Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I was pleased to hear that things have gone well for you since you last contributed to these forums, Harry.
I agree that you can see Netflix as simply replacing the DVDs, but I have always thought that streaming was so much better as it avoided having to find storage space for the physical content, and trying to find that DVD you were looking for was always a pain!
If you were a regular purchaser of DVDs, or you if you preferred to rent them out, Netflix is so much cheaper. I think I must be watching more TV series via Netflix now than from my recordings (I watch very little live, as you may recall).
As for Netflix’s viability and what I would do, I agree with their idea of building up the original content first - that is important, because content is king. It is why Netflix is the most popular of all the streaming services.
There will come a point at which Netflix will be able to scale down on the number of new commissions it makes because they will have such a quantity of good stuff in their library, it would take years for anyone to watch all the programmes that appealed to them. This would reduce the current levels of expenditure needed, and all the time, as Netflix extends worldwide, it will be picking up new subscriptions.
There are two other things I would do about the content. First, I would make some of the older stuff available to other providers to generate a further income stream. Secondly, I would enable all customers to be able to see a huge range of additional content belonging to third parties on a PPV basis. Accordingly, Netflix could be a one-stop shop for any programme that subscribers wanted to watch. There could be additional subscription tiers enabling viewers to watch a limited number of those PPV shows in a month as an alternative for paying extra for each view.
I think Netflix has a big advantage over most other forms of viewing, not only because of the amount of original content, but also because it is free of advertising. However, I do think that Netflix should think about making lower packages available with perhaps more limited choices but with advertising included. Under no circumstances should they introduce advertising slots to their top subscription packages, and the CEO is on record as having agreed with that principle. However, if they wanted to introduce sponsors for their titles, I would not object to that - it would be a nice little earner without disrupting the viewer’s evening.
Another source of useful income could be established by setting up a music option. They could have a ‘live’ channel with continuous music videos, they could have videos of concerts and of the artists themselves. They could introduce an app, very much like Amazon Music or YouTube Music, that you could play on any suitable device and in your car. I think there is plenty of room to expand beyond what we know and love Netflix for at the moment. Perhaps Netflix could have their own set top boxes as well.
In short, there are lots of options open to Netflix to increase revenue and to start reducing their debt. I dare say there is plenty of thinking outside the box going on at present in their offices.
I was disappointed by your cheap reference to the 2025 date when ever since that disputed post, since 2015, in fact, I have been consistently stating that I believe that by 2035 the existing broadcast channels will have been superseded by IPTV. I said that over 5 years ago now, and I am still saying that today. I believe that our conventional method of transmitter broadcasts will make way for 5G+ and that the abolition of the licence fee for a subscription-based model will ensure that the BBC moves to IPTV not long after the next 10-year review of the licence fee. The commercial channels will all go the same way as viewer loyalty gradually transfers to the streamers and become too expensive to operate with diminishing advertising revenue. I am well aware that others have different views, but that is mine.
Feel free to disagree - this is a discussion group, after all!
|
Interesting read this one. Genuinely.
You’ve identified the compelling sell of Netflix. Replacing DVD rentals. Yet, applying their success there to extrapolate that into automatic success in a further market - pay-tv. Netflix adding PPV tiers is a crazy idea - the closer they get to the pricing of incumbents in the pay-tv market the less competitive their offering is.
5G operators have no interest in the UHF spectrum. It doesn’t deliver the high speeds that will define 5G above 4G or 3G. Equally - the dramatic shift to working from home that is inevitable from the Coronavirus outbreak is going to shift data demand off of the mobile networks, out of cities and onto domestic broadband connections and into towns and villages.
Entering the subscription music market was addressed by Chris, so I won’t add to that.
You’ve raised the prospect of reducing their debt. A novel idea in the venture capital markets of course. I was listening to a podcast the other day where they mentioned how Uber had billions pumped into it to cover losses on a regular basis. Where is it reducing costs or offering something that the taxi cab/private hire market doesn’t? Workers rights and tax liabilities. Less regulation. It looks like that model will fail costing investors money that will never be recouped.
It brings me to what is Netflix’s compelling offer that anyone else - a streamer or otherwise - couldn’t replicate without £20bn of debt to go with?