> I’m not sure there is any company of Netflix’s size that has ever been so frequently doubted and written off.
Apple
Netflix's New Chapter
161–170 of 314 posts
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#162I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…
I've talked with several of my friends about this. EVERYONE was universally willing to pay Netflix their monthly sub when all the studios just sold their content to Netflix.
NO ONE has subscribed to all of Disney+, Apple+, Paramount+, Peacock, etc. in the new everyone-built-their-own-netflix era.
They're all either making do with less content or sailing the high seas mateys yo ho. In many cases they've even DROPPED Netflix.
I don't see how the current over a dozen streaming media provider status quo stands for much longer. Some (many?) are going to have to fail before everyone gets pissed off and goes elsewhere for their entertainment.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#163I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…
What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?
I think you underestimate how much they hand out Disney+. For example, Verizon has a deal with Disney to give out free Disney+ with many plans. Comcast, I think, was also offering me free Disney+ access. This must eat into margins on some level while keeping the subscriber number up - there's no way that Verizon/Comcast are paying full price for that free subscription (in most cases, it's only a year free).
Contrast that with HBO Max that has never had a sale of any kind except for a single free trial week.
I also think that people underestimate the cost of serving streaming entertainment. It's very compute- and data-intensive. If you architect your systems badly, which I assume Disney did, you will be paying a LOT of money for this service.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?
Disney's content library only appeals to very specific demographics. Mostly just kids and the Avengers/Star Wars crowd. Netflix has something for literally everyone.
I don't know if it's the same in the states, but here in Canada we get Stars with it as well, which is a huge bunch of Fox stuff, including It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and American Horror Story, so it's a little more varied than you're making it out to be.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#165I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…
The tech part of streaming no longer matters and Netflix is in serious trouble due to their lack of quality content.
I'm no fan of Disney, but you have to give it to Bob Iger. He just paid out the nose to buy every piece of valuable IP: Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, Fox, even Jim Henson.
The amount of content they now own is insane. Everything from Sunny in Philadelphia to the Muppet show to Alien to Avatar to The Simpsons to Starwars. It's nuts... you can't throw a dead cat in Hollywood without hitting Disney IP.
Meanwhile Netflix makes something worth streaming every year or two, if that.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW my understanding is that WB withholding the Looney Tunes backlog is entirely due to the fact that there's a lot of problematic (e.g. racist, sexist) material in there that they're understandably worried about. I completely agree with you otherwise.
Disney+ got around this problem by just adding disclaimers to the content. They did this for all their questionable content, and if people reported it (IE they missed something) they were quick to add it. It seems Disney+ isn't scarred by this at all (it definitely doesn't dominate the public conversation around it), so perhaps there is a lead in here?
There is racist content made by Disney that is not available on Disney+.
The stuff that WB removed from HBO Max is more comparable to Song of the South (which is completely unavailable) than to Dumbo (which has disclaimers).
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
>- Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow This is a bit off. They had 1.6 billion in FCF in 2022 & project 3 billion for 2023: https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2022/q4... That said, to me Netflix feels like it is lagging. Not enough to really hurt subscriber numbers yet…
They lost me this year. I had been a subscriber for 12 years. Between the ads and the complete inability to let a show run more than 2 seasons unless it's a global hit... I'm no longer interested. I've had a kid - and my viewing habits have changed. I can't always watch a show right when it drops. The reality of my life is that I have other things going on, and I rarely have 10+ hours of uninterrupted time. But now..…
> complete inability to let a show run more than 2 seasons unless it's a global hit
It just needs to be a slight success. If the show is cheap to make they'll keep it running forever. The only things that seem to get canceled are expensive or complete failures. I'd be interested if you have any examples that this doesn't ring true for.
> My take is that Netflix is hot fucking garbage at determining the quality of their own shows, and that really - they don't have the creative side down at all. It's too much focus on the stats, and timelines that are too short.
Most TV shows are canceled very few keep going forever.
> Some of the most widely watched shows in history had fairly lackluster first seasons (see: Parks & Rec, The Office, Friends).
Go look at the viewership of those even at the start they were good enough and cheap enough for a second season. Shows almost never grow after the first season. This idea that so many shows just need to get there legs under them is bullshit.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?
I think you underestimate how much they hand out Disney+. For example, Verizon has a deal with Disney to give out free Disney+ with many plans. Comcast, I think, was also offering me free Disney+ access. This must eat into margins on some level while keeping the subscriber number up - there's no way that Verizon/Comcast are paying full price for that free subscription (in most cases, it's only a year free). Contrast…
FWIW I used to get HBO Max free with my AT&T phone plan, so they have at one point given it “for free.”
And I think you could be right about D+ architecture, they went from zero to a streaming service very quickly.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not entirely true. Disney+ is partially losing money because of “transfer payments”. Disney+ has to “pay” Disney studios the market rate for the right to stream a movie. Of course the money mostly flows up to Disney. But from an accounting standpoint, Disney+ can’t say it’s profitable by getting movies for free from Disney studios and cause Disney studios to lose potential profits they could have made elsewher…
There’s no where else to say this, but for wholesome kids entertainment, Bluey is hard to beat. Every 10 minute episode is basically a guide on how to play. Kids love it. Parents relearn how to play. It’s so charming and ridiculous. Totally worth the money.
Fair warning there is a Bluey episode where the kids push their father down steps. A day after watching one of my wards pushed someone down the steps :/
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney also will probably make more money on its four biggest movie releases this year than Netflix makes in all. Avatar 2- a movie that came from its Fox acquisition has already made over $2 Billion
Tbf avatar 2 was also extremely expensive, its breakeven point was reported to be in the 2 billion ball park ( https://time.com/6241639/avatar-2-costs-box-office/ )
Industry experts (including insiders at Disney) note that breakeven was approximately 1.5 billion (the 2 billion came from Cameron), accounting for marketing expenses, the theaters' share of ticket sales, and the fact that the bloated number includes the entire filming costs for Avatar 3 and a quarter of Avatar 4.
So Avatar 2 has earned Disney a profit of at least $250m and it still has several more weeks without any competition. And Avatar 3 will have a far lower break-even point.