VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I fail to see the purpose of your eye roll here. It’s no secret the levels of debt that Netflix are in. You yourself as you ring the death knell for linear television preach to us that quality content will get snapped up by streamers. Well that’s content costs going up and profits going down without price rises.

It has always been bait and switch. Get folk in at £8 a month and see if they will stomach £12/13 in the future.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I fail to see the purpose of your eye roll here. It’s no secret the levels of debt that Netflix are in. You yourself as you ring the death knell for linear television preach to us that quality content will get snapped up by streamers. Well that’s content costs going up and profits going down without price rises.

It has always been bait and switch. Get folk in at £8 a month and see if they will stomach £12/13 in the future.

If the plan is to run at a loss initially, to increase prices over time and to expand globally while spending less on content when a sufficient library is amassed, that sounds pretty sustainable to me.

Netflix is playing the long game. No doubt you would have told us that Murdoch’s satellite TV service was doomed back in the 1990s.

I agree that Netflix has accumulated a lot of debt, but Murdoch’s venture actually nearly went under back in the day.I dare say that once Netflix have made retained their original material for so long, they will look to monetise them further by passing on the rights to broadcast over to other streaming services and who knows, maybe to conventionally broadcast scheduled TV channels. Maybe Netflix will come to their rescue with new content for them!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If the plan is to run at a loss initially, to increase prices over time and to expand globally while spending less on content when a sufficient library is amassed, that sounds pretty sustainable to me.

Netflix is playing the long game. No doubt you would have told us that Murdoch’s satellite TV service was doomed back in the 1990s.

I agree that Netflix has accumulated a lot of debt, but Murdoch’s venture actually nearly went under back in the day.I dare say that once Netflix have made retained their original material for so long, they will look to monetise them further by passing on the rights to broadcast over to other streaming services and who knows, maybe to conventionally broadcast scheduled TV channels. Maybe Netflix will come to their rescue with new content for them!

Increasing prices over time in, what by your own assertion will be, a crowded marketplace with many different low cost products is very risky. At some point you stop being a low cost add on. Especially if you can’t justify the price premium. All the while one of your major competitors, Amazon, is amassing sports rights and other content and maintaining a low price due to the profitability of Prime customers to it’s retail arm.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Increasing prices over time in, what by your own assertion will be, a crowded marketplace with many different low cost products is very risky. At some point you stop being a low cost add on. Especially if you can’t justify the price premium. All the while one of your major competitors, Amazon, is amassing sports rights and other content and maintaining a low price due to the profitability of Prime customers to it’s retail arm.

Netflix is way out in front of all the streamers and will be for many years to come. People will ditch pay tv channels if they need to do so in order to keep Netflix and where money is an issue, they will supplement their viewing with AVOD and in the short term, the terrestrial channels.

Just look at the week’s schedules for Sky One, Sky Witness and Sky Atlantic and do a quick assessment on whether you think they are value for money compared with Netflix. True, there are one or two good programmes on there, but they are surrounded by piles of absolute dross. I only subscribe to Sky for those one or two good programmes, but they represent pretty poor value for money IMHO.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix is way out in front of all the streamers and will be for many years to come. People will ditch pay tv channels if they need to do so in order to keep Netflix and where money is an issue, they will supplement their viewing with AVOD and in the short term, the terrestrial channels.

Just look at the week’s schedules for Sky One, Sky Witness and Sky Atlantic and do a quick assessment on whether you think they are value for money compared with Netflix. True, there are one or two good programmes on there, but they are surrounded by piles of absolute dross. I only subscribe to Sky for those one or two good programmes, but they represent pretty poor value for money IMHO.

Why are we comparing Netflix to three Sky Channels

Netflix for me is a nice little add on but it has to be careful how far it pushes prices.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix is way out in front of all the streamers and will be for many years to come. People will ditch pay tv channels if they need to do so in order to keep Netflix and where money is an issue, they will supplement their viewing with AVOD and in the short term, the terrestrial channels.

Just look at the week’s schedules for Sky One, Sky Witness and Sky Atlantic and do a quick assessment on whether you think they are value for money compared with Netflix. True, there are one or two good programmes on there, but they are surrounded by piles of absolute dross. I only subscribe to Sky for those one or two good programmes, but they represent pretty poor value for money IMHO.

In your opinion people will ditch traditional services. The fact is many pay far more to Sky/Virgin and perceive value there. You yourself say that the one or two good programmes on Sky are worth paying for. Add in movies and sports and it's in a different league to a nice, cheap add on.

[Phunkenstein]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If the plan is to run at a loss initially, to increase prices over time and to expand globally while spending less on content when a sufficient library is amassed, that sounds pretty sustainable to me.

Netflix is playing the long game. No doubt you would have told us that Murdoch’s satellite TV service was doomed back in the 1990s.

I agree that Netflix has accumulated a lot of debt, but Murdoch’s venture actually nearly went under back in the day.I dare say that once Netflix have made retained their original material for so long, they will look to monetise them further by passing on the rights to broadcast over to other streaming services and who knows, maybe to conventionally broadcast scheduled TV channels. Maybe Netflix will come to their rescue with new content for them!

I will agree here that Netflix are globally in front - they have the model, the brand, and the customer muscle memory...that being said they are not invulnerable.

You say that they will "spend less on content" when they have a sufficient library? That is highly unlikely...

If anything spend will continue to go up and they will continue to make more content as licenses expire as legacy companies repatriate content for their services as they slowly expand into other territories - they have to fill that backlog with more volume hence they will perpetually keep spending especially as data points to more cancellations and new orders. I'm sorry but you can't spend billions trying to be Costco and then decide all of a sudden you're a high end boutique.

They will have to compete as Apple and Amazon increase their comparatively low spend and pick up high end shows and films like Killers Of The Flower Moon and Borat 2 (if rumours are to be believed, Amazon bid $40 million more than Netflix for the Borat film) - and unlike those companies and the likes of Disney & Comcast, they do not have other primary businesses to fall back on.

And most importantly, all those other competitors? They don't need to exceed Netflix's subscriber numbers - most of them have different models that does not necessarily mean they need to go toe to toe with Netflix for sub numbers... all the likes of HBO Max, Peacock/Now TV, Disney+/Star/Hulu and Paramount+ need to do collectively is erode hours of viewing from Netflix whose whole business is about keeping you in their platform and nowhere else... if they increase prices and yet viewing hours go down, it will be reasonable to suggest customers may start to consider whether it is still a value proposition.

I don't think Netflix is going anywhere as they are still a damn good service but I don't think they are bulletproof either.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why are we comparing Netflix to three Sky Channels

Netflix for me is a nice little add on but it has to be careful how far it pushes prices.

Maybe to ensure Netflix comes out on top?
It should be compared to Now TV's entertainment pack if we're comparing it to a Sky product.

Netflix has done remarkably well at allowing established Hollywood figures to use their platform to produce vanity projects - actors getting producer credits, that sort of thing. That’s less charitable than I mean it to be; Enola Holmes names Millie Bobby Brown as a producer and by all accounts she was fairly hands-on. But no matter how talented she is, she’s only 16 and her reputation stems entirely from one ensemble show (Stranger Things). Again, that sounds less charitable than I mean it to; all I’m really saying is she wouldn’t have got such a massive opportunity anywhere else. Netflix is happy to chuck money at projects like that and see if it sticks. Given the names they’ve been able to attract to what, in old money, would have been disparagingly called a “tv movie” or “straight to video”, it’s a strategy that’s working for them - especially if Enola Holmes is anything to go by. It managed to draw in Henry Cavill *and* Helena B.C., and has been in the U.K. top 10 since it dropped. The commissioning of a sequel is all but a formality.

Massive companies like Amazon and Apple, which are increasingly looking like conglomerates with their only tangentially connected business divisions, may well have the deep pockets needed to cross-subsidise their TV operations and out bid Netflix for big name productions like Star Trek or Borat, but I believe Netflix already learned a hard lesson in that regard when Marvel went to Disney, Disney started making streaming noises, and Netflix’s well-developed and well-received corner of the MCU came to a sudden halt, long before it ran out of stories to tell.

In short, I don’t think Netflix’s business model is threatened by Amazon or Apple throwing big money at bids for third party content, and I don’t think Netflix is going to reduce spend on its own commissions and retreat to being a video library. It has found a commissioning model that works for it, and also works for the rather big names who are clearly willing to work for somewhat less than the Hollywood A rate in exchange for the creative freedom Netflix is willing to give them.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Chris

Netflix has done remarkably well at allowing established Hollywood figures to use their platform to produce vanity projects - actors getting producer credits, that sort of thing. That’s less charitable than I mean it to be; Enola Holmes names Millie Bobby Brown as a producer and by all accounts she was fairly hands-on. But no matter how talented she is, she’s only 16 and her reputation stems entirely from one ensemble show (Stranger Things). Again, that sounds less charitable than I mean it to; all I’m really saying is she wouldn’t have got such a massive opportunity anywhere else. Netflix is happy to chuck money at projects like that and see if it sticks. Given the names they’ve been able to attract to what, in old money, would have been disparagingly called a “tv movie” or “straight to video”, it’s a strategy that’s working for them - especially if Enola Holmes is anything to go by. It managed to draw in Henry Cavill *and* Helena B.C., and has been in the U.K. top 10 since it dropped. The commissioning of a sequel is all but a formality.

Massive companies like Amazon and Apple, which are increasingly looking like conglomerates with their only tangentially connected business divisions, may well have the deep pockets needed to cross-subsidise their TV operations and out bid Netflix for big name productions like Star Trek or Borat, but I believe Netflix already learned a hard lesson in that regard when Marvel went to Disney, Disney started making streaming noises, and Netflix’s well-developed and well-received corner of the MCU came to a sudden halt, long before it ran out of stories to tell.

In short, I don’t think Netflix’s business model is threatened by Amazon or Apple throwing big money at bids for third party content, and I don’t think Netflix is going to reduce spend on its own commissions and retreat to being a video library. It has found a commissioning model that works for it, and also works for the rather big names who are clearly willing to work for somewhat less than the Hollywood A rate in exchange for the creative freedom Netflix is willing to give them.

Very good post hit the nail on the head.

[Phunkenstein]

Originally Posted by Chris

Netflix has done remarkably well at allowing established Hollywood figures to use their platform to produce vanity projects - actors getting producer credits, that sort of thing. That’s less charitable than I mean it to be; Enola Holmes names Millie Bobby Brown as a producer and by all accounts she was fairly hands-on. But no matter how talented she is, she’s only 16 and her reputation stems entirely from one ensemble show (Stranger Things). Again, that sounds less charitable than I mean it to; all I’m really saying is she wouldn’t have got such a massive opportunity anywhere else. Netflix is happy to chuck money at projects like that and see if it sticks. Given the names they’ve been able to attract to what, in old money, would have been disparagingly called a “tv movie” or “straight to video”, it’s a strategy that’s working for them - especially if Enola Holmes is anything to go by. It managed to draw in Henry Cavill *and* Helena B.C., and has been in the U.K. top 10 since it dropped. The commissioning of a sequel is all but a formality.

Massive companies like Amazon and Apple, which are increasingly looking like conglomerates with their only tangentially connected business divisions, may well have the deep pockets needed to cross-subsidise their TV operations and out bid Netflix for big name productions like Star Trek or Borat, but I believe Netflix already learned a hard lesson in that regard when Marvel went to Disney, Disney started making streaming noises, and Netflix’s well-developed and well-received corner of the MCU came to a sudden halt, long before it ran out of stories to tell.

In short, I don’t think Netflix’s business model is threatened by Amazon or Apple throwing big money at bids for third party content, and I don’t think Netflix is going to reduce spend on its own commissions and retreat to being a video library. It has found a commissioning model that works for it, and also works for the rather big names who are clearly willing to work for somewhat less than the Hollywood A rate in exchange for the creative freedom Netflix is willing to give them.

I agree - good post, but to to correct one thing, Enola Holmes was not actually a Netflix production - it was developed and produced by Legendary & Warner Bros for a theatrical release before they sold distribution rights to Netflix - that being said, the presence of it's lead, her link to Netflix and the appeal of it to a young audience makes it an understandable acquisition for them... I actually think it would not have had a lot of traction had it gone via a traditional theatrical route.

[pip08456]

Legendary & Warner Bros have lined up a box office hit for a sequel. Good move letting Netflix have the first one.

[japitts]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's going to be ridiculously expensive for sports fans, that's what it's going to be. A premiership add on at greater cost than the full Sky Sports add on for Now TV?

I can't see sports fans falling over themselves to pay another £25 a month. Many view the rights as fragmented enough needing Sky and BT without a third service with a sizable proportion of the games.

Rugby union is a similar boat - club rugby is on either BT or Premier (if you're English or Welsh/Scottish) & international is either Sky or FTA.

BT for one do an excellent job with the club rugby, but the split seems to work quite well. I really hope Amazon getting the autumn cup is not a sign of things to come.

Originally Posted by Phunkenstein

I agree - good post, but to to correct one thing, Enola Holmes was not actually a Netflix production - it was developed and produced by Legendary & Warner Bros for a theatrical release before they sold distribution rights to Netflix - that being said, the presence of it's lead, her link to Netflix and the appeal of it to a young audience makes it an understandable acquisition for them... I actually think it would not have had a lot of traction had it gone via a traditional theatrical route.

According to the LA Times, the Brown family pitched the idea to Legendary through their production company.

It was Enola herself who appealed to Paige Brown, the star’s older sister and a self-described “bookworm,” who helped start the journey for the film to get made after reading Springer’s “Enola Holmes Mysteries” series.

“[Enola] really just struck me as a really great character,” said Paige Brown. “Millie at the time was a bit younger [than Enola] but I was thinking ahead and thought, ‘This would be really great onscreen.’”

Paige introduced the books to Millie, and it didn’t take much for her to get on board with a film project.

“I just fell in love with Enola,” said Millie Bobby Brown. “When Paige is excited about something it gets me immediately excited. I read the book series and I was immersed by the story. … I was very excited about multiple different things — the stunts, the costumes, the time period. [Enola’s] bravery and her vulnerableness.”

The sisters discussed the project with their father and, through their family production company, PCMA Productions, connected with Legendary Pictures, a studio Millie had a relationship with via the “Godzilla” franchise, to make the film happen. Netflix acquired the finished film in April, when movie theaters were already shut down due to COVID-19.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by jfman

I fail to see the purpose of your eye roll here. It’s no secret the levels of debt that Netflix are in. You yourself as you ring the death knell for linear television preach to us that quality content will get snapped up by streamers. Well that’s content costs going up and profits going down without price rises.

It has always been bait and switch. Get folk in at £8 a month and see if they will stomach £12/13 in the future.

Or give them an offer, see how many are rich enough and too idle to cancel when you ramp up the cost.

I'm sure it works for a lot of people.

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Originally Posted by japitts

Rugby union is a similar boat - club rugby is on either BT or Premier (if you're English or Welsh/Scottish) & international is either Sky or FTA.

BT for one do an excellent job with the club rugby, but the split seems to work quite well. I really hope Amazon getting the autumn cup is not a sign of things to come.

Yes hopefully it isn't the thin end of the wedge!