The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
theatlanticwire.com
The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
1–10 of 114 posts
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#2Yeah, a desperate attempt to break independent from the Hollywood/TV crooks.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#3I'm actually quite excited about this. Netflix is in a position to a first example of a new type of higher-budget independent entertainment.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#4Does anyone know how the Amazon Studio's projects are coming along? Amazon was also looking to disrupt the Hollywood model and it has been a while since it started.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#5I'm really hoping this works. Partially because I'm a Netflix subscriber, but mostly because I want HBO, AMC, and Showtime to follow suit eventually. If Netflix shows that they can support a high-profile show with a subscription model, maybe non-cable subscribers can eventually get HBO. Or am I just dreaming?
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#6I don't think its just a matter of economics, Netflix doesn't have a choice if they have to survive long-term. Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and they risk turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can choose to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix. They need to produce their own shows else soon they will only get access to B-grade content.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#7I'm really hoping this works. Partially because I'm a Netflix subscriber, but mostly because I want HBO, AMC, and Showtime to follow suit eventually. If Netflix shows that they can support a high-profile show with a subscription model, maybe non-cable subscribers can eventually get HBO. Or am I just dreaming?
You want to pay $9 * N content providers per month? I don't.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#8I'm really hoping this works. Partially because I'm a Netflix subscriber, but mostly because I want HBO, AMC, and Showtime to follow suit eventually. If Netflix shows that they can support a high-profile show with a subscription model, maybe non-cable subscribers can eventually get HBO. Or am I just dreaming?
HBO already started to shift. It's called HBO GO. With an HBO subscription you have online access.
The problem with HBO adopting a pure-streaming service is that it's still more lucrative for them to work with the cable providers.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#9Yeah, a desperate attempt to break independent from the Hollywood/TV crooks.
> the Hollywood/TV crooks
What a load of crap. Hollywood/TV doesn't have a lot of leverage because they're crooks. They have a lot of leverage because they sell a non-fungible product. People don't just want to watch a show about advertisers with a lot of sexist banter--they want to watch Mad Men. They don't to watch a movie with some random hot guy, they want a movie with Channing Tatum.
It's the same market dynamic that makes Apple and Louis Vuitton what they are except even more extreme. LV sells purses and so does Kate Spade and so there is competition there. But only Warner Brothers sells Lord of the Rings, and other swords and sorcery movies aren't fungible with LOTR.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#10I don't think its just a matter of economics, Netflix doesn't have a choice if they have to survive long-term. Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and they risk turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can choose to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO be…
I've been watching documentaries on Netflix. They're already stuck with B-grade content in some areas.