Netflix Plans To Spend $7 Billion On Content In 2018 (streamingobserver.com)

According to the Streaming Observer, Netflix plans to increase its budget by $1 billion dollars over the next year and spend over $7 billion on content in 2018. Previously, the company paid $6 billion in 2017 and $5 billion in 2016. From the report: While the internet freaks out about Disney ending its streaming agreement with Netflix, the company continues to forge ahead signing high-profile talent and throwing an enormous budget at its original programming. Just days after the Disney turmoil, Netflix's visionary Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos stated that the streaming leader plans to increase its budget by $1 billion dollars over the next year. As of now, Netflix currently has $15.7 billion in outstanding obligations in deals for new series and films over the next few years. With such an astronomically-large budget, media analysts are already beginning to wonder if Netflix is "rescuing" or "ruining" Hollywood by creating such a singular creator-producer-distributor model. Sarandos counters those claims, however, stating that Netflix is merely on the forefront of what's already a growing trend throughout the media industries: "I would say that the relationship between studios and networks has always been that of a frenemy. Everyone is doing some version of it already. They just have to make a decision for their companies, their brands and their shareholders on how to best optimize the content. We started making original content five years ago, betting this would happen."

Comments

Seriously who cares about Disney?

[SuperKendall]

Yes Disney has some nice content. But looking over things it's not that much compared to what I get from Netflix in terms of original programs...

Also the stuff from Disney tends to be in a certain style, while the Netflix content has been way more varied and differing in topic or target.

I wish Disney good fortune in striking out on their own but I wonder if these days they are as valuable a content commodity as they imagine themselves to be... especially with Netflix spending some percent of that money on original YA programming with more freedom of creative control than Disney is willing to give.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Freischutz]

Yes Disney has some nice content. But looking over things it's not that much compared to what I get from Netflix in terms of original programs...

Also the stuff from Disney tends to be in a certain style, while the Netflix content has been way more varied and differing in topic or target.

I wish Disney good fortune in striking out on their own but I wonder if these days they are as valuable a content commodity as they imagine themselves to be... especially with Netflix spending some percent of that money on original YA programming with more freedom of creative control than Disney is willing to give.

It's kind of like the iTunes/iPod thing is happening all over again except in TV world and this time more people saw the writing on the wall and there are more players than Apple in the game at the ground level. I have cancelled my cable TV subscriptions and mostly watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube on an Apple TV connected to a TV whose tuner circuitry's only use is to get cursed at whenever I switch to it by mistake when flipping between HDMI inputs. However I could be using any number of other TV streaming boxes which is nice plus you can play games on these things even if they are no high powered consoles. Hulu gets no use because: 'Hulu is unfortunately not available in your region'. I think Amazon Prime and Netflix hit the jackpot when they went for their own content in a big way, didn't license it to the TV mafia but rather offered their services in all regions and relied on original content made by independent contractors to sell their service rather than the old establishment. Netflix/Amazon original content is half of what I watch on those two services even if their original content is still a fairly small portion of their total content catalog.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Tukz]

Well, Disney owns Marvel, so I kinda care.

I suspect this means all Marvel content will eventually be pulled from Netflix. I enjoy most of the Marvel series Netflix currently offer.

And they also own Pixar. I'm a grown man, but I still enjoy Pixar.

Re: Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally. someone says what we're all thinking.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[gravewax]

I think Netflix started off well, but they have been producing some real turds this year. Seems like they had a few good ideas to start with but have quickly degenerated into the same rut as other content producers.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is usually at the fringe of high speed internet, I have to wonder how well Disney will be able to get their content to viewers without Netflix. When I visit with my parents, Netflix works ok. Amazon is noticeably slower, but watchable. Hulu is too slow to watch before about 12:40 AM. We don't even try for anyone else. I am less than perfectly sanguine about how well Disney will do (unless they merge with Comcast and get content prioritization) delivering their own product.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[turp182]

I'm assuming you aren't a child.

Every parent will buy most of their movies if they can. My wife loves the old ones, my kids the newer. They are freaky valuable.

They have Star Wars, which sucks (sort of, they are working it and not poorly in my opinion).

But my kids are over Phineas and Ferb (Disney), which is sad as I liked that a lot.

Now we're into Teen Titans Go, which is not Disney, and is awesome for children and adults (they just did a 4 episode run based on the 1980s, a song, The Night Begins to Shine, basically for people my age, the kids liked it as well but didn't understand most of the references).

Ebb and flow. But we won't be taking the Disney streaming river anytime (we have some through cable, but don't watch it much, Cartoon Network rules at this time).

Netflix is kicking ass on original content. I prefer their expansion business model as opposed to the consolidation model existing companies use, Disney being the poster child for such.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[DontBeAMoran]

I'm a grown man, but I still enjoy Pixar.

There's a problem when someone does not like Pixar, whatever the age.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Xest]

I don't like Disney, but the problem is they're hijacked so much culture now that it's hard to avoid them. This is precisely why Disney shouldn't be allowed to keep buying IPs - they're just too big.

They started out and grew by taking popular public domain stories, wrapping their own designs around them, then claiming them as their own, even suing people who then dare to try and make their own adaptations of the public domain content in some cases, thus effectively engaging in cultural theft.

But then they bought things like Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars with their ill gotten gains, so other major IPs are now controlled by them.

Any other purchase of media companies by Disney should be blocked as anti-competitive in any sane market. You can argue this would go against the free market, but Disney's whole existence has been about manipulating the market to their own advantage with frivolous lawsuits and IP law lobbying to bend the free market away from being free in the first place. In a free market free of IP law manipulation by the likes of Disney, 90% of Disney's IP would now be just as free for making derivative works of as the stories Disney created most their IP from in the first place.

Unfortunately even some of Netflix's originals are based on Disney IP, so Disney pulling out puts some of their best original content at risk. Disney is the too big to fail equivalent of the entertainment world, and if something is too big to fail it needs to be broken up until it's not.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney's biggest problem is they don't adequately represent African-Americans.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

Different strokes for different folks. I, for one, will be quite happy to see all that comic book derived stuff gone.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Different strokes for different folks.

Yep. It's like sports programming. Some people like it, some people are bored with it. Comics-to-movies and sports are always going to have a market, along with whatever you and I happen to like that other people don't. There is no one best answer, which is why pretty much everyone does agree on one thing: bundling sucks.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? Mickey Mouse is Black!

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

the Netflix content has been way more varied and differing in topic or target.

Translation: Netflix has WAY more boobs, and even the occasional dick or glancing pussy shot.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Maxo-Texas]

I certainly won't be following disney content to a separate monthly charge.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

My kid's behavior turns in to beastboy after watching that abomination of show.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

Well, Disney owns Marvel, so I kinda care.

I suspect this means all Marvel content will eventually be pulled from Netflix. I enjoy most of the Marvel series Netflix currently offer.

And they also own Pixar. I'm a grown man, but I still enjoy Pixar.

I think Netflix will have rights to keep the stuff it has already produced under the Marvel brand, but Disney can stop licensing of new Marvel series. But Netflix has figured out the formula and can produce Marvel-like content on their own, sans the brand name.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

Different strokes for different folks. I, for one, will be quite happy to see all that comic book derived stuff gone.

So NF makes less money and can produce less stuff you might like?

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather viewed them as just becoming another network, and cancelled recently.
I don't give a crap about any of their own shows, and they are losing content all the time, so I couldn't see any reason to keep giving them money.
If I actually watched it still, obviously that would be different, but there isn't any on Netflix to watch anymore that I haven't seen already.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Neuronwelder]

Great comment. (applause).

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Different strokes for different folks. I, for one, will be quite happy to see all that comic book derived stuff gone.

Hang on. If you're accepting of the idea of "different strokes for different folks", how is it that you "will be quite happy to see all that comic book derived stuff gone"? You're basically saying "I don't like this stuff but I'm happy for others to enjoy it, yet I'll still be happy to see all it it removed even from those who enjoy it."

That's cuntish behavior you motherfucking cunt.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

To this day I have watched just two original netflix series so I guess I could live with that.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

OR even buy less stuff you like

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

They already do that, by preferring the comicbook stuff. That was kind of my point in first place.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

I don't get it. You prefer they produce less comic book content which would result in lower revenues, so they will then spend EVEN LESS on the other stuff you prefer. That popular content is propping up everything else.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

That popular content is displacing everything else.
Get it now?

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

That popular content is displacing everything else. Get it now?

No, it is not displacing anything. It is enabling the purchase of more content you like than it could without the added customers.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

It is displacing because popular stuff is easy money.
Same crap with games - the Deus Ex frachise was put on ice because Square Enix works on games in the Marvel universe. This is how comicbook crap kills good content again and again.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

It seems the content you prefer is being reduced not because of money making content, but because the price of your desired content has risen more than NF can afford. That is what pushed them into content creation in the first place, they would not survive on the old model.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[dunkelfalke]

Then I suppose it is time to cancel the subscription and go back buying blurays.

Re:Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Mr D from 63]

Then I suppose it is time to cancel the subscription and go back buying blurays.

If what you want is theatrical movie releases then yes, because that ship has sailed for NF. That business model wasn't sustainable as the movie houses became greedy with their licenses. But if you like any of the original content that isn't comic book based, that inventory is growing, not shrinking.

Re: Seriously who cares about Disney?

[Brockmire]

Is there an Internet law to describe how stupid and out of touch people who say, "who cares about... " on the Internet? Fuck, it's like you were never a kid, or too poor to watch any Disney movies. I hope you're not in charge of making decisions beyond what to order for dinner.

Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to have 400 episodes of high-quality $5million per episode TV than 2000 episodes of low quality $1million per episode TV. Because most of us only have a few hundred hours per year to spend watching anyway.

Re: Fantastic

[bn-7bc]

Or a why not 800 episodes at 3M/episode, and you pick what you want, but there is nore choice, you shulld be able to produce decent stuff for 3M /episode right?

Re:Fantastic

[sexconker]

Because most of us only have a few hundred hours per year to spend watching anyway.

Get a browser addon that plays video at higher speeds. They're miracle workers. I usually have mine set at 1.2x to 1.4x depending on the content. You quickly get used to it, and you save tons of time.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the budget is the defining characteristic of good and bad TV. The genre can have a large impact on budget and shows that require lots of special effects are going to be more expensive. Although science fiction often requires large budgets, Doctor Who had quite a small budget and was very successful. The budget for classic Doctor Who was much smaller than Star Trek TOS, for example. Despite the low budget special effects and sets, the writing and acting made Doctor Who an extremely successful show. Although a low budget may restrict the types of stories a show can tell, there are far too many high budget shows that neglect to focus on having a compelling story for viewers.

Part of the success of reality (unscripted) TV is that it's cheap for the networks to produce. There's plenty of junk reality TV, but sometimes it is actually good. Although it didn't belong on History and I didn't care for the shift toward interpersonal conflict in later seasons, Ice Road Truckers was a good show early on. Some of it was faked and some of it was unscripted, but the early seasons gave the viewer some idea of what trucking is like in the high Arctic. Although I still watch Amazing Race, the earlier seasons were much better. It's basically a game show that takes place out in the world instead of a studio. I enjoyed seeing the various destinations on the race and getting an appreciation for the local culture that influenced many of the challenges. Despite being renewed for a 30th season and the tendency for shows to become more expensive over time, it's still a lot less expensive than many scripted shows.

Basically, the budget is closely linked to how long a show has been running and the genre of the show. The budget dictates production choices, but isn't especially related to the overall quality of the show. The big advantage Netflix has over network-produced TV shows is that Netflix doesn't have to try to create shows that appeal to broad audiences. Because they don't depend on advertising, they can create niche programming that has a loyal but small following. When they own the content, there's no chance of it being licensed to a competitor. As long as there's enough interesting programming to keep people subscribed, the viewing of an individual show doesn't really matter. They can afford to invest money in shows that appeal strongly to small audiences instead of trying to create programs that have some appeal to a wide audience.

Let's say that a show has a budget of $5 million per episode to produce a 12 episode season, so a total cost of $60 million. On Netflix, the new season will be released all at once, so a person can subscribe for a month. If a person typically subscribes for $10 per month, you need to bring in six million subscribers for a month in order for the show to break even. This, of course, ignores the costs of operating servers and the bandwidth to distribute the show. Let's say ten million people watch a show, but none of those ten million people would have subscribed to Netflix otherwise. That brings in $100 million of revenue, which would be a huge win for Netflix, even if nobody else ever watches. Networks, on the other hand, want to maximize ratings, which means they can't focus on programming that appeals to a specific audience. The advantage isn't necessarily the budget, but the ability of Netflix to focus on bringing in subscribers for specific shows rather than generating broad appeal that pleases advertisers.

Re: Fantastic

[zaphirplane]

I don't follow the argument, yes Netflix has more "channels" because it's on demand.
But I don't get why a channel can't appeal to multiple types, do channels need to have some image what shows they have? America in the 70s vs reality tv channel ?

Re:Fantastic

[Wootery]

This must spoil the show though, no? Do jokes and emotional moments still work when the timing has been artificially changed?

Re: Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I'm confused.

Network TV and many cable channels depend on advertising for revenue. The goal is to have as many people as possible watching every show on the channel, because more viewers means the advertisers pay more. This is particularly true of network TV, which doesn't have subscription revenue, whereas cable channels at least have some subscription revenue. In order to maximize the number of viewers, shows are designed to appeal to a wide audience. Simply put, networks want to maximize the number of viewers in the 18-49 demographic of all their shows.

Netflix does not have advertising, so the revenue is purely based on subscription fees. Once you've subscribed, they don't benefit from you watching more programming. Their goal is to provide enough shows that interest you so that you subscribe, but they don't gain anything from you watching any shows beyond that. This is a significant difference.

Let's say that you're creating a sci-fi show. Sci-fi appeals to a relatively narrow audience compared with sitcoms, dramas, police procedurals, and things like that. A TV network like ABC or CBS wants to maximize the amount of people watching said sci-fi program, so they'll probably want you to make the program a sci-fi drama. This may decrease the number of viewers watching because it's sci-fi, while adding even more viewers who would watch a drama. It maximizes the viewers but at the expense of some quality and not being a really good sci-fi program. This is precisely why sci-fi is pretty rare on network TV, and why Star Trek: Discovery is going to CBS All-Access (in the US) and Netflix (internationally) instead of airing on CBS. They'll get more viewers by putting another drama or police procedural in that time slot.

Netflix, however, is more likely to want a program that's a really good sci-fi show but doesn't necessarily appeal to a wider audience. That maximizes the amount of people who subscribe because they want to see good science fiction. Netflix has no reason to care if people who are interested in dramas watch the sci-fi show. Netflix has plenty of dramas to attract subscribers, and they don't gain anything if those subscribers also watch the sci-fi show. I'd bet they actually lose money if you watch more shows because they need more servers and bandwidth to serve the content to you. You end up with a really good sci-fi that appeals to sci-fi fans rather than a lower quality sci-fi/drama designed to appeal to a wider audience.

Basically, Netflix doesn't need each individual show to appeal to a wide audience, provided there's enough variety of content overall to attract lots of subscribers. Network TV, on the other hand, does need each of their shows to appeal to a wide audience because that draws more advertising revenue. Getting revenue from subscribers instead of advertising affects the types and quality of shows that each produces.

Re:Fantastic

[DontBeAMoran]

Yes, it spoils the timing of everything. And since it's already spoiled at 1.2, I play everything at 60 to save even more time. Three hours movies only last three minutes. It's a real time saver!

Re: Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get a video recorder to watch all that tedious TV for you. Then, if you can't believe what is going on in the world, get an Electric Monk to believe it for you.
Then you will have time to go out and get a life.

Re:Fantastic

[stdarg]

It works pretty well for genres that don't depend on jokes, emotion, and timing. Documentaries, history, educational stuff.

Re:Fantastic

[mrvan]

I disagree, I think it's a really bad development that the streaming service providers are starting to license exclusive content.

In an ideal world, the fact that digital content is not naturally scarce should lead to an environment where I can pay X$ per year and get access to "all" available content. Spotify is pretty close to this model, and I know some people who have huge CD and record collections who prefer to listen via spotify because it is just easier.

The value of X is hard to determine, but the 'old' model was to create artificial scarcity by charging very high prices for content (20 euro for a CD, for example), thus causing most people not to have access to most content. However, if we have multiple streaming service providers who each negotiate with the various content right owners the market might be able to determine a sensible price per month that allows most people to view most content while giving decent renumeration to the rights owners and (hopefully) content creators. This model is not perfect, but a lot better than pricing individual items that cost near zero to reproduce. The goal of free market capitalism is to allocate capital and other scarce goods in a good way to maximize (some measure of) utility, not to create artificial scarcity and hence lower global utility.

However, if the streaming providers become right owners or have exclusive licensing deals, suddenly the market is no longer a commodity market where it doesn't really matter if I subscribe to service X or Y. Of course, this is exactly what Netflix et al want, because commodity markets don't have the kind of profits they would like.

I would be in favor of government action to force Netflix et al to be simple distributors, i.e. forcefully decouple content creation from content distribution.

Re:Fantastic

[mrvan]

(sorry for the self-reply. Maybe slashdot should wake up to the 21st Century and allow edits, at least within e.g. 5 minutes of posting. Or maybe I should think before I submit)

In addition to forcing Netflix to not produce their own content, all content providers should be forced to do non-discriminatory licensing. So if the allow Netflix to show X for Y$ per view or month or whatever, they should offer those terms to any interested distributor.

I am all for free markets, but companies don't necessarily act in a way that is good for the market. As Adam Smith famously said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together [..] but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Re:Fantastic

[sexconker]

Not really, because the timing scales for everything. Like I said, you quickly get used to it. Dropping down to 1x seems like I'm watching in slow motion now.

YouTube has built in options at 1.25x, 1.5x, and 2x. I watch at 1.25x for anything longer than a couple of minutes, and often bump it up to 1.5x.

Sometimes I crank it to 2x until it gets to the part I care about if I'm worried about missing something. For example, if I'm following a tutorial I don't want to skip around haphazardly but I also don't need to sit through the shit I already know.

For Netflix, the addon I use lets me choose in increments of .1, I believe, so I normally do 1.2x to 1.4x.
Of course, I wouldn't watch Game of Thrones at high speed.

Just try 1.25x on YouTube for a bit and a similar setting for Netflix/etc. (there are tons of addons that do this). Weigh the impact it has on the content vs. time saved.

Re:Fantastic

[jedidiah]

Yeah. Because quality is about nothing other than budget...

It's this very mentality that's killing Hollywood right now. They confuse razzle-dazzle with content.

Firefly

[Bigfishbowl]

So, like most others, I assume Firefly will finally be coming back???

Re:Firefly

[sheramil]

Yes, for about five minutes. then Netflix will remove it, like any other content they ever had that was worth watching.

Re:Firefly

[DontBeAMoran]

Have you ever seen Netflix remove their own content? Because that would not make any sense whatsoever.

is it?

[SuperDre]

Is it their budget only for content creation, or is it the budget for content creation AND buying licenses for 'old' content.
To me, Netflix is going in the wrong direction, it was a good idea of having all old series (and movies) in one place, but now they are becoming more and more a boring content creater like any other network and we still can't see all the great series from the past which are a lot of times much better than the crap that's put out today.

Re:is it?

[swb]

I still don't quite understand why old content owners are so reluctant to license content to Netflix, especially content that's pre-1975 or so.

Outside of really notable films (Academy Award winners, etc), those films and especially TV shows aren't making any money sitting on the shelf at all and few copies are probably being sold on DVD/BD even if they are available on disc. It literally makes more sense to license them to Netflix than to do nothing.

Even in the case where principals had lucrative deals that would allow them to hold up licensing to streaming/digital formats, a lot of those principals are dead and their inheritors probably aren't either going to object or will accept whatever extra is offered to them for a streaming deal. This would seem to get better as you go further back, not worse. Maybe in some cases it would be worth whatever risk to just run the risk of cutting someone out and pay them off if they object.

Even if $Studio has some kind of vague plans for their own streaming services, we haven't seen any of them do it or if they're still planning to, it's slightly more complicated than just slapping up a web site, meaning there's years before they're able to do it and they could license their content out for a couple of years without risking their own service.

I'm sometimes convinced that Netflix isn't even trying to license this content, they're trying to ween subscribers off other people's content so that in 5 years or whatever nobody (especially young people) will even know that Netflix actually had third party content. Or the other theory, that content owners simply don't want back catalog available because there's so much of it that's worthwhile that it would seriously degrade interest in their new content.

Re:is it?

[AmiMoJo]

Give it a few years for most of the other streaming services to fail, and those shows will come back to Netflix. I think YouTube will become more popular for series too. Some networks already upload old episodes, and monetize them.

It's either that or they don't get seen and produce no revenue.

Re:is it?

[Xest]

I'm finding Netflix's content less and less appealing, I felt like some class Vietnam war action the other day, but all they had was Hamburger Hill, it seems silly that classics like Platoon and Apocalypse now weren't even available (at least in the UK).

With them cancelling shows like Sens8 just as it's actually getting good it does feel like they're losing direction. It feels like an awful lot of the content they have is just space filling drivel now, though in part I suspect this is because they no longer have competition - Amazon appears to have given up as they don't seem to ever post anything worthwhile anymore, Amazon Instant Video is basically dead at this point. I miss the time when Amazon was releasing loads of good new content, and Netflix was desperately trying to compete - Amazon seemed to give up, and Netflix one, and now Netflix has largely given up too.

Re:is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is their budget for content creation. "To me, Netflix is going in the wrong direction." What other choice do they have? This was forced on them by content creators like Disney continually increasing their rates and pulling their content off Netflix. It was either become a content creator, or raise rates exponentially to keep the content from the content creators, or lose out on more and more content as the creators leave Netflix to create their own streaming service.

Re:is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is the wrong direction, but the goal from the very beginning was to muscle their way into original content. They've been talking about these things since they were a DVD rental delivery service.

Re:is it?

[houghi]

They want to sell new content as those prices are higher. They think that if they sell the old content, people will not be willing to pay for new content.

So they rather sell one item for 10 than 8 items for 1.

Obviously these numbers are completely random. No idea if they are correct and even then it might be wrong how they think, but basically the reason is that this way they think they can make more money.

And it could also be that on the old content, they still would need to pay others some percentage, so the profit margin on those might be even smaller. So small that is not worth the time.

Re:is it?

[swb]

Call me crazy, but I don't think they would have to price old content for less than "new" content, or at least not any less than they charge for a 5 year old major studio movie which they already discount.

I have a hard time with the notion that there are a lot of stakeholders in older content. I think it's *new* content where everyone involved has a complex contract with percentages of a film or show in perpetuity, but in older films I think there were more people with just straight fees or payments and only the producer or studio actually had rights down the road.

And even if you had a film with stakeholders, many of them are dead and the rights such a mess that I bet even the people or entities that inherited them don't even really know. You might get sued for 1 of every 25 films you made a streaming deal, and you just build that into your licensing model. I mean, if it's borderline profitable to release them at all, how big can the risk actually be?

Re:is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy, but I don't think they would have to price old content for less than "new" content, or at least not any less than they charge for a 5 year old major studio movie which they already discount.

They don't have to do so, but they end up doing so.

I have a hard time with the notion that there are a lot of stakeholders in older content.

There are. Music Rights. Appearance Rights. Promotional Rights. It can be clean and simple, but old stuff...not so much.

I think it's *new* content where everyone involved has a complex contract with percentages of a film or show in perpetuity, but in older films I think there were more people with just straight fees or payments and only the producer or studio actually had rights down the road.

What you think doesn't matter, because...yeah, people can have those kinds of contracts, and worse yet, at least from the perspective of the producer or studio, the "novel" mechanisms that are available now, well, they were not considered when the original contracts were written. Which means that a court could come to a conclusion that isn't in their interests.

And even if you had a film with stakeholders, many of them are dead and the rights such a mess that I bet even the people or entities that inherited them don't even really know. You might get sued for 1 of every 25 films you made a streaming deal, and you just build that into your licensing model. I mean, if it's borderline profitable to release them at all, how big can the risk actually be?

Huge for studio executives who can just make a new movie, with their name on it, and get fame and approval from that, as well as boatloads of money.

It isn't even worth their time for their lawyers to do the due diligence.

Re:is it?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, that's easy. The content owners aren't trying to make money. Why would they? They're rich already. What they like most is CONTROL. They wish to control the content, and if someone isn't offering them huge bucks, then they're happy to decline. They don't make money, but who cares about that? What's important is maintaining the feeling of control.

Re:is it?

[painandgreed]

I still don't quite understand why old content owners are so reluctant to license content to Netflix, especially content that's pre-1975 or so.

Because people would spend their time and money watching the cheaper content rather than watching newer more expensive content.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

The major media companies have forgotten to make good content. Here in Europe, there is also the issue of government funding, which even leads to spoiling good ideas by putting too much PC crap into the final product. Mind you, I have nothing against a certain dose of PC, which is like sugar -- in moderate quantities gives good taste, but too much of it ruins your cake/health. For now, Netflix has the good balance, and I keep it as my sole media subscription.

Re:Good!

[gfxguy]

It may be true that the outside content providers that Netflix licenses with are not producing the greatest stuff; not only that, but the most desirable stuff doesn't end up on Netflix streaming service for a very long time, if at all. I will stick with Netflix for now, I like some of the original content, but that's not why I signed up with Netflix years ago so, on the whole, I've been very disappointed with streaming services in general. The divergence of content (providers like Disney forking off their own service) doesn't help matters any.

Re:Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go to Denmark. Everyone is white.

Oh great, more free crap

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies just keep churning out garbage, it's almost not worth pirating. But what ya gonna do?

Re:Oh great, more free crap

[DontBeAMoran]

Yeah! What the hell are we supposed to do? Read books or go outside?!

Re:Oh great, more free crap

[jedidiah]

> Yeah! What the hell are we supposed to do? Read books or go outside?!

No need. There's 50 years of TV and 100 years worth of cinema to chose from. You don't need to do anything silly like "read a book".

if you are interested in the back catalog, you don't have to bother with Netflix or any of the streaming services.

When Hollywood comes out with a bad remake, just watch the original. Sometimes buying the remake is a cheaper way to aquire the original.

Re:Linux NOT ready for the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be a dumbass.

Don't cancel shows at cliffhangers

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't cancel too many shows when they turn interesting.

For example, "Defying Gravity" started out lame, but it got better. And the last episode was great - lots of momentum and "What will happen now?". And in that episode, the characters on the spaceship found out what the mission was about, and they reacted with astonishment and delight. And that was the last episode that was shown in the US! We (the US viewers) never found out what the mission was.

And the show "Alphas" ended on a cliffhanger. Everyone in Grand Central Station (or in NY City?) was killed, except Gary Bell, who was played by Ryan Cartwright. Cartwright is a terrific actor, and it looked like his character was going to save the world single-handedly. I was looking forward to seeing him do lots of acting to save the world in later episodes. But then I found out that that was the last episode, and that the show had been cancelled.

Grrr!!

Re:Don't cancel shows at cliffhangers

[bad-badtz-maru]

When Netflix recently announced the cancellation of sense8 after season 2, they ordered one more two hour episode to allow for wrap-up.

Re:Don't cancel shows at cliffhangers

[gfxguy]

At least there's that.... far too many network shows just abruptly end on cliffhangers, and the networks don't give a crap. If ratings are down on the whole, it might be because people (like me) refuse to start watching a show unless we know it'll be around for a while.

Just don't waste the dollars on a political agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad Netflix has the money and their going to use it for content. I really enjoy programs like Stranger Things and Jessica Jones (I know she's a Marvel character). I also thoroughly enjoyed watching The Last Kingdom from the BBC. If Netflix will focus on content like that and not shove politics into it like with Dear White People, then I'm more than happy to continue paying the monthly fee.

But..

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want anymore of bill nye the sexjunk guy....

Obvious next step

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Integrate a one click purchase into the Netflix apps so that you can buy a physical copy from them directly. My wife and I have seen some shows there that we'd buy a blu ray copy to give away to relatives who don't want Netflix.

Re:Obvious next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better next step: bring anti-trust suits to keep Netflix from recreating the studio system. Keep content creators and distributors separate.

Re:Obvious next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first step would be to use that against every major ISP both landline and mobile in the nation first. When it comes to hard to our system, Netflix is below the bottom of the list for that one.

Re:Nazis

[93 Escort Wagon]

Danish women make the trip worthwhile, though.

It's all about rights and remakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood can horde old content because it is more than worth its value as the basis for new content i.e. remakes.
It should come as no surprise that the release of ANYTHING that is new prompts lawsuits from the peanut galley --
hey your cowboy-assassin-lizards are a blatant ripoff of my cowboy-assassin-lizards. It is for this reason that Hollywood
largely bases its films on the adaptation of existing works. Netflix is following the same business plan but because it
is late to the game there are creative possibilities...

please stop making activist mouthpieces

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop making garbage activist movies thinly disguised as "documentaries". I love Netflix but seeing some of the horseshit coming out, I am tempted to drop it and just go to HBO NOW or YTR or anything else.

That is todays world

[SuperKendall]

No denying they have a large hold on things today.

But doesn't it feel like that is slipping? When most of the major movies are sequels it starts to look more like a retrograde action where Disney spends more more money on propping up aging IP than creating new things. Meanwhile Netflix plots another BILLION dollars down on new content...

I mean at this point who seriously cares about another Marvel movie?

I love Star Wars myself but after just a few more years of new Star Wars every year, even that will probably start to get old (I'll be among the first at Star Wars land though!!!).

Over time the people creating new IP will win, because even if 90% of everything sucks (which it does) when you are willing to spend several billion dollars on throwing shit on a wall you will come up with some cherished masterpieces, and create new IP that will be equally beloved for generations to come... across many categories.

Unfortunately even some of Netflix's originals are based on Disney IP, so Disney pulling out puts some of their best original content at risk.

The Netflix Marvel stuff is great, but it's just a handful of other great stuff Netflix has at this point... it's only at risk depending on how adept Netflix was at working up contracts. My guess, is they are very good at working contracts with IP owners... I don't think we'll ever see that stuff go offline.

Re:That is todays world

[Xest]

I hope that's the case, but if you look at even things like Lego, a vast amount of Lego's IP (a majority?) is now Disney licensed stuff, I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney just buy up Lego at some point.

So the risk is it's not just about video content, they could tie up the vast majority of the kids toy market too.

Certainly there are growing challengers as you say - Netflix, HBO etc. but even if Disney aren't gaining any real ground now in terms of video content because of them I think they still hold way too big a share and are certainly expanding on other market segments. I guess it's a question of how much money Disney is taking from the market as much as anything, i.e. whilst you're right that most Marvel movies are now incredibly boring, are they still pulling in a lot of money? If so then that's still a substantial amount of money that's not being spent on other providers.

Don't get me wrong, I hope you're right, I hope Disney loses marketshare, and becomes a shadow of it's former self, but I fear that as soon as that starts to happen it'll merely just buy Netflix, or buy HBO, or buy whoever else and it's uninhibited from doing so because for whatever reason competition laws don't seem to get applied to businesses like Disney.

With that kind of money, can we have Futurama back

[lecithin]

Can we please have the 1st 5 seasons (and the movies) of Futurama back?

Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and Netflix refuses to "pay a premium" for it's asymmetrical traffic loads through overloaded Internet peering points.

Internet peering points are intended for "equality in traffic exchange", not egregious abuse by asymmetrical traffic from a "freeloader" like Netflix.

Netflix is NOT A GOOD NETIZEN when it comes to respecting certain long term Internet customs.

And then there is the Netflix plan to place "free cache boxes" in ISP networks; it's on Netflix' own blog pages. Interesting way to "freeload" on someone else's infrastructure for Netflix' own gain since the ISP can only provide or remove power & Internet access to the box. And then there is the security risk of placing a "foreign device" (something the ISP does not control the operation of) within the confines of the ISP's relatively secure network.

If Netflix really wanted to be fair with it's "cache boxes", Netflix would place them in hosting centers closest to Internet peering points, but Netflix has to pay for all of that. But Netflix is nothing but a "Silicon Valley incarnation of Donald Trump"; make the best deal for Netflix and screw anyone else.

How "Trump like" can Netflix get?

News

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they have a news show? Hmm probably a good way for the government to ban them.

Re:bad analogy time

[jedidiah]

> Exactly! And why doesn't developer who's been out of work for more than a few months take a minimum wage job? They aren't making any money sitting at home so why not make a few bucks.

Why? Normal people have to eat. They don't get paid money for doing work they did 20 years ago.

None of the stuff we're talking about here should even be under copyright any more. The whole lot of it should be in the public domain. The only reason it isn't is because Disney BUYS laws to suit them.

This is only an issue because Disney is the great evil of the industry making this situation a problem.

Re:Nazis

[jedidiah]

> Don't go to Denmark. Everyone is white.

So you haven't been to Denmark lately then?

You're far better off going to Ireland or Spain. Poland has also taken a hard line against non-white immigration.

And the content race is on..

[LesserWeevil]

Netflix, Disney, Amazon Video, Apple, CBS (Star Trek) and other legacy networks seeking relevancy. https://www.theverge.com/2017/... All of your screens are belong to us..

Why rent when you can own?

[Prien715]

You can either (1) make your own content and get licenses in perpetuity (even if NF folds as a movie place, their content is still valuable) or (2) license content from studios which can change their prices on a whim.

By depending on the whims of studios, Netflix makes a decision not to be subjugated into irrelevance when studios raise their prices (as they've been doing). Think of them like HBO now or something.

Re:Why rent when you can own?

[Anonymous Coward]

most content is old and belongs to someone else, deal with it