Experts say the enormous amounts spent on old shows like Seinfeld and The Big Bang Theory ignore a key point: we have no way of knowing how much shows are worth
I see this very similarly to professional sports. The value is whatever is paid for it. Netflix is betting that consumers will pay for access to Seinfeld, similar to a professional sports team is...
I see this very similarly to professional sports. The value is whatever is paid for it. Netflix is betting that consumers will pay for access to Seinfeld, similar to a professional sports team is willing to pay hundreds of millions for a few years contract for a player. Seinfeld isn’t their only program, but it’s a big part of their team. The inherent value is therefore part of the total package, not just that specific show. Critics and consumers will always be able to speculate and review their perceived worth, but ultimately only Netflix and their shareholders determine the worth as part of the total package.
There may also be the consideration of keeping shows out of competitors' hands. Having the show yourself might not add much to your own revenue, but if your competitors get too many of these...
There may also be the consideration of keeping shows out of competitors' hands. Having the show yourself might not add much to your own revenue, but if your competitors get too many of these high-profile popular shows, that might decrease your revenue as you lose subscribers.
Customers aren't always chasing one particular show; they're trying to find one or two streaming services with a collection of content which will serve their viewing desires. If your competitors have all the high-profile popular shows, all your own high-quality in-house shows won't matter. Customers want popular shows (by definition). They'll go elsewhere for their viewing needs if you don't have those shows.
Can it remove half a billion dollars from lost revenues over 4 years? Maybe the answer is in the middle. Netflix needs a flagship “default” sitcom, something viewers put on for comfort or company....
Can it remove half a billion dollars from lost revenues over 4 years? Maybe the answer is in the middle.
Netflix needs a flagship “default” sitcom, something viewers put on for comfort or company. Without it, it’s much more likely people would jump ship.
Here was a bit of an opposing viewpoint I read today as well, on The Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/09/19/the-simple-reason-netflix-is-paying-more-than-500.aspx Personally I...
I don't think subscribers to the current environment are driving anywhere NEAR the totals these shows are commanding. This isn't a case of buy and win the current market base, this is setting up...
We have no actual information about what creates or reduces churn
I don't think subscribers to the current environment are driving anywhere NEAR the totals these shows are commanding. This isn't a case of buy and win the current market base, this is setting up the next generation of media giants. Cable is fucked. Movies are close to fucked. The 'internet internet' like Youtube is fragile. Streaming under the Netflix model has the best chance I can see (and presumably others based on the $) of being the mainstream core of the future of content delivery, and positioning yourself now as a brand to be reckoned with in that space has the potential to add to the list of multi-tiered vertically integrated super-corporations the way Disney did with film.
I understand that they're going for the long play, but I don't think it will matter. I mentioned this in a thread the other day, but I don't think it will matter how much stuff Netflix can get...
I understand that they're going for the long play, but I don't think it will matter. I mentioned this in a thread the other day, but I don't think it will matter how much stuff Netflix can get ahold of. Disney+ will have such a massive advantage that no one can compete. They have all of the Disney and Fox content ever created and they obviously aren't going to license it out to other streaming companies.
Disney and Fox combined are powerful, no doubt about it - but they aren't yet greater than 51%, and 'everyone who isn't Disney' may end up forming the other half of a duopoly. There's a good...
Disney and Fox combined are powerful, no doubt about it - but they aren't yet greater than 51%, and 'everyone who isn't Disney' may end up forming the other half of a duopoly. There's a good possibility that other half is a coalition under Netflix after all the other entrants (Amazon, Hulu, NBC) fail - or maybe Netflix fails and one of the others picks it up. This is what they're aiming at.
The worst possible outcome for Disney however is that everybody but them fails. Disney is a bad election outcome away from an anti-trust and they know it.
I see something else here. Looking at this as a viewer, I see this show moving from one streaming service to another. If I wanted to watch 'Seinfeld' (I don't - but if I did), I would have to...
To give a sense of scale, just over 20 years ago, TBS shocked the industry with a $200 million syndication deal for “Seinfeld.” Four years ago, the numbers were considered equally giant when Hulu paid Sony $160 million for the comedy. Netflix’s number is more than three times that
I see something else here. Looking at this as a viewer, I see this show moving from one streaming service to another. If I wanted to watch 'Seinfeld' (I don't - but if I did), I would have to change my streaming subscription from Hulu to Netflix, or add Netflix to an ever-growing suite of subscriptions.
Back in 2009, when I read that the ebook '1984' had quietly vanished from people's Kindles, I learned an important lesson: when it's digital, you don't own it. You merely possess it temporarily, until some corporation changes its mind. A decade later, these modern-day streaming wars are just reinforcing that lesson. If I like a show and don't want it to vanish into the ether, I need to own a physical copy of it.
Not to say this is not a virtuous attitude, but its harder to be that strict when you live in a third world country where your currency has no value, most people are either poor, unemployed or...
Not to say this is not a virtuous attitude, but its harder to be that strict when you live in a third world country where your currency has no value, most people are either poor, unemployed or sub-employed, shipping rates and import taxes are prohibitively high and corporations use a lack of competition and the expectation for higher prices to further increase their markup. Sometimes we get hyperinflation too. And many things are simply never released. That's the entire reason for the existence of Fansubs, without which I would never know anime and would not be a paid subscriber to Crunchyroll today.
Furthermore, research after research shows that, when reasonable legal alternatives are provided, pirating does not hurt sales. It's mostly a non-issue.
This is not at all inherent to digital copies. There are many book publishers selling ePubs and PDFs, and many music publishers (eg, Bandcamp) selling mp3/flac/etc files. There is an argument to...
If I like a show and don't want it to vanish into the ether, I need to own a physical copy of it.
This is not at all inherent to digital copies. There are many book publishers selling ePubs and PDFs, and many music publishers (eg, Bandcamp) selling mp3/flac/etc files. There is an argument to be made that, in some ways, digital copies are more resilient, as they can be easily backed up, and thus made resilient to fires, floods, and so on. The problem isn't digital content, but corporations that refuse to sell digital content that isn't crippled, and sales that are promoted as sales of content, but are actually just sales of temporary access to content.
The insistence that digital content must be such that the purchaser doesn't actually have control of it, and that purchased copies can vanish as a result of corporate whims, is unfortunate, and I feel that the idea is, in part, being promoted to normalize that type of selling, with the argument that the difference is just an inherent disadvantage of digital content over physical copies, but that the convenience outweighs the disadvantage.
Even more unfortunately, these ideas seem to be making their way out of digital media content and into software and the physical world as well, with automatic firmware and software updates that cripple devices and remove features, or designs that needlessly rely on connections to corporate servers so as to allow the company to later break them.
But that's the world we live in. I have to adapt my strategies to reality as it is, not to the fantasy I'd like it to be. And, in this real world of ours, purchasers' possession digital content is...
The problem isn't digital content, but corporations that refuse to sell digital content that isn't crippled, and sales that are promoted as sales of content, but are actually just sales of temporary access to content.
But that's the world we live in. I have to adapt my strategies to reality as it is, not to the fantasy I'd like it to be. And, in this real world of ours, purchasers' possession digital content is dependent on corporate whims.
I’m not an specialist. But I rewatch Friends on Netflix multiple times a week an it is a big deal for me. I do the same on Amazon Prime with Parks and Recreation.
I’m not an specialist. But I rewatch Friends on Netflix multiple times a week an it is a big deal for me.
I do the same on Amazon Prime with Parks and Recreation.
I see this very similarly to professional sports. The value is whatever is paid for it. Netflix is betting that consumers will pay for access to Seinfeld, similar to a professional sports team is willing to pay hundreds of millions for a few years contract for a player. Seinfeld isn’t their only program, but it’s a big part of their team. The inherent value is therefore part of the total package, not just that specific show. Critics and consumers will always be able to speculate and review their perceived worth, but ultimately only Netflix and their shareholders determine the worth as part of the total package.
I just don't see how it adds half a billion dollars to their revenue, even indirectly.
There may also be the consideration of keeping shows out of competitors' hands. Having the show yourself might not add much to your own revenue, but if your competitors get too many of these high-profile popular shows, that might decrease your revenue as you lose subscribers.
Customers aren't always chasing one particular show; they're trying to find one or two streaming services with a collection of content which will serve their viewing desires. If your competitors have all the high-profile popular shows, all your own high-quality in-house shows won't matter. Customers want popular shows (by definition). They'll go elsewhere for their viewing needs if you don't have those shows.
Can it remove half a billion dollars from lost revenues over 4 years? Maybe the answer is in the middle.
Netflix needs a flagship “default” sitcom, something viewers put on for comfort or company. Without it, it’s much more likely people would jump ship.
Here was a bit of an opposing viewpoint I read today as well, on The Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/09/19/the-simple-reason-netflix-is-paying-more-than-500.aspx
Personally I still think it's too much, but there are some interesting points in there.
I don't think subscribers to the current environment are driving anywhere NEAR the totals these shows are commanding. This isn't a case of buy and win the current market base, this is setting up the next generation of media giants. Cable is fucked. Movies are close to fucked. The 'internet internet' like Youtube is fragile. Streaming under the Netflix model has the best chance I can see (and presumably others based on the $) of being the mainstream core of the future of content delivery, and positioning yourself now as a brand to be reckoned with in that space has the potential to add to the list of multi-tiered vertically integrated super-corporations the way Disney did with film.
I understand that they're going for the long play, but I don't think it will matter. I mentioned this in a thread the other day, but I don't think it will matter how much stuff Netflix can get ahold of. Disney+ will have such a massive advantage that no one can compete. They have all of the Disney and Fox content ever created and they obviously aren't going to license it out to other streaming companies.
Disney and Fox combined are powerful, no doubt about it - but they aren't yet greater than 51%, and 'everyone who isn't Disney' may end up forming the other half of a duopoly. There's a good possibility that other half is a coalition under Netflix after all the other entrants (Amazon, Hulu, NBC) fail - or maybe Netflix fails and one of the others picks it up. This is what they're aiming at.
The worst possible outcome for Disney however is that everybody but them fails. Disney is a bad election outcome away from an anti-trust and they know it.
That's what Hulu was before it Disney bought out everybody else, except that it was everybody except Netflix.
It's a market in flux - you'll see people looking at what Google and Facebook became and considering even $1bn to be a worthwhile gamble.
I see something else here. Looking at this as a viewer, I see this show moving from one streaming service to another. If I wanted to watch 'Seinfeld' (I don't - but if I did), I would have to change my streaming subscription from Hulu to Netflix, or add Netflix to an ever-growing suite of subscriptions.
Back in 2009, when I read that the ebook '1984' had quietly vanished from people's Kindles, I learned an important lesson: when it's digital, you don't own it. You merely possess it temporarily, until some corporation changes its mind. A decade later, these modern-day streaming wars are just reinforcing that lesson. If I like a show and don't want it to vanish into the ether, I need to own a physical copy of it.
Or just pirate. Way I see it only bootlickers could be against it in a world otherwise so stacked towards corporate power over consumer.
I prefer to pay the content creators for their work.
I prefer too. But this preference far from an absolute principle.
It's a very strong principle for me.
Not to say this is not a virtuous attitude, but its harder to be that strict when you live in a third world country where your currency has no value, most people are either poor, unemployed or sub-employed, shipping rates and import taxes are prohibitively high and corporations use a lack of competition and the expectation for higher prices to further increase their markup. Sometimes we get hyperinflation too. And many things are simply never released. That's the entire reason for the existence of Fansubs, without which I would never know anime and would not be a paid subscriber to Crunchyroll today.
Furthermore, research after research shows that, when reasonable legal alternatives are provided, pirating does not hurt sales. It's mostly a non-issue.
This is not at all inherent to digital copies. There are many book publishers selling ePubs and PDFs, and many music publishers (eg, Bandcamp) selling mp3/flac/etc files. There is an argument to be made that, in some ways, digital copies are more resilient, as they can be easily backed up, and thus made resilient to fires, floods, and so on. The problem isn't digital content, but corporations that refuse to sell digital content that isn't crippled, and sales that are promoted as sales of content, but are actually just sales of temporary access to content.
The insistence that digital content must be such that the purchaser doesn't actually have control of it, and that purchased copies can vanish as a result of corporate whims, is unfortunate, and I feel that the idea is, in part, being promoted to normalize that type of selling, with the argument that the difference is just an inherent disadvantage of digital content over physical copies, but that the convenience outweighs the disadvantage.
Even more unfortunately, these ideas seem to be making their way out of digital media content and into software and the physical world as well, with automatic firmware and software updates that cripple devices and remove features, or designs that needlessly rely on connections to corporate servers so as to allow the company to later break them.
But that's the world we live in. I have to adapt my strategies to reality as it is, not to the fantasy I'd like it to be. And, in this real world of ours, purchasers' possession digital content is dependent on corporate whims.
I’m not an specialist. But I rewatch Friends on Netflix multiple times a week an it is a big deal for me.
I do the same on Amazon Prime with Parks and Recreation.
Content values are a lot like property values. Lots of estimates, but the only thing that truly demonstrated the value is it's purchase price.
I mentioned this in a thread a few days ago but this addresses how unsustainable all these massive deals are.