Hopeful signs from Netflix

Forums › Online streaming services › Hopeful signs from Netflix

1 | 2 | 3

18496 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5290

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945703 23-Jan-2018 20:15

One person supports this post

Rikkitic:

But if the only way you can subscribe to content you want, is to also take a lot of content you don't want, which presumably you are also being charged for because you pay a lot for the whole package, then the stuff you don't want is rubbish to you. It may not be to someone else, but it is to you. So I stand by my use of the term. I don't want to be made to pay for a lot of stuff that doesn't appeal to me, in order to get some stuff that does.

I really struggle with your form of communication sometimes. It's why I sound occasionally frustrated in the tone of my replies. I apologise in advance as I understand this might sound condescending, but perhaps you could read out loud what you write ?

My specific issue here is, that you have completely contradicted yourself in the space of 1 paragraph.

Are all the services you currently subscribe to, 100% full of content you want? You already said no, but then go on to say you want it. Until you get that, you won't be "happy".

Yet, you continue to subscribe to those services, but then say you won't' subscribe to "other" services because they don't provide only the content you want.

Even if Netflix was utopian for you, 100% of the content you wanted for a price you were happy to pay, your tastes may change, new genres may come up, should they then read your mind and provide this to you (obviously not, as I am extrapolating my point), at no extra point.

I believe you were one of the people very unhappy about the CPI increase of Sky each year, but Netflix has had a number of price increases magnitudes more as a percentage than Sky has ever had. I didn't see a thread started about that. An informed source has shared that Netflix is ultimately

to be priced at 30USD for their full-service product.

Rikkitic

Glurp
8455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3881

Subscriber

Reply # 1945711 23-Jan-2018 20:32

Similarly, I often have trouble with your comments. I will try to clarify the first bit. No-one will ever be able to subscribe to any service that only has what they want to see and nothing else. Of course I understand that and I don't expect otherwise. I wouldn't have time to watch any service that only had things I want to see anyway. The difference is a matter of proportion. Does a service have a reasonable amount of content that I want to see, as opposed to the stuff I don't. By this measure I have never felt that Sky offered me value for money. These days that is no problem. It was when Sky was effectively the only game in town.

Part of my perfect future that I didn't mention, would also be the possibility to make pay per view purchases of any content anywhere, as now can be done in very limited fashion for some films. So if you were zapping around and happened to see an interesting programme on Netflix or any other site, you could just watch that for a couple dollars without having to subscribe at all.

I have complained about the cost of Sky overall, but I don't recall ever discussing the annual increases. You may be thinking of someone else.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

networkn

18496 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5290

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945740 23-Jan-2018 20:54

Rikkitic:

Similarly, I often have trouble with your comments. I will try to clarify the first bit. No-one will ever be able to subscribe to any service that only has what they want to see and nothing else. Of course I understand that and I don't expect otherwise. I wouldn't have time to watch any service that only had things I want to see anyway. The difference is a matter of proportion. Does a service have a reasonable amount of content that I want to see, as opposed to the stuff I don't. By this measure I have never felt that Sky offered me value for money. These days that is no problem. It was when Sky was effectively the only game in town.

In 2012 there was estimated to be 100,000 hours of content on Netflix. I suspect if you worked out total hours content on Sky, worked out the price per divided by the hours of content that you wanted to watch and compared it directly the same way to Neflix you'd find you get a *lot* less value from your Netflix subscription (ie more "waste").

Part of my perfect future that I didn't mention, would also be the possibility to make pay per view purchases of any content anywhere, as now can be done in very limited fashion for some films. So if you were zapping around and happened to see an interesting programme on Netflix or any other site, you could just watch that for a couple dollars without having to subscribe at all.

How much would you be prepared to pay per hour of content, what happens if the real price doesn't meet your expectation? Are you being ripped off?

I have complained about the cost of Sky overall, but I don't recall ever discussing the annual increases. You may be thinking of someone else.

Then I apologise. My mistake.

tdgeek

13581 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2451

Trusted

Reply # 1945741 23-Jan-2018 20:55

FTA existed well before Sky. Sky had exclusive content, yes, as does everyone else. While I can see what you are saying, it has nothing to do with Sky, but Sky is the populist company to attack. But they all do the same thing.

The PPV issue is interesting. Rugby in NZ could be PPV but its hard to make that work. Back in the glory days of broadband, people hated caps. They didnt want to have to manage a cap. Or tally the $ through the month. Media is the same, we dont want to pay $ for everything we watch. 8c for One News, 50c for Shortbread St, etc. It just doesnt work, media companies need assurance of revenue. Aggregation, as Sky does, as NF does etc does work. Buy a swag of content, so that there is something for everyone. The cost per watch drops a lot.

End of the day, many companies will provide the services. The benefit from fragmentation is you can save money by just having two services if that works for you, or save money and forego some content. Or pay what is likely to be a lot, to have a wide coverage. It would probably be cheaper to have one company globally, own everything and charge a flat rate for everything. One service, one app. The cost of everything (and the vast majority of everything is low value) divided by a huge subscriber base is probably better. Niche customers will suffer, general customers or families will benefit.

dafman

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1106

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1945742 23-Jan-2018 20:56

Rikkitic:

I have also made an effort not to bring this back to Sky. We have already had that discussion at great length.

Oops, that was me bringing Sky back into the discussion after I said on another thread I would bow out.

So no more Sky comments from me until the inevitable news that the fat lady is finally standing at the podium preparing to sing the closing credits. That sad day when Sky finally turns off the satellite to its last two faithful subscribers (you know who you are) but also the happy day when I and the rest of the country will finally be able to subscribe to sports events on a pay by event basis on a device of our choosing. That day is coming, it's just the timing that's an unknown at this time.

Over and out.

Rikkitic

Glurp
8455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3881

Subscriber

Reply # 1945760 23-Jan-2018 21:05

And with that, I think it has all been said. I wasn't trying to restart the Sky thread. I just thought the Netflix news was interesting and a promising indicator. I don't subscribe to Netflix, by the way. It is just useful for comparison purposes.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

tdgeek

13581 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2451

Trusted

Reply # 1945763 23-Jan-2018 21:10

Rikkitic:

And with that, I think it has all been said. I wasn't trying to restart the Sky thread. I just thought the Netflix news was interesting and a promising indicator. I don't subscribe to Netflix, by the way. It is just useful for comparison purposes.

And thats fair enough. Im sure media will evolve, but no matter who or how that happens, there is a lot of revenue that is needed. And yes, some of these big two or three US media moguls are probably the cause as they hold out. Should smaller media creators have more a role, that might help change. If so, then the actors and actresses play a major role in that.

networkn

18496 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5290

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945764 23-Jan-2018 21:14

Rugby PPV would be the end of Rugby in NZ to all intents and purposes. (Unless you aren't talking about exclusively) There would be no money to pay players and we would very quickly lose our standing as the worlds best team.

Rugby rights revenue cover a lot of expenses.

netspanner

218 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 35

Reply # 1945870 24-Jan-2018 09:54

One person supports this post

Netflix has been a wonderful thing for us. Its a shock going back to Sky and FTA TV and see the adverts and the rubbish that passes as TV. We have been blown away by The Crown, and are enjoying The Gran Hotel, which is Spanish and subtitled. Stranger Things was great as well.

Dratsab

3145 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 955

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945903 24-Jan-2018 10:37

Agree @Rikkitic - very interesting news re Netflix' plans. It's actually going to be quite engrossing to see how the whole entertainment-scape shakes out over the next few years as the new(ish) players start to battle it out for the eyeball market share.

ockel

1422 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

Reply # 1945943 24-Jan-2018 11:46

The most interesting aspect for me was the 9% increase in average subscription prices. With price increases in the US plus Europe (excluidng the Scandies which was early last year) and LatAm it gives me greater confidence that the company could turn cashflow positive.

And that the company is happy to continue to tap the high yield market for funding the content - much better than asking its shareholders for funds.

The next decade will be the rise of the power of the multinationals at the expense of the nationals - and the inability to regulate pricing of global monopolies. Fascinating to watch.

rugrat

1388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 224

Reply # 1945947 24-Jan-2018 11:50

I guess that's why Netflix is making it's own content, so it can set the rules for that content and not be tied down by the rules others make for their content.

There's a lot of what I call rubbish on Netflix as well, not necessary rubbish for someone else, but to get to the content I'm interested in $15 a month, they are coming out with new content that I'm interested in faster then I can watch, so for $15 always something to watch when I'm in the mood. I only watch TV for 2 to 3 hours a day not 12.

There is no FF or RW problem with Netflix, what is there to FF, no adds, it's not a Sports service so no need to have a look to see if ball over the line by rewinding yourself.

Can even skip the recap and program start cedits by just pressing one button on latestest versions.

The only thing Netflix is doing that is annoyingly at the moment is when a program finish's it most times is starting a 20 second countdown to show a trailer to another program, I don't get why they can't have a box that you click on if want to see it. It seems that people have complained but Netflix won't give people option of turning it off. While this isn't a deal breaker I hope it's not a sign of beginning arrogance.

tdgeek

13581 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2451

Trusted

Reply # 1945955 24-Jan-2018 12:00

rugrat: I guess that's why Netflix is making it's own content, so it can set the rules for that content and not be tied down by the rules others make for their content.

Others make the rules, yes that's very true, but surely Netflix if it buys its own exclusive content (it doesn't make the shows), it's also making its own rules?

MGM sells rights to a series, so you can only watch it on these services.

Netflix bought the rights to its "own" series, so you can only watch it on these services, which in this case is only Netflix.

Seems to me, NF is just doing what the "others" do, so it's also now "others". It just proves that exclusivity works

ockel

1422 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

Reply # 1945957 24-Jan-2018 12:08

rugrat: I guess that's why Netflix is making it's own content, so it can set the rules for that content and not be tied down by the rules others make for their content.

There's a lot of what I call rubbish on Netflix as well, not necessary rubbish for someone else, but to get to the content I'm interested in $15 a month, they are coming out with new content that I'm interested in faster then I can watch, so for $15 always something to watch when I'm in the mood. I only watch TV for 2 to 3 hours a day not 12.

There is no FF or RW problem with Netflix, what is there to FF, no adds, it's not a Sports service so no need to have a look to see if ball over the line by rewinding yourself.

Can even skip the recap and program start cedits by just pressing one button on latestest versions.

The only thing Netflix is doing that is annoyingly at the moment is when a program finish's it most times is starting a 20 second countdown to show a trailer to another program, I don't get why they can't have a box that you click on if want to see it. It seems that people have complained but Netflix won't give people option of turning it off. While this isn't a deal breaker I hope it's not a sign of beginning arrogance.

Their own content is about controlling the value chain. By buying content directly from the producers the company is moving from older-low value (but proven) libraries to extracting the maximum value from inception. It changes the risk profile by taking the punt on what may/may not appeal to customers but its the same risk that the other distributors have taken on in the past (and its been very lucrative). The icing on the cake is that for renewals Netflix takes all the cream - by not revealing how successful a property is to the creators it gets to maximise the information asymmetry and purchase good properties at much lower prices. And by not cancelling all the mediocre series' a content producer has no idea whether it is super successful or moderately successful or mediocre when it comes to bargaining at renewal time.

More original content also derisks on the back catalogue libraries. When it comes to renewing the older libraries Netflix becomes less a price-taker and more a price-setter as it not longer needs the tail of content to be its appeal to its subscribers.

The most interesting aspect so far this summer for NZ is the only thing that rates on TV is old movie-reruns. It seems that it wont be long before broadcast TV in NZ will be a conglomerate of re-re-repeats of movies and TV series (including content that has already been played on the rival networks in the past). Stuff that is cheap to buy to justify the low audience numbers.

MikeAqua

5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2121

Reply # 1945970 24-Jan-2018 12:13

One person supports this post

I don't know what the perfect model for media rights is. As consumer i favour as little blocking as possible. However, I also recognise that for quality media to be made and distributed there needs to a professional industry supported by revenue streams all along the production and distribution chain. So there is balance to be struck between open access and commercial viability.

Arguments about acceptable profits etc strike me as futile because ultimately an acceptable return on private funds is what the funder thinks it is - otherwise they will choose to invest elsewhere.

I also recognise I do not have a right to see other's creative content, just because they have made it available elsewhere or via another distributor. That is the rights owners' choice.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3