|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Disney Is Quietly Placing Classic Fox Movies Into Its Vault
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-12-2019 04:21 AM
I'd say Mike already described it pretty nicely, but since we're in this discussion, I'm going to add my 2 cents. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Please explain how Netflix, Amazon Prime or even Hulu(Disney owned) are subject to those requirements. Netflix and Amazon don't carry ESPN, much less pay the stupid high price for it.
I was never involved with content negotiations regarding Netflix, but I'm pretty sure those guys try to pull the same legs on Netflix.
So, the way it works is simple... Netflix tells NBC they really would love to have "The Office". NBC tells them, that's fine, but you won't be getting "The Office", unless you also buy the following crap from us...
Those practices go way back to the first LPs, where they simply didn't put out that one popular song as a single, but made you buy the album with all kinds of songs you didn't want instead, at a higher price obviously.
The content industry is king in tying garbage to a few of their shining stars. That's the way they still make some money on all their failures. They pull this off with cable companies and I'm pretty sure they at least try to pull it off with Netflix and Amazon too.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Still, like I said earlier, even if I subscribed to four of five of those services it would still not equal one single basic cable/satellite TV bill. Over the past decade the cable and satellite companies price gouged the living shit out of its customers. I saw my satellite TV bill literally double in price in the span of 5 years. Never gained any decent channels, plus HBO left. Yet no discount at all on that bill! Pretty big fucking rip off if you ask me. I won't blame cord cutters at all for revolting. The cable companies and content providers both need a boot in their asses for gouging the public.
I'm not trying to defend the cable/satellite companies here, many of them engage in pretty shady tactics and offer abysmal service in return. But many of them aren't exactly the big cash cows. Actually, it pretty much sucks to be one of them right now. They're in a downward spiral. Those price hikes obviously are caused for a major part by those "cord cutters". Less subscribers doesn't mean their costs for buying content automatically goes down linearly. Long-term commitments, often even steep penalties for not matching minimum commitments... And sure, their CEO also wants that new yacht.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You were already going to be paying for Internet access anyway, so that's a non-starter of an argument. A cable/satellite TV subscription is not a substitute for residential Internet access.
It may not make much sense for satellite providers, but most cable companies I've dealt with, sell you some basic broadband service at a discount as part of your monthly package. Actually, at my last cable provider it was almost impossible to NOT get some kind of Internet package as part of the service.
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see each of them start to offer their own "tiers" of service, such as:
Although they don't differentiate on content (yet), we already have tiered pricing in the market. Netflix, for example, has currently three different plans already in most parts of the world, differentiating between quality: SD, HD, UHD and the amount of devices you can use at the same time: 1, 2 and 4.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-12-2019 11:49 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
You're not looking far enough into the future. Eventually, as noted above, every one of the studios will have their own streamer, as well as every TV network, then you add in all the other outlets like Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, AppleTV, HBO, I dunno how many others.
Like I keep saying, no one is obligated to subscribe to all of those services. It's a waste of money doing so even if the monthly rates of services like Apple TV+ and Disney+ are really cheap. No one has both that much free time and money laying around to watch that much TV. I'm pretty sure not all of the various streaming outlets will survive either. As each service has to gradually raise its prices various providers will lose subscribers -just like what has been happening to cable/satellite companies.
People are willing to pay only so much for TV, especially younger adults. If the streaming service providers want to go nuts with price gouging customers just like the cable companies have been doing they will find alternatives, even illegal ones. The modded Fire sticks and Kodi boxes are still easily available.
Some people out there may be compulsive enough to need to have all the services so they don't risk missing a certain cherished TV series on one platform and some other popular show on another service. But I would argue those same kinds of people probably never cut the cable TV cord either. Personally it doesn't bother me one bit to miss a certain TV series from a major broadcast network. For instance, I never got into watching Parks and Recreation or The Office. Most TV series these days run a continuing story line, just like a daytime soap opera. So I'm very hesitant to commit to watching shows like that. It eats too much time.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I was never involved with content negotiations regarding Netflix, but I'm pretty sure those guys try to pull the same legs on Netflix.
It's still an apples to oranges comparison. When Netflix licenses content from other providers to play on its service it's getting a package of TV or movie titles on a temporary basis. I'm sure each deal is its own separate negotiation too. It's not the same as a cable/satellite company being saddled with a bunch of junk channels just to get one or two "good" channels in a media company's network pack -or being forced to bill every customer for ESPN permanently whether they watch sports or not.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not trying to defend the cable/satellite companies here, many of them engage in pretty shady tactics and offer abysmal service in return. But many of them aren't exactly the big cash cows. Actually, it pretty much sucks to be one of them right now. They're in a downward spiral. Those price hikes obviously are caused for a major part by those "cord cutters". Less subscribers doesn't mean their costs for buying content automatically goes down linearly. Long-term commitments, often even steep penalties for not matching minimum commitments... And sure, their CEO also wants that new yacht.
By far the biggest thing driving price hikes for cable/satellite TV customers has been the price hikes coming from content providers. Dish Network stopped carrying a few networks on its service because it wouldn't pass on big price hikes from companies like HBO. The cable networks have the lion's share of blame to carry for all the cord cutting. The networks are greedy as fuck. They kept hiking their costs higher and higher and higher all decade long without any regard to what it was doing to consumer costs. The funny thing, HBO as a stand-alone "de-coupled" streaming service (HBO Now) still costs $14.99. I'm sure they would love to charge $30 per month for it. But with so many streaming rivals out there I'm sure many subscribers would jump ship. They're probably going to charge more for "HBO Max" when that launches. But how is it going to stack up to the dozen or more competing services? I can't say I'm inclined to sign up. Game of Thrones is freaking done anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-12-2019 02:29 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's still an apples to oranges comparison. When Netflix licenses content from other providers to play on its service it's getting a package of TV or movie titles on a temporary basis. I'm sure each deal is its own separate negotiation too. It's not the same as a cable/satellite company being saddled with a bunch of junk channels just to get one or two "good" channels in a media company's network pack -or being forced to bill every customer for ESPN permanently whether they watch sports or not.
Well, it's all the same in the end. When we were acquiring content for our IP VOD service (alongside IP TV) for one of the major local telcos years ago, which was then a pretty new thing, the negotiations for this kind of content went the same way like they did with TV channels. In many cases, it's the same guys or it's the same building, just another door...
They almost invented the idea of packaging TV series and movies into "content packs" on the spot, as the whole thing was pretty new for them back then. But still, they did this many times before, it was obvious. Me, still new and unscratched and a whole lot more naive in dealing with those sharks, thought we could just meet, tell them what we wanted and we would just get a quote and a few requirements from them... Boy, was I wrong...
Yeah, you want them blockbusters, do you? Fine... but we've got those whole array of crappy movies and series in our inventory and you're going to pay for them and carry them too and make sure you sell enough of them or else... It literally went that way. They don't let you pick and choose, they make up the rules the way they believe they make the most money out of it.
The same was with music. You couldn't just shop at a label for artists... no no no... You want that A-list artist? YEAH! GREAT! But this is the heap-o-shit you're also going to offer for us...
This all happened about 17 years ago, but I'm pretty sure nothing has changed since then. Those content companies, they want to get paid for everything, the good stuff and also the bad stuff. Traditionally, it was your cable subscription that paid for all the bad stuff, now since that's going away, they need a new source. A big whale, just like the cable companies. The new whales are the Amazons and Netflixes and maybe... their own streaming services.
quote:
he cable networks have the lion's share of blame to carry for all the cord cutting. The networks are greedy as fuck. They kept hiking their costs higher and higher and higher all decade long without any regard to what it was doing to consumer costs.
I'd say the blame is both on the content providers and cable providers, which are both "greedy as fuck".
Like I stated before, the content boys really are dependent on the big checks the cable/satellite operators write them. They don't really like what's happening either. They were used to just rake in the cash and since those providers are now slowly failing, they need to jump on other trains to compensate for that "lost revenue".
The amount of money the likes of Comcast, Dish, AT&T, etc. are wiring towards Disney, Viacom, WarnerMedia, NBC*, etc. for all the stuff nobody wants to watch each and every year is pretty mind blowing.
*NBC and Comcast are now owned by the same company, yet they still manage to shift billions in licensing fees around each year this way. Licensing fees are one of the prime tax evasion schemes...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-12-2019 10:06 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
It'll be a gradual thing. First people will sign up for two or three services, but then some "must see" show (new or old) will pop up on some service they don't have, so they'll go for the "three month free trial" (where you have to provide your credit card number, natch) and next thing you know, they'll be signed up for 12 or 15 services.
I can see consumers doing that. And the streaming services at least give customers more freedom in that regard. None of them lock anyone into a 2-year contract like every cable TV and satellite provider does. At the worst, Amazon will bill you annually for Prime. But if you ditch it halfway through the year they'll refund the unused portion.
Regarding the "gradual" price hikes. I'm sure there will be some price creep. But with so many competing services, so much market saturation, that's going to put downward pressure on prices. I was really shocked at the opening price of Disney+. I fully expected them to want $20 or $30 per month for their content. They're charging half what Netflix costs. AppleTV+ is even less (but also has far less content too).
The cable and satellite companies creeped up their prices and did so frequently. When Netflix and Amazon bumped up their prices slightly they made a lot of headlines with it. The price hikes from cable and satellite companies all happen under the radar. I couldn't believe how my Dish Network bill went from costing me under $50 per month (the dead DishHD service plus HBO) to over $100 per month without fucking HBO just within a few years. That pay TV bill doubled. But my paycheck sure as hell didn't double in the same time frame. That's sky high price inflation.
The price hikes on cable/satellite TV quietly added up, eventually reaching a breaking point. People went from being used to one price paradigm of cable TV where $20-$40 per month netted a decent program package to where the same thing cost $150 per month. At some point the customer gets pissed off and revolts.
quote: Mike Blakesley
You have to remember this is the American Consumer we're discussing. You know, those people who MUST have EVERYTHING they want NOW.
Not every American has an impatient hoarder mentality where they need all the options all right now. Some of this is changing on a generational level too. People my age tend to prefer buying movies and music on physical media. People in their 20's tend not to give a damn about CDs or movies on Blu-ray. And they're probably not as much into watching old movies either. That's one area where the perceived value of all this content may be over-stated.
quote: Mike Blakesley
It'll be the same as what happened with cell phones. First Dad had one for $35 a month because it was really handy. Then Mom wanted one. Now everyone needs one as soon as they're able to eat solid food. What's the average family pay for cell service these days? Especially considering that's a device that nobody even needed 20 years ago.
You're leaving out the fact lots of Americans were getting price gouged by land-line phone companies. It was really bad back in the Ma Bell days before the big breakup. I hated AT&T for its shit-quality DSL service and how much they were charging for a land line only rang up by telemarketers. I'm paying a little more to have a mobile phone I can use outside of my kitchen and 50 meg cable Internet service. It's going to get interesting in the next couple or so years as "5G" rolls out. 5G could lead to other kinds of cord cutting: people ditching their home Internet service and using their mobile phone service as their sole connection to the Internet.
quote: Mike Blakesley
You're still paying for a whole lot of content you'll never see. I have Netflix, but I've never watched any of their high-profile movies... I just don't care about them. I mainly got it with the hope they'd have a lot of good movies I'd missed because we didn't play them. But, with most of those movies eventually migrating to other services, the only reason to keep NF (for me) will be the comedy specials, which I still enjoy, although finding a good one in amongst all the crap is a challenge.
Then you cut off Netflix and stop paying for it. But the HUGE difference between Netflix and cable is Netflix is $15 per month and cable costs a shit-ton more money. There aren't any penalties for dumping Netflix or any other stand-alone streaming service you pay for on a separate basis (often month to month with no contract). They'll welcome you back months or years later if they started carrying something of interest that makes you want to watch again.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-13-2019 04:06 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're leaving out the fact lots of Americans were getting price gouged by land-line phone companies. It was really bad back in the Ma Bell days before the big breakup. I hated AT&T for its shit-quality DSL service and how much they were charging for a land line only rang up by telemarketers. I'm paying a little more to have a mobile phone I can use outside of my kitchen and 50 meg cable Internet service. It's going to get interesting in the next couple or so years as "5G" rolls out. 5G could lead to other kinds of cord cutting: people ditching their home Internet service and using their mobile phone service as their sole connection to the Internet.
The 5G roll-out will be a costly one, as the cell density needs to be ramped up significantly to get the real benefits of it. Some more rural areas may even never see 5G, although it also makes a whole lot less sense to have it there.
But no matter how you "manage the airwaves", there's going to be bandwidth shortage and those mobile providers sure want to earn their investment back into their costly new, high-speed networks. Even if some may advertise with "unlimited data plans", once you start streaming 4K content all-day-long, they may cut the virtual cord on you, based on whatever they state in their "fair use policy".
If you really want to get the best out of streaming, you'll need a decent fixed internet connection for the foreseeable future and even there, there is a lot of infighting behind the scenes, like Comcast asking the likes of Netflix for compensation for the large amount of traffic they produce on their networks.
You know what one of the motivating factors for Google was to start their own fiber access? They simply wanted to leverage their considerable position onto the likes of Comcast who wanted extra money from Google, because of the amount of bandwidth consumed by services like YouTube...
quote: Bobby Henderson
Then you cut off Netflix and stop paying for it. But the HUGE difference between Netflix and cable is Netflix is $15 per month and cable costs a shit-ton more money. There aren't any penalties for dumping Netflix or any other stand-alone streaming service you pay for on a separate basis (often month to month with no contract). They'll welcome you back months or years later if they started carrying something of interest that makes you want to watch again.
No-one is stopping you ditching cable too. But I get that it's easier, because canceling Netflix doesn't cancel your Internet subscription and neither your Amazon Prime... that is, once the likes of Amazon and maybe Netflix start offering Internet subscriptions as part of their services...
Not that it currently looks like they plan on doing this, but especially with Amazon, who's mission* is clearly in line of that of Pinky and the Brain, you never know.
* "The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-13-2019 11:02 AM
The breakthrough is going to come when some sort of antitrust action happens to outlaw the practice of only allowing access to subscription channels via a bundle, or that happens by natural forces; and forcing these TV stations to allow individual subscriptions for IPTV streaming access. I would like to have Fox News, and my wife would like HGTV. We would have no problem paying a subscription of, say, $5-10 a month to have them individually. We have no interest in any of the other premium cable channels, and certainly are not willing to pay close to three figures a month for something that we'd only be watching for 5-10 hours a month. So we have neither.
If and when the cartel arrangements between the premium channels and the cable monsters goes away, the home entertainment business will likely undergo major change. At present, the rate of cord cutting is limited, because there are people out there who want one or two of these channels, but unlike me, are still willing to pay whatever it costs to have them, even if that means paying for 124 other channels that they will never watch. But if and when cord cutting reaches an autocatalytic point, and the networks find themselves losing more business by not offering individual subscriptions than they make from the cable cartels, then they'll offer them, and traditional cable TV will be done. The existing infrastructure will be repurposed for internet service, consumers will have one or two platforms of choice (e.g. Roku or Amazon Dire Stick), subscribe to a few channels individually, and use those platforms to see them. IMHO, this can't happen soon enough.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-14-2019 08:53 PM
What you describe, I've witnessed first hand. I won't say names, since those kind of negotiations go with NDAs, but in essence, "content provider X" will only give you a package of content, if you also pay for e.g. their sports for ALL your subscribers you're going to offer their content.
Now, you know that many subscribers don't care about sports and they would never pay the full price for that package.
So, what do you do? You offer a cheaper package without sports and one WITH sports at a higher rate and try to divide part of the costs for it among those subscribers that wouldn't otherwise pay for sports.
Happens all the time, not just with sports, but also with all kinds of other content.
That's also one of the arguments why the Netflix model of pick-and-choose from a "feature complete" list of content for $10/month won't scale beyond a certain point. Prices have gone up and they will go up.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic