment is fomenting?
Even if they see it happening and anticipate the future landscape... What exactly could they do? Invest in making a roku-like platform agnostic layer?
Compared to Walking Dead which you mention as a favorite?
Also, I had meant "Walking Dead" as a favorite of the serials currently available on Netflix and that I personally watched via Netflix. So that leaves out BSG, Star Trek (which I watched years ago), all of HBO's shows, and non-serials like Archer and Futurama. So, most TV :)
What about him? Can't a first lady have a little fun on the side?
I bet this kind of thing plays out all the time...
If you remember Blockbuster - there were tons of old movies, and yet the real business model was in providing the new.
Netflix started off with providing the old, and has quickly shifted towards providing the new, including creating a bunch of it themselves.
I think the real longterm move for Netflix is to incorporate RottenTomatoes and IMBD into their business.
There is simply too much stuff, and if you can't compete on providing content that's been advertised somewhere else as 'good' (what Disney/Hollywood blockbusters do), then you need to do that yourself.
The way to do that is through the people, the only real cost will be in moderating it.
I shouldn't have to randomly watch 20 minutes of random series to see if I like it - Netflix is going to need to be in the business of providing intelligent suggestions, while educating the casual viewer on who's up and coming etc. You know, internet forums reinvented.
My 2 cents :)
I understand the sentiment, but I can foresee problems with them getting a major studio brand and an Amazon property into their business ;)
The disney thing is really interesting to me. They don't have enough content to pull me in. Not even close. Netflix does. Sure Disney has a niche, and it's not me.
Realistically though - if each content provider wishes to fragment and stream their own content I'm going to end up not finding any single offering compelling. I'll go back to watching a lot less and paying for nothing.
I don't think it's so much "Let's go see what's on the Disney tonight", and more a question of requirements.
I have a son, who is going to turn 3. There's a decent chance that, within a few years, we're going to need on-demand access to Disney content, even if that means paying like $10/mo that we weren't paying before. If he gets hooked on e.g. Frozen and insists on watching it 10 times a day when we're stuck inside due to weather, then that ten bucks is going to pay for itself pretty quickly.
On the other hand, the other example I think of is the new Ducktales. Before this news, I was wondering: will it be on iTunes? Netflix? Streaming online through some other service? Will I have to torrent it if I want to see it in Canada without paying for a $80/mo cable package and a DVR (fuck you HBO)?
Now, if Disney is launching their own streaming service, there's a good chance that this simplifies the answers. If this streaming service launches in Canada in the first place, then there's a decent chance I can see new episodes there, and if so, there's a decent chance that I can see them day-of, or possibly real-time.
The idea of a streaming service where my kid can sit down when it's time for his favourite cartoon to be on and actually watch it, rather than having to wait for daddy to torrent it for him, is fantastic, and I'll pay $10/mo for that.
Or y'know, just shell out $10 for the dvd which you can probably sell for the same price once he outgrows it
> do people really think "I'd like to see a Disney movie tonight" or do they just want to see a particular movie or genre?
As sibling comment mentions, kids of a certain age do want to watch Disney all day. Disney's biggest streaming lure should be the live sports from ESPN which also has lots of loyal viewers. I could envision paying $19/month to both Disney and Netflix in 2020 assuming Netflix's content continues to ramp.