Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: What's Next For Netflix? (500ish.com)
What does the future hold for Netflix? The company first earned a name for itself over a decade ago renting DVDs via mails in an era when Blockbuster used to laugh at the mere idea of DVDs-by-mail. It then moved to offering online streaming service way before most of the companies. As VC and former journalist MG Siegler writes, Netflix was always ahead of the curve. But the market -- and the demand from the market is changing, again. To address that, the on-demand streaming service has over the past three-four years started to invest heavily in getting exclusive rights for movies and TV shows, as well as make its own original content. But this time, Netflix is facing immense competition from its rivals -- and its moves aren't that unpredictable. It's also worth pointing out just recently, the company's decision to hike prices led its stocks to tank. Siegler writes: The streaming content game is now hyper competitive. And even the streaming original content game has gotten extremely competitive. And this means it has gotten extremely expensive. The result has been great for us, the users, as we do seem to be in a golden age of television-like content, even if it's being delivered via streaming "channels" like Netflix. With 54 Emmy nominations this year, second to only HBO, Netflix is seemingly closing in on what they set out to do once again. They've become HBO faster than HBO has been able to become Netflix. Of course, HBO still has the warm blanket of cable operator fees to keep them cozy; Netflix's model has them a bit out in the cold in that regard. So, again, what's next? Is it VR? Something else? Don't tell me it's 4k. Worldwide expansion is huge, but that's really just growing into the last business. What's the next business pivot?What you, Slashdot readers, think Netflix's next move will be? Or do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?
To merge with AOL/Yahoo, of course.
Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."
It is very refreshing. They are in the business of TV wish fulfillment, and nobody has ever done that before. Since the dawn of television, content owners and broadcasters have been in the business of telling customers what to watch. Netflix seems to make the shows that I want, exactly how I want them, it's so unusual that it almost feels like a trick.
I pay $144/year (because I have a big family and we pay a higher rate for more simultaneous streaming licenses), but it is a bargain. Just for the Marvel Series' alone I would have paid that much for DVDs.
This is probably going to sound a little crazy, but I think they should be looking at Youtube and Twitch and trying to get into user generated content.
Personally, I know I spend way more time watching youtube channels than Netflix, amd a lot people are the same about Twitch.
Obviously withouy ads some sort of revenue sharing based on views would be necessary. That may or may not be workable.
Then again, maybe having users watch more, and thus taking up extra bandwidth, isn't ideal for the bottom line anyway.
I'm surprised that so many people think Netflix has "moved" from DVD disks to streaming. I get DVDs by mail. I love it and have no interest in streaming. Why? Because I can't get most of what I want to see via streaming. I want to see specific things, mainly "art house" movies. I don't care about being able to see 3,000 top-40 movies at will. I don't have any streaming and probably never will. The privacy issues and lack of interesting content make it unappealing to me. The surprising part, though, is not just that many people think disks by mail is old fashioned, but that people think that despite the fact that Netflix makes their profit from DVDs in the mail, not from streaming.
So I couldn't care less.... In Europe they have like.... 1/5 of the selection while having a bigger price. Also, there's no dvd option, no matter the price. So, from my point of view, they could go belly up - no tears there. Other than that, I think they should go up-market - best selection, greater prices. Or have several tiers.
The article briefly mentions original content like it was their last smart move and they'll have to do something else to survive. I would disagree with that assessment.
The media cartels (MPAA etc) are trying to starve out Netflix by jacking up their licensing fees, onerous international distribution agreements, etc etc.
The Netflix back catalog of old movies has actually been shrinking. The focus on original content is to bring control to their programming so that they aren't 100% at the mercy of the cartels who want nothing more than for Netflix to die. The goal of the cartels is that Hulu or some other godforsaken corp-owned property can retain their dominance of the public eyeball.
That's why Netflix has gone all in on their original programming. I just finished watching Stranger Things and it is really good. Because Netflix developed it themselves, they don't have to negotiate an international distribution agreement and they can release it simultaneously in all the markets they offer subscriptions. That's huge. I watched past the credits and there were translation teams for about 8 languages - I think I saw French, Spanish, Japanese, German among them.
So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.
There is no question that Netflix has to continue ramping up original production. Distribution is easy (sorry tech guys) but good content is hard. But "back in the day," there was a finite amount of space to fill with that original content. Once you reached X number of episodes for Y number of original series per annual season, you had obtained critical mass, and it was just up to the sales guys to make sure you were in as many homes and on as many platforms as you could be, and the programming guys to make sure the content was as good and innovative as budget allowed.
But Netflix pioneered "binge-watching." Exec-producing ten eps of Game of Thrones and dribbling them out no longer cuts it. We're now conditioned to watch 22 episodes of a new title as they all drop at once, gorging upon it all within a two week period lest we fall behind at the water cooler or in the online chatrooms.
Time (in a schedule grid) is no longer a constraint. Space (server/bandwidth capacity is cheap) is no longer a constraint. Only money is a limiting factor. How can they keep feeding that beast?
At one level, Netflix better hope that a lot of little competitors start popping up, because they will be able to sell them off-network rights to Daredevil and House of Cards et.al. and so subsidize their original production, much the same way HBO and video stores were first viewed as rivals to Hollywood, before Hollywood realized how much money it could make licensing to them.
They do that, they lose all of their non-original content.
The media conglomerates have Netflix over a barrel. Netflix can't do anything without their approval.
End of line..