21–30 of 38 posts
Why would Sony/etc allow movies to be shown on a Disney owned platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. I think Netflix has a good idea of what they'd like their future to be, but no clear path to get there. Their subscriber growth is slowing, and their content library is shrinking (and was always pretty anaemic outside of a few core territories). Being owned by Disney would give them guaranteed access to a AAA content catalogue, and far more firepower in reciprocal licensing negotiations. And for their p…
as a production company they will be much more successfull than disney in 5 years
I know that Netflix is relying more heavily on it's 1st-party content lately, but I can't see how Disney could buy Netflix without making negotiations much harder with every other studio.. Why would Sony/etc allow movies to be shown on a Disney owned platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a production company they will be much more successfull than disney in 5 years
Disney owns so much IP: Marvel, Star Wars, Disney. You expect them to come up with that much stuff in 5 years?
I agree it will be a challenge, but if you look at the talent that appears to want to work with Netflix and do originals, I wouldn't rule out the parent's 5 year estimate.
It's not like you can just go to Disney and say "let's do this". They have a brand and image to uphold so their content choices will always be limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is netflix's competitive advantage? They have some customers and some technology, but the customer's probably care more about the content. They don't own the content. Their own IP is limited. The Studios own Hulu so they are better off licensing their content to Hulu.
They've shown a remarkable ability to rapidly iterate new shows which people like, revive old shows that people still want, and they've begun to enter the culture in the form of "Netflix and Chill" and the like.
Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. It will probably be too late. With less revenue, it will be harder to produce top shows and compete with the high quality content that is being produced at a fraction of the cost. I think it's going to continue to grow to be one or two services and a few direct a la carte channel subscriptions for consumers.
Sports is a big driver for many services (ex: NFL for DirecTV) but you can now subscribe to Sunday Ticket if you can't get DirecTV where you're at. Big Ten Network can be streamed without a tv service too. You can just add a cheap HD OTA antenna to get network channels. Once most the sports outlets go direct, there'll be a huge exodus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've shown a remarkable ability to rapidly iterate new shows which people like, revive old shows that people still want, and they've begun to enter the culture in the form of "Netflix and Chill" and the like.
To add to that, they're more responsible for cable cutting than any other service. I still have tv service but I'm finding it harder and harder to talk about anything on cable with people. They'll talk about Stranger Things and other shows. Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. It will probably be too late. With less revenue, it will be harder to produce top shows a…
Or the same content outlets will have to deliver content through streaming, either subscription or ad supported, while the same service providers will just make money selling internet service rather than cable/satellite TV service.
I truly hope that Netflix doesn't sell to Disney; I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney. I'm not that worried though, I think that Netflix sees its future as something more than being bought out at this stage. Then again, money does speak its own powerful language.
-- I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney Why do you say that? Just curious.
Some examples [1]:
- Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845) - Revenue = $810.3 million
- Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865) - Revenue = $1.02 billion
- Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (1857) - Revenue = $416 million (10th highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation)
- Aladdin (1992) from a folk tale in One Thousand and One Nights (1706) - Revenue = $504 million
Then you have their lobbying:
"In 1998, Copyright was up for it’s last copyright term extension, from life +50 years to life +70 years. Disney’s Mickey Mouse copyright had accounted for up to $8 billion in revenue in 1998 when they were lobbying for copyright extension.
Disney’s Chairman, Michael Eisener personally met with then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. The day Lott signed on as co-sponsor of the bill, Disney’s PAC donated to Lott’s campaign. Within a month Disney also gave $20,000 in soft money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Of the 13 initial sponsors of the House bill, 10 received contributions from Disney’s PAC. On the Senate side, 8 of the 12 sponsors received contributions" [2]
Protect $8B with some cheap lobbying. What a deal!
[1][2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-- I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney Why do you say that? Just curious.
Disney is pretty much only a huge force from using public domain to make money, yet they routinely do things to avoid their IP from entering the public domain. Some examples [1]: - Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845) - Revenue = $810.3 million - Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865) - Revenue = $1.02 billion - Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (185…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that, they're more responsible for cable cutting than any other service. I still have tv service but I'm finding it harder and harder to talk about anything on cable with people. They'll talk about Stranger Things and other shows. Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. It will probably be too late. With less revenue, it will be harder to produce top shows a…
> Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. Or the same content outlets will have to deliver content through streaming, either subscription or ad supported, while the same service providers will just make money selling internet service rather than cable/satellite TV service.
At best, people would capture streams with something like a DVR, then FF through the ads. Besides, with advertising comes advertisers, and their predictable responses to pressure groups compromising the actual product. Good luck making 'Game of Thrones' with ad money!