SaharanTea
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
As we watch content providers pull out of Netflix, we understand why Netflix was and is investing so heavily in original content.
I'm just saying that for decades that the nba's biggest advertisers were McDonald's, coke, Gatorade, and the athletic companies - particularly Nike.
Their pockets are not as deep...exasperating the problems with disney's stupid NBA contract.
You know what you're talking about...but your argument that tv isn't "dumb" and that scripted tv is getting better simply doesn't pass the sniff test.
No way on that...spout all the numbers you want there..there has definitely been a shift in the audience as far as both their commitment to tv and the quality of tv they are being fed.
Seriously...turn on the history channel...or AandE...or ABC for that matter and watch an hour or two...then Try to get the blood to flow back to your brain.
Are there numbers to support that or are you just guessing based upon cord cutters?
When I ask young people I know why the cut the cord, the answer thy give is cost, but that's not the real answer. The cost matters to them only because they're spending their time and money doing other things (eating out, movies, whatever). It's hard to justify a $140 a month Comcast bill if most of your TV is watched and internet is consumed on a cellphone while commuting.
So you admit that you're willing to pay $22 per month for the content Netflix and Hulu choose to offer, but you can't envision another consumer wanting to pay $6 for FX content? Or $6 for a CBS library? Or $5 for AMC?
I agree with this. And it's not just that they want to spend the money elsewhere, but also some currently view $10-12 Netflix or Hulu as adequate to satisfy their entertainment needs. To that, I would say 2 things:
1) If providers continue to pull their content from Netflix, Prime and Hulu, those services will individually lose value. They are trying to beef up their library of exclusive content, but (IMO) it's a real mixed bag. Is Netflix worth $120 per year for House of Cards, Flaked and The Ranch?
2) Meanwhile, these network services will garner their own appeal to others. To pick two known quantities, a combination of FX ($6) and AMC ($5) would cost about the same as Netflix or Hulu. Assuming those services provide live/same day access to new episodes of their series (Legion, Atlanta, Walking Dead, etc.) plus a vast library of legacy content and licensed feature films, I can easily see consumers picking those stand-alone network services over a Netflix or Hulu.
Seriously...turn on the history channel...or AandE...or ABC for that matter and watch an hour or two...then Try to get the blood to flow back to your brain.
Yes. Right now, i'll pay $22 for Netflix and Hulu, but only because of the vast variety of content they offer. AND, its content that I like to watch.
I'm saying that I can't envision me or my family buying the extra single streaming channels. We haven't so far when Amazon has offered them to us. And, I really don't think we'll be alone.
When folks start buying the all the extra channels and see they have spent their way back to a cable TV plan, they're going to cut back on the extras.
FWIW, I know there will be folks who will buy the Disney stream just because its Disney. But to be truthful, a lot of folks might watch a Disney movie or TV show on Hulu or Netflix or fill in the blank, but won't may not buy a seperate stream just for Disney.
I think it does become a problem for everyone when the AMC's and FX's and Disney's start pulling their content and going direct.
At $5/pop and possibly sep apps, it could add up for families.
I just know, personally, keeping up with 3 subscriptions to satisfy a family of 5 got old. (first world problem)
Couldn't imagine having 5-10.
Everyone has to make their own decision. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Right now, Netflix and Prime are still very economical options because they aggregate content from so many different providers. It's sort of humorous when Netflix/Hulu/Prime subscribers say "TV sucks today" because the content they're streaming on those services IS TV!
Right now...in 2017...$22 for what Netflix and Hulu has to offer is a good deal.
But in a couple years, it might make more sense to spread that same money over a Disney subscription PLUS AMC, PLUS FX, PLUS CBS. That package would yield first-run episodes of stuff like Walking Dead, Preacher, Americans, Star Trek and a dozen other series which won't be available on another service, while still adding up to about $20 per month.
The Netflix that you know and love is destined for change. YOU may continue to enjoy the variety those services provide. For others, all it takes is removal of a favorite series to shift loyalties.
That's definitely true, but getting those 4 subscriptions will probably cost a little more. And you are most likely going to get less. And if that trend continues.....
Disney content on Netflix has been great for people who don't buy the Disney movies but really for my family everything Disney that is on Netflix, other than Civil War, we already own and even have most of those titles available to stream on DMA.
We have no plans on adding whatever Disney/ESPN is going to sell.
So my question...are really that many people going to pay for a Disney only streaming service when those who are big Disney fans will already have access to most of the same movies with their own library?
I think you overestimate how many people buy the movies versus just casually watch them. We don't really buy the movies, but we've watched Moana a few times on Netflix. We probably wouldn't have done that if we had to rent it, we would have found something else to watch. We just aren't that serious about the movies, but we love the parks. I think there is a huge universe of people that watch the movies on Netflix because its easy, but not if they have to own them or pay for a separate stream.
Financially, if this deal was only worth 300MM as is talked about, it's small potatoes for Disney. It won't take much for a stream to make up for that revenue. But for me the question is how to maximize the revenue. If the next couple years was worth 500MM, and then 1BB for 3 years after that, I'm not sure running your own stream is the right direction as the numbers rise. But we are really in the early stages of this shift from cable. Time will tell what the most profitable version of the next evolution will be.
So my question...are really that many people going to pay for a Disney only streaming service when those who are big Disney fans will already have access to most of the same movies with their own DVD/BR library or stream thru DMA?
The next thing to happen is we will go from an "unlimited" data world...back to a hefty usuage charge.
The cable/cell/internet companies have been scheming for this on Capitol Hill for awhile...ever hear of "net neutrality"?
The reality is that those companies - Comcast, Verizon, at&t - have bought up pieces so they are in position to get their money SOMEHOW. And if it's not Through broadcast...it will be through data.
We've already seen this. Comcast internet has already gone from "unlimited" to a 1 TB data cap nationwide. Each additional 50 GB over that is $10 for the overage (capped very "generously" at $200 per month).
AT&T Fiber in my area has a similar 1 TB data cap with $10/50 GB overage (capped at $100 per month) unless you bundle their U-verse TV service with their internet package. So cord cutters get capped while TV subscribers do not.
In a year or two when much more content is streaming in 4k HDR, that 1 TB is going to get very tight for many people.
And once net neutrality goes away under the current administration, these internet providers will definitely start getting their money on the back end as well. Pure media companies like Disney and Netflix are going to get gouged by the likes of AT&T and Comcast for access to their pipes. Which means the price per month for the streaming services is going to have to go up to compensate.