Slashdot Mirror
Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee
Lucas123 writes "A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion. 'Movie producers have little to fear from online distribution in the long term,' the report states. 'It is the distribution part of the movie business that should be worried because online distribution will replace a sizable portion of their current industry.' According to the report's hypothetical model, the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out.'"
That's the excuse MPAA will use now.
With this, then they can't double dip. They wouldn't be sell the popular ones, while dumping the unpopular ones on netflix for the fees. And there might be incentives other than spectacle and marketing in the development of movies, and we can't have that either.
They do this and I'll stop pirating!
the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out
That's not going to happen
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If movie producers got a flat, monthly paycheque, there would be zero incentive to make *good* movies.
So you're saying there's a way they can make even more money than they do now? $15 a month is laughably optimistic.
Out of curiosity, I looked into how much revenue a top rated network sitcom earns for a single broadcast. That amount was equal to how much revenue would have been generated by 1/10th of their viewing audience paying for the SD version of the episode on Amazon or iTunes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.
Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I would gladly pay $15 per month to access all movie content. I don't think I know a single person that wouldn't pay that. It's considerably more than I pay to production houses right now. My only movie expense currently is Netflix. $8/mo and production companies have to split that with Netflix.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Something like that would crush piracy!
Those bastards!
for $15/mo I would pay but I want EVERYTHING. ANYTIME. ANYWHERE. For Decades. they won't give me that. They'll drop some shows, they'll only last for a while. they'll block it in Canada offer different choices in Europe. It won't work in Trinidad. And without all that I'm not paying.
Just another second banana
"Online subscribers" is defined by the article as everyone in the world with Broadband, and 45% of them are the 348 million broadband customers who would have to pay $15 annually to watch movies. Here's the problem. Of those 773 million people, 174 million are Chinese, which are 22% of the broadband users. I was just reading an article how China has not even been releasing Box Office revenue from foreign films showing at theaters. I don't think there's much chance of milking any considerable amount of money through video streaming out of that country at this point in time.
I think any studies like this can only realistically look at US and similar western broadband markets as potential customers for video streaming service, as opposed to this study which includes every single broadband customer on the planet.
Better known as 318230.
$5 for the owners of Pirate Bay, $15 for the media companies to split.
My check for this month's in the mail. Now, go away, **AA, and leave me alone.
A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion.
The only issue is that you would have to be a moron, as a consumer, to pay that kind of money!
$15 20th Century Fox
$15 Paramount Pictures
$15 Lionsgate
$15 Weinstein
$15 Sony Pictures Entertainment
$15 Universal Studios
$15 Walt Disney
$15 Warner Bros. Entertainment
$15 Bona Films Group (China)
$15 Shochiku (Japan)
$15 Reliance Entertainment (India)
$15 Dharma Productions (India)
=====
$180/month
That's more that cable, internet service, and Netflix combined! Why on Earth would I want to do that. This is the exact reason that I have zero interest in the a la carte fantasy that the freetards claim will make everything so great and cheap. It WILL cost you more than you already pay and everyone agrees that today's rates re extortion.
"online subscribers" was exactly the weasel-word the needed defining, and parent did an awesome job of patching up the summary!
Thats OK if you have a (truly) unlimited internet.
If something like this happened, every ISP would have data caps/overcharges, and the price would go up for those that already do
it's called usenet. You can get an monthly unlimited account for around $15.
the ./ post says "...if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee..." whereas the original post says "If movie producers charged a $15 monthly fee..." these are possibly two very different costs / month to the user. How would they regulate who gets what? I'm not saying this would actually happen as the production houses would probably never agree on who gets what percentage of your $15 (if it was a flat fee like netflix) and I don't believe they would let this fly as they make more than that from 2 people just going to one movie a month.
If I had access to every movie ever made for $15/month I would never have to pay $50+ for me and the wife to go to the movies. Instead I could just take her out to dinner then bring her home to watch anything she wants :)
Since it's unlikely to get 45% of all internet subscribers, consider a reasonable subset of them such as just America/Europe subscribers. However, if it were $50 and I had access to every movie/TV show ever made, I'd pay that every month, and they would probably only need the America/Europe market. Maybe an extra $20/mo for access to 'new releases' provided they were available on the standard plan after maybe 60 (90?) days. They could even do an extra 'HD' surcharge of $20-$30/mo I used to pay more than that for cable and only got access to whatever the channels were running at that time (maybe time-shifted with a DVR, but still required them to run it at some point while my DVR was recording and still had to deal with commercials). I would definitely pay that for access to everything that I could easily search and select from a list and instantly start watching something.
Netflix Instant is nice and all, but it doesn't have the best selection. I've found most of the streaming sites (Netflix Instant, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime), all have about the same stuff. I stream a lot from home, but we always run the risk that the streaming provider could drop a show I like at any point. I think paying a premium to ensure it's always available and that everything ever made is available, is worth it.
Obviously, this is an amazing idea that would revolutionize media content for this new internet age, which means it will never happen.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
If this was deemed viable and studios signed up there'd be no consensus on how to run it. So, there'd be 2 or 3 (or more) different services, all offering you "all" of their movies for $15 a month. But you'd find Disney films only one one service, Marvel superhero movies only on another and so on...
It might be that it were possible to get all the back catalogs of movies all available to stream, but I'd strongly suspect it would take several flat fees to do it.
Provided that I can remain part of the 55%, you can go ahead.
My Netflix is $8 / month + CrunchyRoll $7/month + Funimation $50/year. I'd save money.
I'd pay $30 per month for high quality movie / animation content without commercials.
They'd be too scared that someone would be able to capture the stream, so they'd want to encumber it with all manner of digital restrictions; to the point no-one would want it.
All those ultra-greedy, conflicting interests dividing up one multi-billion dollar pie? That'll be the day.
What I can't figure out is why they're not offering two downloadable, DRM-free versions of their content: one that's free-as-in-beer but contains ads, much like peole get from their cable subscriptions now, and a second 'premium' version that is ad-free for a nominal charge. Make both versions easy to access via a hosted torrent site, with value-added tools such as offering the ability to track new episodes of favourite programs, or notify / auto download when available for upcoming titles. Not only would the end-user love it, the distributors could track the popularity of shows/movies even before they're released and negotiate ad revenues accordingly.
Sure, the premium version will get shared around somewhat, but at least the average Joe has a place where they can go to directly support shows/movies they like, and in the end they have a useful commodity that they can actually say they own: can back up as often as they like, play on any device, can alter it if needed / desired, or can lend to a friend or family member without hassle. I would pay for such an unencumbered file in a heartbeat, if it were reasonably priced (say a buck or two for an episode, up to $5 for a movie...approximately $2 per hour of entertainment sounds about right), and I'd use the free ad-supported versions to review new shows and see if I'd like them...I would easily spend over $15 a month just on the shows I like now :)
The proposed streaming model is great...if your customer has access to reliable, unlimited broadband wherever they might want to watch your content, and is willing to only watch the content on devices that work with your particular streaming protocol. Thing is, with people getting more and more tech savvy, even the theoretical average Joe is starting to realize that they don't have to put up with that crap if they don't want to...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
But I thought bittorrents were for the legal distribution of Linux binaries?
I don't think it is a good idea:
All content ever produced instantly licensed will provide income to a legion of Ewe Boll imitators to produce volumes of work.
I shudder as I glance at the size of $5 bin at Wallmart as it is.
How can it be extortion? It's not like you will die if you don't watch movies and TV series.
You don't know me! If I don't watch the new Hunger Games movie I will literally die! I had a friend literally die from not watching it.
OMFG! You are such an insensitive clod!!!!11!
And there's no way they'd allow downloads so this srtream-only scheme prevents most of the US from participating. I live in downtown Seattle and am paying $66.93 per month for less than 1 Mbps. I have a few friends that have 40 Mbps fiber from CenturyLink, but they're the exception. Also, Comcast doesn't cover all of the city and in a lot of places where you can get TV service, you still can't get cable Internet because of problems with the return signal. Since Netflix and HBO Go don't work in much of the Seattle area, they're certainly not going to work in podunk USA.
The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is about to switch to this model on February 24th. With their new WWE network, subscribers will have 24/7 HD access to all their past content and pay-per-views for $9.99/month. This includes not only cable but also internet streaming to android and iOS devices. Since most of their monthly pay-per-views have cost between $40 - $50 each, an annual subscription of $120 would easily pay for itself. They are betting that the subscription numbers will more than make up for the current pay-per-view income. It will be interesting to see if their model is successful and if it is, will the studios see the light?
Correction, they are going entirely to an internet streaming model, no cable TV access. They're going to have their own little Wrestling Netflix.
Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee
Could you really not stretch for the extra three characters to put a more readable "and" in there?
You don't even see this in print nowadays.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yeah, sorry, I got carried away with what *could* be. Seriously, though, what's wrong with this? Share all you want for $20/month. No prosecutions, because all the studios/publishers/artists get their cut from the subscription fee.
Pirate Bay manages the site, keeps the books and distributes the shares to the various companies on the basis of the proportion their properties make up out of the total downloads. The companies give up the hassle of distributing DVDs and/or running a subscription service, but get fairly compensated. Pirate Bay operators collect a bit to support the operation.
They need to completely get rid of their current infrastructure and start anew. They are losing lots of business by not. The whole system is bad. Movie theaters shouldn't cost $50 for 2 tickets to see a movie. Honestly my local theater has $5 Wednesdays with $1 Hotdogs. That's a PERFECT price model. They'd be sold out all the time at that price. Companies that price themselves out of business are just idiots and greedy board members.
I'd also pay for a $25mo pass that let me go see a movie when/where ever. Some may see 5 movies while others may go once or twice. Evens out.
I also think buying movies is a complete waste of time these days. Why spend $20 on a movie when I can just rent it a few times for $1. That is another issue. Buy buy a movie or pay good money to see it in theater only to be bombarded with Ads and Commercials. There should be 2 options: Buy Disc for $20 / Pay $5 at Theater for NO COMMERCIALS OR ADS (trailers are cool) OR pay a cheaper rate or rent for $1 and watch Ads and Commercials before the movie.
Honestly $1 for a movie is perfect. $3 is fine for newer releases. $5 would be perfect for Just out of Theater Movies (month after debut). $5 for actually going to the theater since you are also paying premiums for popcorn and everything else.
Business will naturally maximize profit and all movies will just be SyFy-quality at best within five years.
The counter-argument to your point is that with just a flat fee, Netflix has managed to make a number of TV shows that are better than 95% of TV that exists today.
It's not like you would not still wish to make something with some quality, because there are still auxiliary sales from things like BluRay sets or merchandise that only come from enjoyable shows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales" - come on... capitalism asks for "getting as much money as possible", not "making the same money as before".
In addition, you'll have access to the shows that play on cable, as well as terrestrial TV on the same day the networks get them, as opposed to just the back catalog and PPV's. Good deal if you're a fan.
Give me a monthly bill with:
$10 for Unlimited Music Streaming + $15 for Unlimited TV Show Streaming + $20 for Unlimited Movie Streaming = $45 Total
I would never feel the need to pirate and everyone would win. Throw in a $10 surcharge for multiple device / independent streaming.
Can someone please make this work?
Go to China, Indonesia, a middle eastern country, eastern European country. Now try to get that iTunes DRM free download.
Whoops, your whole fucking position just imploded under the weight of 5 billion people who your scenario ignores.
this MPAA shill likes to harp on iTunes DRM free options, no matter how broken the argument is, or even irrelevant to the discussion.
Seriously, I am just waiting to give HBO all my money as soon as they offer HBO Go without having to sign up for the TV channel. Why doesn't HBO want my money?
No hope of anything like this happening.
Heck, the current streaming model cannot even supply such seemingly trivial things like 10 year old series. I just finally decided I could give Netflix a go because I wanted to watch some old Stargate SG-1.
Nope. Not on Netflix. W. T. F.
Atlantis is there for our region, no SG-1. I can't be assed to play around with region swapping to access a legit service, so I just went with the easiest route once again... torrent.
All we'd need is one Steam-style service with GLOBAL availability of shows, both as streaming (x$ a month) or as per-season or per episode downloads at good quality and I'd give them my money. There isn't one, at least not for my region. Also regional licensing of content needs to DIE IN A FIRE already. There should be international treaties that would simply say "if you sell content X in some country, you have to offer it in every country where you do any business. Period". But it won't happen because politicians are bought and sold. Heck, I thought EU should have sorted this for Europe, creating a large "region". Nope, doesn't seem to apply to movie and TV show business.
I see you skimmed $0.01 off the top for yourself.
The big blockbuster movies are just advertisements for toys anyway. Sy-Fy quality movies don't sell merch the way that Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars movies do.
That's fine, but get rid of the limp *ick (& obsolete) Winblose requirement first!
Forever retransmitting the same data over and over. And you have to have the ideal connection at the right times.
They really need to embrace file sharing if they want an advantage over broadcast.
Why don't we all just hand over our entire payslips every month to the JEW...
I think that cost model totally forgot to include the cost of the servers & infrastructure to deliver that amount of content to the masses reliably and with high quality. They seem to assume almost every dollar goes to licensing.
I'll just stick with broadcast then.
This concept...the viability of a business model defined by "if X% of Y population buys this for $Z" is so classically suicidal that it is literally taught in management 101 in college as one of the most sure-fire signs that a business will fail. It is called "Chinese Marketing," as a lot of early examples involved pipe dreams of how much profit could be had with even modest market penetration within the Chinese population. Such a simplistic approach fails to take into account many things:
-how long it may take to reach that level of penetration
-currency valuation challenges
-IP law differences between countries
-how many of the world's online population has access to sufficiently high bandwidth
-how many of the world's online population has their own computer (as opposed to just using an Internet cafe...substantially increasing the cost of subscribing to those potential customers who are on the margins of affordability)
-who would be the clearing house/sole distribution provider that would distribute all of the movies on behalf of every movie company
The model falls apart quickly when you take these factors into account, and I am sure there are at least a few more that I don't even know about.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
If it was possible for me here in Australia to buy a reasonably cheap streaming account and watch the shows I want to watch when I want to watch them I would be very interested. Be much easier than trying to find copies on dodgy YouTube-clone streaming sites.
But as long as Rupert Murdoch and his Foxtel empire exist, it will never happen.
1) They're using 45% of the entire potential market which is insane. You need to use realistic numbers, like perhaps number of broadband subscribers, etc...
2) You need to account for lost revenue from advertising sales and other content agreements, as well as reductions in box office performance. Movies make lots of money from being shown on TV later, etc... $29.4 billion is really low. Call it $100 billion and you're more in the right ballpark.
That said, the model they proposed is more or less tried and true, and in practice by the BBC.
'It is the distribution part of the movie business that should be worried because online distribution will replace a sizable portion of their current industry.'
No shit. If the Internet does one thing, it replaces the old middle man with a new middle man. There will always be content creators and content consumers. How the work moves between them is always up for change.
I have always wondered why the Movie and TV studios never got together and formed a consortium of sorts with a single web front (like Netflix) and offered a single place to get access to everything that was ever made. Fixed fee, all you can eat. Have they never done the math of approx 7 billion people paying US$10 a month for access. Even 1 billion people paying that a month is a good deal of money.
And I mean everything from the old silent movies to Green Acres to what came out 2 months ago.
The music industry already missed the boat on this.
Yeah, the WWE is going to a subscription base model. I would not be shocked to see the NHL, maybe English Premier League, or even various Rugby leagues go to that model. Maybe even MLB and MLS. But that's because Sports is different from Movies and TV.
Sports is basically league based (or company in the case of WWE), and they have an ongoing season (no real downtime for the WWE). Movies and TV are different, in that investors, actors, writers, directors, key creative talent (not crafts/electricians/etc.) are compensated with either revenue sharing or huge salaries predicated on likelihood of hits. Movies and TV are "project based" where Sports is product based. The former is one-off, hit or flop, reach for the stars based and the other assumes a steady growing stream of income.
Movies/TV, "lumpy" concentrated revenue streams, huge for hits and neglible for flops, sports far less irregular and lumpy.
WWE fans, its a good streaming deal for them. Lower prices and they can see more. For movie and TV studios, that's a different deal. Fans of say, "the Blacklist" might not want to see another production from the same studio. Particularly if its a soap opera or romance or work-place comedy. Meanwhile Harry Potter fans probably won't be signing on to see a limited series like HBO's "True Detective." Meanwhile instead of contracts that bind performers like Clayton Kershaw or the Big Show to companies or teams, movie and TV studios have to either promise (and deliver) honest accounting to revenue-sharing participants like Robert Downey Jr. in the Iron Man and Avengers movies, and not cheat like New Line Cinema did to Peter Jackson and company for the LoTR movies, or alternatively offer up huge paydays up front because no one trusts them as they have a reputation for cheating.
In demand actors/writers/producers who have produced major hits charge per-project. You won't get say directors like James Cameron or Peter Jackson to direct on a yearly contract. This makes costs unpredictable and essentially project and market based: costs are based on who is hot, who is not, who needs the work, who doesn't, who had hits, who hasn't, who is expected to produce hits, and the likelihood that the project is going to be a hit (Avengers, Iron Man 3), a flop (John Carter, Polar Express) or somewhere in-between (Man of Steel, Pacific Rim).
Sports can charge monthly fees because their costs are controlled and predictable. They know month to month, year to year, what their expenses will be. Not so for project based stuff which can balloon out of control rapidly.