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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Erm, bit of a problem there. First, DRM was never removed. Second, streaming is still only available at shit quality. Third, prices haven't dropped on any service that even looks like it might in the future become useful.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
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 :)
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.
Hey now, if you're going to go WORLD on us here you have to make room for the fact that the rights organizations totally fuck off when it comes to reasonably handling international licensing. They have no choice out there but to pirate.
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
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.
I run Linux. Tell me again about that iTunes model giving me what I want.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
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?
Pirating is a pain in the ass.
I download the movie and its a DVD screener or cam...
I download the movie and its got hardcoded subtitles...
I download the movie and it has NO subtitles but have the people in the movie are speaking Russian...
I download the movie and get an annoying email that I now have to delete...
My ISP feels justified in throttling me because what I'm using my bandwidth for could potentially be piracy...
I'd pay $15/month to rid myself of those annoyences. But the industry has to give me what I get with piracy for free.
1. I can get any movie I want, from any point in time.
2. The video doesn't have 30min of previews before it starts.
3. The video will play anywhere. No silverlight BS
4. The movie is available soon after it leaves theaters... not years later... and no location locks.
5. I can save the movie to disc and do not have to stream it during peak times just because they're terrified that I might make a copy of it.
Of course, everything above they see as revenue generating so it'll never happen. They don't want to use the internet to make as much money as they are making now... they want to use the internet to make ALL the money. As illogical as it seems, declining profits are just as bad as bankruptcy to them. They just keep throwing the ball long hoping someone catches it. All this nonsense about working your way down the field and first downs isn't something they want to think about.
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
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?
> If this wasn't true the Beatles wouldn't be the most pirated band in the world.
The Beatles? Really? You must be joking.
Any of their stuff is likely OLDER THAN YOU ARE.
That's not even real piracy. That's just the public domain being taken back by the masses.
You picked a piss poor example of the "injustice of piracy".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Tough crowd tonight.
Remember, perfect is often the enemy of good.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!