(05-23-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 02:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I know Netflix is creating a lot of new content now, but that's nothing compared to decades worth of productions that some of their competitors will have at their fingertips immediately. That and the new players on the market will have just as much if not greater ability to create new content as Netflix will.

IMO, Netflix has the upper hand in the new world of content creation. What makes them valuable isn't a back catalog, it's that they can drop a 10-episode season of Jessica Jones on us all at once. And then three weeks later, we get another 12-episode season of another new show, and on and on.

To me, that is FAR more entertainment value than what Disney and Warners are good at - making movies, and TV shows where a season is spread over six months. E.g., I absolutely love the Disney-Marvel movies, I saw Captain Marvel and Endgame both three times in the theater. Paid big dollars to watch them in IMAX and 3D.

But I won't pay a cent of streaming service to see them on TV. Why would i? I've already seen them in the theater.

To me, Disney and Sony and Universal will have to beat Netflix at the new game, which has nothing to do with being able to show the 1989 Batman movie or the 2009 Jurassic Park movie. It's brand new TV shows, and lots of them.

Netflix is ahead of the game on that.

Fortunately, this argument will have a resolution. We will see how it plays out.

Excellent point. Honestly, what I have found is I absolutely love the concept of 8-10 episode story telling. Its a perfect sweet spot for converting books to tv. Usually, a book has to be heavily condensed in order to tell the story in a 90-120 minute movie format. But an 8-10 hour episode mini-series does a great job of allowing the director to give us a richer and more robust version of the book or story.

To me, its much more satisfying than a TV series---which really doesnt know where the story is going. In a series---you have a concept that the writers use to then start churning out episodes--and when the series is cancelled---they usually just try to wrap up the loose ends in a couple of episodes. However, when taken as whole, when you look back on a series---much (or most) of the episodes are really just detours and dead ends that had nothing to do with the real story to be told. A ten epsiode mini-series avoids the waste since the production knows where the tale is going and can pace the story appropriately over the course of the 8-10 episodes to create the desired dramatic effect. It ends up being a full and well told story in a nice tight package.

Of course, the mini-series concept is not really new. ABC was pretty big on the mini-series idea during the late 1970's and early 1980's with "Roots", "the Winds of War", "Rich Man, Poor Man", "North and South", and "The Thornbirds". Its a concept Ive really enjoyed seeing reawakened by the major streamers like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. The mini-series may be the entertainment "niche" companies like Netflix and Amazon can use to capture a solid subscriber base in the face of declining content from the major studios.

Yes, the mini-series is definitely having a resurgence on streaming services.

I actually think Netflix's best comparative advantage is on the unscripted content: it's a great place for documentaries and comedy specials in particular. Amazon Prime and Disney's services are going to be heavy competition for scripted content, but I think Netflix is far and away the best for those unscripted shows. Those unscripted shows provide a lot of the volume that's needed to sustain a streaming service while also having the advantage of generally being less expensive to produce (similar to how linear networks now rely on unscripted reality shows and competitions so much more now).

As a consumer, I love that an entire season of a show gets dropped on Netflix and you can binge-watch all of the episodes immediately. However, I wonder if Netflix would be better off for some of its marquee shows to go to an old school weekly episode format (or maybe releasing 2 episodes at a time) from a business perspective. A top show like Game of Thrones can dominate the cultural conversation for months at a time and keeps HBO subscriptions in place for months on end. Would Netflix be better off if it took the same approach with Stranger Things or its other top shows? Once again, I certainly like it better as a consumer to watch all of the episodes at one time, but that also means that the interest in a show like Stranger Things peters out within a couple of weeks after it's dropped online (as opposed to being sustained over several months if it was a weekly show). We could say this about shows on all of the streaming services (Amazon Prime, Disney+, etc.).

(05-24-2019 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a consumer, I love that an entire season of a show gets dropped on Netflix and you can binge-watch all of the episodes immediately. However, I wonder if Netflix would be better off for some of its marquee shows to go to an old school weekly episode format (or maybe releasing 2 episodes at a time) from a business perspective.

That would IMO be damaging to Netflix. Netflix subscribers like the drop-and-binge aspect of Netflix. It's one of the key reasons many of us subscribe, it's a "killer app" for them.

Without that, it's just like all the regular channels we already get.

This video is rather lengthy but brings up an interesting point being discussed here. Netflix days of being an aggregator of content are rapidly ending. They will have to survive on their own content they create.

Also poses an interesting question. Should content creators be allowed to control their own streaming services? The maker of the video compares the delivery method of streaming services to the delievry method of movie theaters. Content creators cannot own movie theaters and make them the exclusive outlets for their movies. Should the same theory apply to streaming services?

(05-24-2019 02:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  



This video is rather lengthy but brings up an interesting point being discussed here. Netflix days of being an aggregator of content are rapidly ending. They will have to survive on their own content they create.

Also poses an interesting question. Should content creators be allowed to control their own streaming services? The maker of the video compares the delivery method of streaming services to the delievry method of movie theaters. Content creators cannot own movie theaters and make them the exclusive outlets for their movies. Should the same theory apply to streaming services?

Idk. To me, I think the better comparison might be TV. NBC controlled its own content while owning the delivery system. IMHO---the content providers each having their own streaming outlets is inherently more of a free market solution than 3 major networks controlling our airwaves (which was the case for much of the early history of tv) or a handful of major cable companies controlling what is or is not available to consumers (which is the current model under siege).

Here is what the video misses. Content providers originally began selling to streamer because it represented a NEW stream of income.

Prior to streaming The only way to monetize their content before was using the advertising or subscription model on cable (or broadcast tv) and then in the secondary market via DVD sales and DVD rentals. Its not like the consumer had ever had unfettered access to all the Disney films before this. They had to catch them on calbe (if a network bought the rights) or on video via a purchase or rental. Futhermore, some companies, like for instance Disney, would actually pull movies completely off the market for a period of years (not available on DVD or on TV) to create a demand and then would re-release them after a sufficient period of time. So, when Netflix came along---this looked like a whole new revenue stream. I was free money. Thats one reason Netflix was so cheap at first. It was a new stream of income---mostly for content that was no longer selling much in the DVD market. It was basically found money for the content providers.

Now that streaming has become big business---content providers are seeing it as a major (perhaps THE major future income stream) for their properties. What the video maker above misses in his rant about content monopolies is that all the content is now available on demand at his doorstep. It wasn't before. In some cases---it wasnt available at all. So to say the consumer hasnt seen a massive improvement in the end product is false. What he doesnt like is that its going to cost as much or more than he is paying now. What he doesnt realize is that the what he paying now was based on the content providers being squeezed for less than the true full value of their content.

Here is where I think the market is heading. We had TV marketplace based on bundles. People hated it because they were paying for things they never watched. Then along came streaming--offering content providers a new stream of income--and they got really low prices at first. Streaming was a niche and the content providers still were getting most of their income from cable. Then people starting dumping the cable bundle. Then the content providers starting getting pressure to lower their rights prices from cable---and they looked for ways to recapture that lost revenue. So they started their own streaming networks. Which is going to create the need for end user consumers to buy a bunch of streaming networks to reassemble the content choices we currently have. This reassembling will recreate the need for bundles. So--Im predicting that "streaming bundles" will be the next big thing. lol....it Back to the Future.

(05-24-2019 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 02:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  



This video is rather lengthy but brings up an interesting point being discussed here. Netflix days of being an aggregator of content are rapidly ending. They will have to survive on their own content they create.

Also poses an interesting question. Should content creators be allowed to control their own streaming services? The maker of the video compares the delivery method of streaming services to the delievry method of movie theaters. Content creators cannot own movie theaters and make them the exclusive outlets for their movies. Should the same theory apply to streaming services?

Idk. To me, I think the better comparison might be TV. NBC controlled its own content while owning the delivery system. IMHO---the content providers each having their own streaming outlets is inherently more of a free market solution than 3 major networks controlling our airwaves (which was the case for much of the early history of tv) or a handful of major cable companies controlling what is or is not available to consumers (which is the current model under siege).

Agreed. But if there are no independent streaming services, then major content will be monopolized under the big media companies and their streaming platforms. If you have an independent opinion/product it becomes much more difficult to distribute it without a creator neutral marketplace that Netflix was originally

I'd recommend anyone to sell their initial investment and just ride Netflix with your winning stake.

(05-21-2019 04:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The loss for Netflix is the Marvel stuff which isn’t a big deal since they are only a slim amount of content. Also, Disney isn’t going to show other networks shows so that limits their scope for Disney +.

Their original programming has been boosted since they saw this coming yeasts ago. They also have deals with other content providers.

They only have a slim amount of Marvel content because Disney has been saving it for their own platform. They essentially beta-tested the Marvel on streaming concept then pulled it once they show how well received it was. I literally have lost count of how many Marvel shows Disney has announced for Disney+. Then they also have the Star Wars brand.

The problem is not that Netflix is going to miss shows like Daredevil. It's that the Marvel Brand itself IS MASSIVE. You literally can think hundreds of things you would want to make a show about and there already is a Marvel Comic.

For example, let's say Disney wanted to make a Halloween/Dark themed show in December. Dracula already has tons of comics about this. And there are Van Helsing, Werewolves, Zombie, and everything else you can think of. Even something like the show they have on FreeForm, Cloak/Dagger that's targeted towards millennial liberals.

And to make matters worse about non-disney content. The own Hulu, so I wont be surprised with Disney+, Hulu+, ESPN+ all-in-one option.

(05-24-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a consumer, I love that an entire season of a show gets dropped on Netflix and you can binge-watch all of the episodes immediately. However, I wonder if Netflix would be better off for some of its marquee shows to go to an old school weekly episode format (or maybe releasing 2 episodes at a time) from a business perspective.

That would IMO be damaging to Netflix. Netflix subscribers like the drop-and-binge aspect of Netflix. It's one of the key reasons many of us subscribe, it's a "killer app" for them.

Without that, it's just like all the regular channels we already get.

I would wager that people actually coming up with principles like you are few.

People that subscribe to things and forget to unsubscribe and just say screw it when something cool pops up are the majority. For example, I would bet my car that thousands of people subscribed to HBO at the start of GOT's final season. With the intention of cancelling when it was over.

But most won't cancel it until their wife yells at them a year later.

(05-26-2019 07:08 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-21-2019 04:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The loss for Netflix is the Marvel stuff which isn’t a big deal since they are only a slim amount of content. Also, Disney isn’t going to show other networks shows so that limits their scope for Disney +.

Their original programming has been boosted since they saw this coming yeasts ago. They also have deals with other content providers.

They only have a slim amount of Marvel content because Disney has been saving it for their own platform. They essentially beta-tested the Marvel on streaming concept then pulled it once they show how well received it was. I literally have lost count of how many Marvel shows Disney has announced for Disney+. Then they also have the Star Wars brand.

The problem is not that Netflix is going to miss shows like Daredevil. It's that the Marvel Brand itself IS MASSIVE. You literally can think hundreds of things you would want to make a show about and there already is a Marvel Comic.

For example, let's say Disney wanted to make a Halloween/Dark themed show in December. Dracula already has tons of comics about this. And there are Van Helsing, Werewolves, Zombie, and everything else you can think of. Even something like the show they have on FreeForm, Cloak/Dagger that's targeted towards millennial liberals.

And to make matters worse about non-disney content. The own Hulu, so I wont be surprised with Disney+, Hulu+, ESPN+ all-in-one option.

Yeah... well there are others that are using Netflix to get their brand exposed. Dark Comics and Netflix will develop a replacement as they just did get with the Umbrella Academy.
Looks like the CW relationship may be short lived as CW will go on their own also.
Sure Disney has some muscle but Netflix has some things behind the scenes as they have seen this coming for years. They are getting some worldwide relationships with shows like The Rain and quiet a few others.

A few things Netflix can do to in my opinion, is get the rights to shows cancelled pre-maturely like Dark Matter or The Colony and run another season or two to give and ending to series or take to another direction.

(05-24-2019 03:18 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Agreed. But if there are no independent streaming services, then major content will be monopolized under the big media companies and their streaming platforms. If you have an independent opinion/product it becomes much more difficult to distribute it without a creator neutral marketplace that Netflix was originally

This is part of why the position of Netflix is not as dire as being portrayed by some, because of the international markets where they can offer content producers both a streaming platform for their own domestic markets as well as access to a much broader international market. Except for the occasional "lightning in a bottle" situation, those won't tend to be break out hits in the US ... but they do add a a quite extensive and diverse "long tail" to the tentpoles of their own content production.

(05-26-2019 07:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  People that subscribe to things and forget to unsubscribe and just say screw it when something cool pops up are the majority. For example, I would bet my car that thousands of people subscribed to HBO at the start of GOT's final season. With the intention of cancelling when it was over.

But most won't cancel it until their wife yells at them a year later.

That's the lifeblood of any subscription service. Gyms thrive on the people who sign up, work out for a few months, and don't cancel until a year or two later. Offsite self-storage facilities make their profit off of people who rent an offsite storage unit for the clutter in their home and then leave the stuff gathering dust there for years, while their credit card gets charged month after month after month.

(05-26-2019 07:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As a consumer, I love that an entire season of a show gets dropped on Netflix and you can binge-watch all of the episodes immediately. However, I wonder if Netflix would be better off for some of its marquee shows to go to an old school weekly episode format (or maybe releasing 2 episodes at a time) from a business perspective.

That would IMO be damaging to Netflix. Netflix subscribers like the drop-and-binge aspect of Netflix. It's one of the key reasons many of us subscribe, it's a "killer app" for them.

Without that, it's just like all the regular channels we already get.

I would wager that people actually coming up with principles like you are few.

People that subscribe to things and forget to unsubscribe and just say screw it when something cool pops up are the majority. For example, I would bet my car that thousands of people subscribed to HBO at the start of GOT's final season. With the intention of cancelling when it was over.

But most won't cancel it until their wife yells at them a year later.

That's the Planet Fitness business model!

Smart consumers can definitely take advantage of the sign up and drop strategy, keeping services only so long as they need to to finish binging a target show. I watched the entire final season of GOT by paying for a single month of HBO - Free week plus 30 days = 37 days, enough to watch all seven Sundays. To the extent other subscribers don't take advantage of this opportunity, it will keep the price down for those willing to do so.