Thread: VOD Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
View Single Post
Old 09-11-2020, 13:51   #1505
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
This will never happen. It can never happen. It is Netflix’s core strategy to be a commissioner of original content. This is the case because it realised long ago that simply being a video library would never appeal to enough people to keep them subscribing. They can no more stop commissioning original content than the BBC can - and significantly reducing commissioning would be tantamount to the same thing.
You may be right, Chris, but without evidence to support your view, it is a little inadvisable to say it will never happen. Strategies change, just as they have appeared to have changed in respect of CBS All Access.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2020...amount-launch/

I believe that Netflix always will be the leader in providing original content. They will never stop that, and I didn't say they would. However, there will be scope for reducing the number of originals they are producing once they are satisfied with the selection available.

Context is important here, Chris. Harry was asking for ideas on how Netflix could save money. That is one.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post

If reduced original commissions risks losing them long term subscribers, then farming out their older material to other distributors risks their ability to attract new ones. Nobody gets Netflix to watch the entire back catalogue - there’s too broad a range of material to be of interest to any one person (which is entirely how it’s meant to be). But if you let people watch your older material without subscribing to Netflix, why would they then subscribe to Netflix?

Unlike the BBC and ITV, which are designed around mostly one-time broadcast of original content, Netflix’s lack of a linear schedule means the only way it can flesh out its offering is by always having its entire catalogue available at all times.
Well, there's the thing. Netflix have so many original films and TV series, I cannot see anyone being put off by a reduction of, say, 50% of brand new originals each week.

After 5 or maybe even 10 years, I cannot see Netflix losing any sleep in allowing other providers to have access to selected material. They already do this actually, but I think there is far more scope to do so than they do now.

The reason you would wish to subscribe to Netflix, obviously, is to view more recent material. Remember, The Simpsons pretty well defines Sky One, but they still allow other TV channels have the rights to screen the older programmes. That doesn't stop people from wanting Sky.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post

Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video already do exactly this. Other similar platforms specialise in only offering PPV content. It’s a crowded market and entering it would muddy Netflix’s brand positioning. At present it is very clear what you get with Netflix. I doubt they could make enough extra money to justify the upheaval.
Really, Chris? I am suggesting that PPV could be added to the catalogue, so how that would put people off Netflix is difficult to comprehend?

Look, I know other providers do this. They get a bit of stick for it as well, because they pay a subscription and then they have to pay more. In my view, these streamer service providers have got it wrong. They mix all the free and PPV material up together, which both confuses and disappoints people, leaving them disillusioned. Look how many people on these forums have complained about that very thing.

However, if Netflix entered into PPV as an additional service, with the PPV material in a completely different area of the site, and advertised as a way that their subscribers could still watch material for which the rights were held by a different provider, this would raise the extra money without alienating those with a Netflix subscription. There is a lot to be said about having all your content in one place.

I would have thought the PPV market was quite lucrative, but I don't have any figures to hand to be certain.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post

You are literally the only person regularly contributing to this thread that thinks this is what you originally said. That’s why Harry repeated it, it’s why I repeat it from time to time, and it’s why it’s never going away.
This is a silly argument. Are you actually disputing that I have been specifying 2035 as the date since 2015?

I have explained multiple times that it is the broadband coverage that I believe will be in a state that will enable the vast majority to be able to access the streamers by 2025. I still believe that the TV channels as they exist now will be pretty well dead by 2035.
OLD BOY is offline