For the past few years, the big TV networks made easy money selling their reruns to Netflix.
Now they're having second thoughts.
So are they ready to pull back on sales to Netflix and other digital services in the hopes of keeping their core business intact?
Investors will be looking for an answer to that question this week and next, as most of the big entertainment companies report their Q3 earnings and take questions from analysts. But several key TV executives have already signaled that they're going to stop selling their best stuff to digital services — particularly Netflix.
Binge-viewing has been established as the new method to consume content--that is the genie they need to stuff back in the bottle.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Can the TV Guys Put the Netflix Genie Back in the Bottle?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday November 05 2015, @12:17AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:10AM
They also seem to think people are going to shell out 5-10 for 20 different services... PER MONTH That is not going to happen either. I just picked up 13 seasons of poirot for 80 bucks. I will be enjoying that for months. I can do that for years on end and still come out well ahead what these guys are thinking. When I am done I can donate to the local library or sell on ebay. That does not even begin to touch on the amount of dl options out there. Then all the other legal/illegal material.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:03AM
Thank you. I'll look for it at the public library. Agatha Christie died in 1976, so what's another year or two?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:39AM
That doesn't apply to the movies. The last one was made only a year or two ago and the earliest one was made in the '80s.
The books are another matter, those are going to be expiring in the relative near future. Assuming that Disney is thwarted from getting it extended again.
But really, those books have been published in such large quantities that you should be able to find all of them for less than $1 each. The shipping is probably more than the book itself.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday November 05 2015, @12:26AM
That's not the right question. Can the PIRACY genie be put back in the bottle. That's *the* question they need to be asking. Of course, the answer is a flat out no. Netflix removes M.A.S.H? Fine, it's about 3 hours to download all 11 seasons of M.A.S.H. I should know, I already *did* it. In addition to owning the DVDs as a Christmas present.
Anything they remove from Netflix is *already* available as a full season download on the net. That *includes* Netflix Original Programming. DareDevil is out on the net, when Netflix is only $7.99 a month. Protecting their core business? How? You just eliminated the practically only reasonable solution for most people that's *legal*.
I bet that's what pisses them off. There is a cheap legal solution to binge watch old TV, and us, being the complete bastards that we are, dared to take Netflix up on that offer. Is that the genie they're really referring to? The success at being reasonable?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:08AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:02AM
They really can't, can they? Thanks to the content cartels dragging their feet and choosing to litigate instead of innovate the standard for my generation became: all content, free, without limits, immediately. You really can't make a business model out of that, but that's not my problem.
"But people will stop making content!"
Yeah, ok. Sure. We'll talk when that happens about how to fix it. But I'll wager that conversation never happens. I'm as certain as I can be that humans will keep producing compelling art for as long as they exist.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:27AM
Tough shit for them, but that's exactly what Wall Streeters and business executives think when they hear IT people wail about outsourcing, and the shelf life of IT skills steadily decreasing as new generations of platforms and software pile on top of one another.
If you don't have empathy for people in a different line of work, don't expect any in return.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:42AM
I don't have any empathy for Hitler and his work (or solution), and yep, I don't expect any empathy from Hitler anytime soon.
Don't act as if the lines of "work" are equal. I have zero empathy for sociopaths that are no longer able to abuse people as they once did, and as a result, have less millions than they use to. You allude to the Golden Rule and admonish us for lacking empathy for Big Entertainment and its executives, but completely fail to realize that your proposed victims completely lack all empathy and adherence to the Golden Rule in the first place.
It will not be empathy that they are lacking for us, but any measurable levels of respect for others, decency, integrity, ethics, etc.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:53AM
I accept bitcoin.
- Godwin
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:25PM
I accept bitcoin.
- Godwin
And if we don't pay our royalties what possible incentive will there be for Godwin to propose more laws?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:25PM
Yeah, ok. Sure. We'll talk when that happens about how to fix it. But I'll wager that conversation never happens. I'm as certain as I can be that humans will keep producing compelling art for as long as they exist.
Exactly! I saw the same thing about blocking ads on the web as well.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @05:54AM
Exactly this. For years I did the torrent bit (and many other piracy methods before that) for things like TV. First I watched on my monitor. Then I had a PC or a laptop hooked up to the TV. A few years ago this turned into a boxee, then later a WD TV Live after the boxee died. It's like a free DVR that programs out ads automatically - I could hardly watch anything any other way. The only reason I paid for cable/satellite at all back then was live sports. Six months ago I said enough. I dumped the cables/satellite, picked up a Roku 3 and HD Antenna so the wife & co. can still get some content, and added Netflix. I haven't missed paying $100/month one bit.
Here's the funny thing... I don't mind paying a small amount for my content now that I have some disposable income. But for all my streaming services combined I'm not going over about $20 or $25 per month. A while back there was a story about Netflix putting more resources into original programming and dropping some movies/TV from other sources. If Netflix turns into just another TV channel and stuff ends up on Amazon Prime I'll be over there instead. If it ends up on Hulu guess where I will be. If all the legal services have large holes in their content my WD TV Live and torrents still work perfectly fine. They could just shutup and take my money, or they could try to squeeze me for more money and push ads on me, at which point I will drop them just like I dropped satellite. The money is theirs for the taking, it's just a question if they want my few dollars per month or not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EQ on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:04AM
It's fairly simple, they decrease the convenience and availability then they will increase piracy. I've seen the lame attempts at streaming their own shows from their own websites and it's horrible. To skip to a different part of a program, one show forced a 2and a half minute commercial break, even if you had just had one 30 seconds prior. No thanks, I'll just download it if I can't get it on Netflix and the network is going to cram commercials down my throat ever time I pause or rewind or fast forward. In the 14 minutes of time I spent watching on the network site, I got 10 minutes of unskippable commercials. The next commercial that popped up, I was able to find and download the episode (with the commercial breaks edited out!) before they were done. They just don't get it, I don't want to sit there and let them dictate how I watch. I'll pirate it, faster easier and arguably better.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:26PM
Obligatory [imgur.com]
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:10AM
By selling their reruns to Netflix, the TV studios funded the production of Netflix' own shows.
Professional TV cameras are phenomenally expensive. But now Netflix owns lots of them, they have studios and the like. Alternatively those who cannot sell their independently-produced shows to the broadcast networks can sell them to Netflix instead.
I myself haven't watched a regular TV set in years. To the extent I want to watch a movie I will purchase the DVD, because I only really watch my favorite movies so I prefer to have the DVD to keep forever.
I also have a huge collection of music compact discs, most of which I purchase these days from street performers as well as unsigned artists who play in Portland's cafes and clubs.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:46AM
Professional TV cameras are phenomenally expensive. But now Netflix owns lots of them, they have studios and the like. Alternatively those who cannot sell their independently-produced shows to the broadcast networks can sell them to Netflix instead.
Studio cameras are expensive. The location cameras they are using now, even in a steadycam mount aren't that expensive. Under $2000 for a cheap model, under $5000 for
By the time you add in lighting, a good sound man, and post production, the cost of a couple cameras being used on location these days is nothing. Most of the reality type shows are shot with shoulder mounted cameras. These shows are cheap to produce.
There are a lot of independently shot shows that have trouble getting renewed, and get sold off to NetFlix. And even if Netflx loses money on every one of them, it builds an audience base. My wife liked that Longmire TV show and she followed it to Netflix when it migrated. I could care less about the dumb show, wait, ohhhhh, Katee Sackhoff..... Well, there's 8 bucks a month that Netflix never had before.
Old DVDs can be found in used goods stores for like 2 to 3 dollars apiece. My problem is I'm easily bored and watching a whole movie is something I do maybe twice a year. Wait... This year, exactly NONE. Not big screen, not on TV, and not on the net.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:13AM
Information wants to be free.
Information wants to be expensive.
The MAFIAA is dependent on the latter and horrified at the reality of the former.
So much has been invested already in entertainment that many people don't care about the latter -- and why should they?
There's a way out of the paradox. It's not one that those in power even pretend to take seriously, but there will soon be few other options.
We've already automated out of existence a significant fraction of the work that needs to be done, and it's a matter of decades at most before we've automated out of existence the majority of jobs left...at which point basically nothing in the way the economy is currently structured even pretends to make sense.
...but, with a basic income for everybody, the personal need to work vanishes. Many would choose to do little more than binge-watch TV all day long without paying for it...but so what? It's not like we actually need them to put in an honest day's work in order to get the crops harvested or manufacture goods.
And that simultaneously frees up many to be creative -- to make new TV shows or music or whatever, and to give it away for free without having to worry about whether or not they'll earn enough from it to pay the rent.
If you measure your self-worth by how many faces you're stomping all over, this is the worst imaginable future. But for the 99% of the rest of humanity, it's pretty near heaven on Earth.
So, that's the choice we're facing. Either we can keep along with business as usual for the benefit of the 1% while the robots do all the work and nearly everybody fights over table scraps, or we can let the robots do all the work and everybody can join the party.
But, for the 1%...all y'all better think twice about how much success you're going to have protecting yourselves from the rest when "your" robots have put the 99% out of work....
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:32AM
a basic income for everybody
The only problem is that there is a faction of people in just about every country who would rather see the entire Earth burn to cinders in nuclear fire than see such a future come to pass. They would literally rather bring about Armageddon than suffer such moral and ethical catastrophe to come to pass. In their world view, working is how you legitimize your existence. If you don't work, you literally don't have a right to exist. This only applies to the peasants, of course. There's a class of betters which are naturally exempt from this. They're simply better. If they can't be on top, the entire system is better off not existing at all. And don't discount these people as a fringe minority. They are wealthy (by definition), and they have convinced many ordinary people to die with them should their power and wealth be threatened or even marginally reduced--this is the phenomenon of working class Americans enthusiastically backing Republicans who hate them.
There are people who would rather die than lose as long as everyone else dies too.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday November 06 2015, @12:19AM
a basic income for everybody
The only problem is that there is a faction of people in just about every country who would rather see the entire Earth burn to cinders in nuclear fire than see such a future come to pass.
so, i see you've met TheMightyBuzzard. ;)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dltaylor on Thursday November 05 2015, @01:43AM
If it's any harder, or very little more expensive, in aggregate, than NetFlix/Hulu, then I'm not interested. I do not NEED your product, so you have a choice between picking up some income, or no income.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:22AM
Netflix used to have everything because the content producers did not see any real revenue in streaming so Netflix was able to license the streaming lights fot close to $0. And, because of that, they were able to license everything. Now, the content producers and the cable companies (because they are the same) are seeing their revenues drop so they are taking a two-fold strategy
1) Maximize revenue for existing customers. They know many customers will keep paying exorbitant cable fees because they can afford to and they really want to "watch" TV. People like my parents - they have kept their cable because of 2 channels. Cable companies will keep raising rates as quickly as possible because they know there is only a few years of life left in the cable TV mode (link: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/09/comcast-raises-prices-just-as-ceo-says-you-cant-raise-the-price-forever/ [arstechnica.com] )
3) Create their "own" streaming startup. The goal of this startup is not to have their own streaming service - that's hard to do and ultimately too expensive. No, the real profit is in the content production; they use their own streaming startup to "prove" the value of their content so, when they do ulitamtely license to Netflix or Amazon, they maximize the value of their content.
Now some prognostications:
1) HBO GO will be the dominant revenue producer for HBO by 2019.
2) Netflix will find its feet with content production in the next two years. They have been a bit wobbly but they are working on it and will come up with the right formula.
3) When Netflix has found its feet with original content, they will make a major international push. Right now, Netflix is not known internationally (outside of Canada). Once they have enough original content to support a monthly subscription, they will make a push. They do not want to be held hostage to rights negotiations from content producers in every single market.
4) A CBS app could work. "As a result of the Viacom/CBS corporate split, as well as other acquisitions over recent years, CBS (under the moniker CBS Studios) owns a massive film and television library spanning nine decades; these include not acquired material from Viacom and CBS in-house productions and network programs, as well as programs originally aired on competing networks. " (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS [wikipedia.org] )
(Score: 3, Informative) by coolgopher on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:25AM
Actually, Netflix is kinda big down here in Australia too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @04:18AM
That's what she said
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @06:35AM
I didn't know that. Is that relatively recent? I mentioned Netflix to some young travelling Australians (people whom you would expect to be in the target demo) a few years ago but they hadn't heard of it.
(Score: 1) by DonkeyChan on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:37AM
TV's Prime time original programming is approx 40% commercials now. The Strain on FX is a prime example of this.
The only thing they can do to compete is to reduce these commercials as the alternative is that people just won't watch them then pirate them later. If they make the experience enjoyable they will increase their customer base that is there for the immediacy. Sponsored programming seems like a good avenue.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:52AM
You could also argue that "prime time" is no longer prime tv viewing time. A lot of people are now checking emails, browsing websites or playing games instead of watching TV - assuming they watch TV at all. In our house the TV is mostly background noise - I'm always on the computer during my off time and my wife is usually reading magazines or surfing on her tablet, while rerun after rerun is played on the TV. After a lifetime of mentally tuning out the ads, we've learned to tune out the shows too. Well done, media, well done. The only "real" TV watching we do now is on weekends when we get together and watch movies or series streamed from places like Netflix.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 05 2015, @11:59AM
> After a lifetime of mentally tuning out the ads, we've learned to tune out the shows too. Well done, media, well done.
This deserves way more than an insightful mod. People need to start getting these words tattooed onto their bodies.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:27AM
They don't care if you binge watch. They don't care if you subscribe to cable.
They care about making the $100/month (plus) per household that they have built their whole 'content' industry around. Netflix + Hulu Plus + Amazon Prime does not come close. That plus HBO GO doesn't come close. Their first solution will be obvious and fail. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
(Score: 1) by Spamalope on Thursday November 05 2015, @09:40AM
Making a cable TV subscription a condition of Internet service is increasingly popular. They may add the cable companies streaming services as an optional or additional requirement.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:12PM
I believe that at least in my area, that kind of forced bundling is illegal. They don't have to tell you that there's an internet-only option, but they have to provide it if you ask.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 05 2015, @08:19PM
TV networks could kill Netflix tomorrow if they wanted. Make a single service that has all the content that everyone wants streamable as much as they want with no commercials for the same price as Netflix.
The big networks want to push everyone back to the 60s, that we only have a few choices of content and that we must consume them when and how they want with as much advertising built in as they think we can stand.
Sorry general, you have already lost this war too.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh