Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix's New Chapter

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 314 posts

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#291

Post by hnburnsy »

tootie wrote: post #253
duderific wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gosh, I thought Andor was just a horrific bore. I literally couldn't stay awake for it. It felt like about four episodes worth of story stretched out to 12 episodes. I feel like with all the glowing reviews, people are watching it through the lens of being Star Wars universe fans, and not judging it objectively against other content. I did enjoy the Mandalorian series because at least it had the comic relief of Gr…

That's a surprising take considering how little it intersects with the rest of the SW universe. There's no Jedis, no lightsabers maybe one brief space battle and barely any direct overlap with the films. You could come in cold without having seen anything else and still enjoy it. I thought it was outstanding, especially the pacing and suspense of the early episodes. The second half is a lot more action-packed and squ…

Agree but it had typical movie tropes; a bank heist, the anti-hero, a prison break, etc.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#292

Post by dangus »

joshspankit wrote: post #285
dangus wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sales there’s a concept where you don’t just sell against competitors, you sell against doing nothing. What’s the convincing reason for Disney to not simply do nothing? Sell me on Disney digitizing and releasing old cartoons with the salary of at least one person versus doing absolutely nothing. You also have to sell me on that employee working on the Donald Duck smoking cigars and speaking in a Mid-Atlantic accen…

The sell (though they seem to be avoiding this particular avenue) is that they have become the owners of a LOT of cultural cornerstones and can leverage that content to create something Netflix cannot: A complete multi-generational back-catalog that is always available to stream. Netflix’s irrevocable back-catalog can only go as far back as their first Netflix original. Everything else is licensed.

In a romantic sense the idea that a multi-generational back catalog being a profitable pursuit might feel right, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a marketable product.

Netflix hasn’t needed much of a back catalog to out-earn the competition.

The truth is that back catalogs have the potential to be basically worthless except for a select few “best of the best” classics.

The majority of Disney back catalog content is most certainly not at the level of Snow White or Cinderella. I think about many of their package (anthology) films as a great example of near-unwatchable garbage that only has non-profit historical value.

Media companies quite literally let their back catalogs rot (like the neglect and disinvestment that led to the Universal masters fire of 20008).

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#293

Post by Tommah »

gratitoad wrote: post #168
pclmulqdq wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> they went from zero to a streaming service very quickly

Disney basically bought MLB's streaming service and used that for Disney Plus.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#294

Post by maxsilver »

scarface74 wrote: post #58
darth_avocado wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…

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…

> To a first approximation, no one cares about Netflix’s back catalog.

People would care more, if Netflix would stop cancelling everything. I'm not sure they realize how much they're killing their own backcatalog revenue by making everything a one/two season max.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#295

Post by jamesfinlayson »

darth_avocado wrote: post #21
zamadatix wrote: post #11

Earlier 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?

> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…

> You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round.

Didn't Disney's CEO talk about getting to the point of having a movie release a day or something like that late last year? The quality might be questionable at that rate.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#296

Post by ikr678 »

duderific wrote: post #246
paulryanrogers wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :/

I have some beef with how Bluey depicts the parents as stooges to be toyed with and manipulated as the kids see fit, with little pushback from the parents. In the end there's generally some kind of lesson to be learned, but the parents go along with pretty much anything the kids propose.

Mild disrespect for authority is an Australian cultural trait.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#297

Post by rcme »

majormajor wrote: post #269
rcme wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't. You don't normally include opportunity cost on your balance sheet.

These deals can be complex. Consider if you were going to make a movie, and were shopping it around to studios. If Studio A was like "we'll give you a 10% cut of whatever we then license it for for streaming" and Disney was like "we're gonna stream it on our own platform for free, sorry" that's a negotiation problem for Disney. So selling internally at market rate is a good thing for relationships with external creat…

It seems like it’d be infinitely more fair to say “should we stream it in house, here is how royalties will be calculated.”

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#298

Post by joshspankit »

dangus wrote: post #292
joshspankit wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sell (though they seem to be avoiding this particular avenue) is that they have become the owners of a LOT of cultural cornerstones and can leverage that content to create something Netflix cannot: A complete multi-generational back-catalog that is always available to stream. Netflix’s irrevocable back-catalog can only go as far back as their first Netflix original. Everything else is licensed.

In a romantic sense the idea that a multi-generational back catalog being a profitable pursuit might feel right, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a marketable product. Netflix hasn’t needed much of a back catalog to out-earn the competition. The truth is that back catalogs have the potential to be basically worthless except for a select few “best of the best” classics. The majority of Disney back catalog con…

While I think your points are valid, I also think that simply making “trusted archive” part of their brand is enough to justify the cost of employees watching through everything and tagging offensive content.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#299

Post by minhduong243 »

This article said none of Netflix's competitors had positive cash flow. Well, at least Disney did. Disney+ is unlikely to have positive cash flow, but the Walt Disney company has a cash cow in parks and other media assets. This Stratechery article seems to conveniently ignore that unlike Netflix, other streaming services have revenue-generating assets to fund the streaming war.

It cost Disney $400 million to make the Avatar sequel and probably that amount for marketing. Yet it already has made $2 billion in box office. Netflix spent $200 million on the Gray Man. How much did the movie bring to Netflix? Disney and Warner Bros have incredible franchises. What does Netflix have in comparison?

I also don't see any mention on the fact that while competitors are increasing content spend, Netflix is doing the opposite. If it's the new content, rather than the old stuff, that attracts subscribers, should the fact that Netflix is decreasing content spend be a concern?

If Netflix's future is about creativity and content quality, why should we believe that Netflix will be better at creating quality content in the future than they have so far? What data shows that subscribers come back because Netflix content is the best? Or is it because they have the biggest catalogue? And what does it say about decreasing content spend when Netflix is stretched across markets?

I don't dispute Reed's achievements, but citing the launch of the ads tier is a bit premature and strange. Reed, for years, pushed back against the idea of an ads-supported plan. He only changed his mind only when he had to. Yes, Netflix launched the ads operations in a few months' time, but we haven't got any concrete data on it.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#300

Post by kshacker »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #212
xrd wrote: post #9

The first time I've seen a well written critique of activist investors like Carl Icahn. He certainly scuttled any chance that Blockbuster had of succeeding. He's often right about small details when it comes to traditional companies and where to cut costs (as are many activist investors), but this story reads like he sabotaged Blockbuster when it had an actual substantial and viable chance to compete. I had not heard…

"Activist investors" engage in what will be considered a crime in the near future, which is purchasing shares to obtain board ownership -> take in obscene amounts of debt for stock buybacks -> dump shares and let the company fall into bankruptcy. I prefer their original name "corporate raiders".

How is this allowed? If companies by same activist investors regularly go into bankruptcy, the creditors must be able to point that out and get some restrictions placed in their favor, no?
Post reply on HN