VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[Horizon]

Sales tax receipts goes to the governments, not Netflix, how is that relevant here? Of course prices are different and its not straight forward. I already mentioned last week the new Indian mobile tier for a few dollars. Some tiers may be around $10, some under and some over, but I was roughly using your £8.99 as a base figure.

On debts, the banks recently gave Netflix another $2billion, so I don't see plug pulling anytime soon.

On your last point, agree. The tech giants have massive amounts of cash and can blow anyone out of the water if they so choose, but I would see Netflix probably getting acquired by one of them in the future, rather than them trying to compete head on with Netflix. I actually think that all the "old" media cos will get acquired by the big tech cos in the end because essentially they're all operating in the same space now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Sales tax receipts goes to the governments, not Netflix, how is that relevant here? Of course prices are different and its not straight forward. I already mentioned last week the new Indian mobile tier for a few dollars. Some tiers may be around $10, some under and some over, but I was roughly using your £8.99 as a base figure.

On debts, the banks recently gave Netflix another $2billion, so I don't see plug pulling anytime soon.

On your last point, agree. The tech giants have massive amounts of cash and can blow anyone out of the water if they so choose, but I would see Netflix probably getting acquired by one of them in the future, rather than them trying to compete head on with Netflix.

They could blow anyone out the water, but again we are conflating “deep pockets” and business models. They’re not charities, they’re capitalist enterprises.

Netflix getting acquired and restructured into a bigger player is essentially accepting my point that the current business model is fatally flawed. A profitable company could generate tax efficiencies from the debt, and the customer base is its only real asset.

[Horizon]

But as you know full well, they're in their growth stage. Remember how long it took Rupert Murdoch to make actual money out of Sky after he launched it.

You seem to be almost wondering why Netflix aren't paying dividends like "proper" companies and that is because they're busy growing first. They have a massive first mover advantage here, the same as Sky did.

If you're expecting dividends from Netflix, try again in about 5-7 years, if you're lucky.

I do not accept at all that their business model is fatally flawed. 151m customers and billions in annual revenues suggest otherwise.

On deep pockets, fatally flawed, business models etc, the best example is Amazon. It took them a long time to generate a profit because they were grabbing as much market share as they could and that is exactly what Netflix is doing now.

[jfman]

They’re in their growth stage but it’s already stalling in North America.

I’ve no interest in whether Netflix pay dividends to shareholders or otherwise. It’s easy to pluck a successful company out the air and predict that’s what Netflix are doing. Just as easily I could pluck a name from the .com boom in the 90s that was valued at billions and no longer exist.

Their position in the market is thus far untested. It’s very much an assumption that it can stave off any competition as and when it arrives. All at a time it is experiencing slower growth, having to shell out more on rights and implement price rises for what many consider to be a low value add on to a primary subscription.

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Horizon (16-03-2019, 15:31)

I currently own Netlfix shares and I see it going either two ways:....

Ah, you’re literally sitting here talking up your own stock portfolio.

Makes sense now.

[Horizon]

The North American figures were expected to stall, as I'm sure you know.

Their position in the market is number one and for a while and maybe again, they became the world's largest media company. I don't see how that is untested. What test would they have to pass in your view?

They compete everyday with other media companies for eyeballs, Disney et all still run tv channels and subscription services. And I'm not assuming that the other streamers may not hurt them, they may when they're up and running, but that's not happening yet or anytime soon.

Slower growth? Are you going by the last quarter's results here?? They're American growth is slowing and that was expected, but intentionally they're still motoring along. Yes they pay more for rights, as does everyone else and yes, they do implement prices rises from time to time, just like "proper" companies do.

151 million customers pay for Netflix, whether they consider a low value add on or not, they still pay.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah, you’re literally sitting here talking up your own stock portfolio.

Makes sense now.

You think me talking here on a Saturday night on a UK forum, will affect the share price of a American company? If only I had that power!

I also own Disney, did own Sky, own Discovery and others. As I'm so powerful to move share prices, I'll talk about all of them now.

What exactly is your beef with Netflix?

[jfman]

The figures weren’t expected to stall, hence the share price dip and statement on the matter. It’s historical revisionism to claim this is all trundling along as expected.

These will be the same paying customers, and eyeballs, that get dismissed when I point out they both pay for and watch linear television.

As you know low value add ons are more at risk to competition and, in times of recession, changes in consumer habits.

I don’t see how you can find much of what I say controversial when just five months ago you said similar.

I currently own Netlfix shares and I see it going either two ways:

1. They collapse under their debt mountain before generating a penny in profit.
2. Their subscriber numbers continue to accelerate upwards allowing free cash flow to bring down their debts and who knows, even make a profit at some point before 2100.

I wouldn’t say the events between then and now make option 1 less likely.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

Oh come on you know what i meant.

I don't watch ads, life is too short, FF is such a wonderful thing

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by Raider999

I don't watch ads, life is too short, FF is such a wonderful thing

Oh it is, but atleast with streaming services you don't even have to do that currently.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

Oh it is, but atleast with streaming services you don't even have to do that currently.

So he should stop watching all the programs he enjoys now, subscribe to a further service he doesn’t at present want, all to avoid the minor inconvenience of hitting fast forward and play three times an hour.

I’m not sure what planet the streaming fundamentalists are on. I say this as a subscriber to three streaming services! (I’d forgot about one).

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by jfman

I fail to see how that is not pertinent - you yourself see a glorious future of multiple streaming options, consumers opting in for a month at a time, binging on content and moving on.

$20bn is a lot of £8.99s a month. Especially when they're having to heavily increase their spend on content due to the studios planning their own options and keeping their own content.

You portray this as a threat to Sky, but bizarrely not Netflix?

In theory that might happen, however the apathy of customers in general will mean most will add a streamer to get content they particularly want and then fail to cancel when that ends - reviewing when they get notification of a price rise.

I cannot see Amazon adding many long term customers on the back of 2 midweek rounds of PL in December (except those detailed in previous sentence).

I suspect many will take the free month and cancel as I will do.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

Oh it is, but atleast with streaming services you don't even have to do that currently.

Currently is the big word - if linear services do decline dramatically advertisers will be looking for new avenues and streaming will be the obvious opportunity. I suggest this means anyone who wants streaming without ads will then need to pay a large premium.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

In theory that might happen, however the apathy of customers in general will mean most will add a streamer to get content they particularly want and then fail to cancel when that ends - reviewing when they get notification of a price rise.

I cannot see Amazon adding many long term customers on the back of 2 midweek rounds of PL in December (except those detailed in previous sentence).

I suspect many will take the free month and cancel as I will do.

A good proportion of those taking the trial will decide to continue to take the service.

It seems to me that Amazon is being very cautious with the Premiership football rights. They are clearly testing the waters with a view to taking a big decision in the future. If they do take the plunge and make a serious bid against Sky and BT next time around, football fans will not be able to take their free month trial and cancel. They will sign up at least for the full season, and they will have been drawn in.

It will be very interesting to see their pricing policy if that happens.

[Itshim]

So many people on this site with business degrees, Are many of you CEO,s on multinationals be any chance ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Itshim

So many people on this site with business degrees, Are many of you CEO,s on multinationals be any chance ?

I haven’t seen anyone claim they have a business degree. Neither is one required to run a business, and there’s some bad CEOs around.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So he should stop watching all the programs he enjoys now, subscribe to a further service he doesn’t at present want, all to avoid the minor inconvenience of hitting fast forward and play three times an hour.

I’m not sure what planet the streaming fundamentalists are on. I say this as a subscriber to three streaming services! (I’d forgot about one).

Of course not, he was making a comparison based on ease of use.

I, too, still watch scheduled TV, but via recordings, and all three of my recorders are pretty full. But I know that will change over the next few years. The number of shows I am keen on seeing now has fallen and it continues to decline. I hardly recorded anything this week and it is becoming more difficult to find good programmes.

However, the day will come when everything is on the streamers and I will no longer need my recorders. That day cannot come soon enough for me.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Raider999

In theory that might happen, however the apathy of customers in general will mean most will add a streamer to get content they particularly want and then fail to cancel when that ends - reviewing when they get notification of a price rise.

I cannot see Amazon adding many long term customers on the back of 2 midweek rounds of PL in December (except those detailed in previous sentence).

I suspect many will take the free month and cancel as I will do.

Some are doing that now as they tend to subscribe for certain series and events and then cancel.