4 ms·

What stops Netflix from coming out with a long tail model for self-publishing indie film producers? Right now, most of their cost is in the DVDs, but already m

by wgj 17y ago

What stops Netflix from coming out with a long tail model for self-publishing indie film producers? Right now, most of their cost is in the DVDs, but already many movies are offered with a streaming option. The next step would be to offer a streaming-only option for long tail content. They would appear to have no barriers to doing this any time now, and a formidable user experience model behind it.

chrischen 17y ago
You're right. And there's no way of stopping iTunes either. Right now you have to sign a contract with iTunes and your content has to cross a quality barrier to get entrance, but Apple could easily remove that. But I also believe that Apple and Netflix aren't in the business of selling a service to indie filmmakers. They are more in selling a service to the end consumer. And because of this it's in there interest to not have their libraries polluted with 90 minute long low quality videos. My focus is on providing a service to filmmakers first, and to simply provide a usable platform for the end users who purchase it (hence the DRM-free videos).
- wgj 17y ago
  > 90 minute long low quality videos If that's what you are offering, then I don't think it will do very well. Isn't the premise that there is good content to be found? Otherwise, why would anyone pay to view it? I know you're charging the producers, but if there's no end market, then the service isn't really legit. Am I missing something? I'm not really an iTunes customer, but I do use Netflix, and they are set up very well to recommend long tail, otherwise unknown, independent content. IMO, they can do it without dragging down the quality of their service. They have a best of class recommendation engine. Also, because the service is flat rate, with no penalty for browsing, the viewer can have a great experience sampling unknown indie films. A pay-per-download model discourages exploration, doesn't it? Edit: > They are more in selling a service to the end consumer. I guess I'm also missing how your service adds value if it's not also performing this function. Otherwise, as a filmmaker, what am I paying you for?
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Right and initially we're not focusing on providing a discovery platform. We're simply providing a means to self-distribute, customized to the indie filmmaker's flavor. The 90 minute low quality content is an extreme. I'm saying these guys have put effort into something and they will look for a way to distribute. They will try, even if they know their content doesn't have much of a market, and there will always be these films and people who make these films. These films will probably make up the majority of films produced. So this is simply one monetizable group. This is in fact Lulu.com's business model. Lulu.com wants to sell a service to low quality content. Of course my ultimate goal is not just to cater to these people, but to target this service to content of all quality, and then create a marketplace later of higher quality content (once they come). I believe that with the internet, and with the speed of communication, managing marketing and distribution is accomplished much more easily. So yes in a sense our immediate revenue model isn't too legit, because we don't really care if films succeed in making money, but our goal is to charge them very little, hope the volume makes up for the difference, and rely on the mass of new films that just don't make it to resort to our service. Initially it will be do-it-yourself service for films that aren't good enough to be distributed otherwise, but the long term goal is to offer better films a more profitable distribution method. And who knows, maybe one of these 90 minute low quality films that everyone ignores turns out to be a smash hit (http://www.theroommovie.com/ http://www.theroommovie.com/).
    - wgj 17y ago
      Whatever happens, I'd enjoy reading about it, especially lessons learned. Good luck to you.

by wgj 17y ago

chrischen 17y ago

You're right. And there's no way of stopping iTunes either. Right now you have to sign a contract with iTunes and your content has to cross a quality barrier to get entrance, but Apple could easily remove that. But I also believe that Apple and Netflix aren't in the business of selling a service to indie filmmakers. They are more in selling a service to the end consumer. And because of this it's in there interest to not have their libraries polluted with 90 minute long low quality videos. My focus is on providing a service to filmmakers first, and to simply provide a usable platform for the end users who purchase it (hence the DRM-free videos).

wgj 17y ago
> 90 minute long low quality videos If that's what you are offering, then I don't think it will do very well. Isn't the premise that there is good content to be found? Otherwise, why would anyone pay to view it? I know you're charging the producers, but if there's no end market, then the service isn't really legit. Am I missing something? I'm not really an iTunes customer, but I do use Netflix, and they are set up very well to recommend long tail, otherwise unknown, independent content. IMO, they can do it without dragging down the quality of their service. They have a best of class recommendation engine. Also, because the service is flat rate, with no penalty for browsing, the viewer can have a great experience sampling unknown indie films. A pay-per-download model discourages exploration, doesn't it? Edit: > They are more in selling a service to the end consumer. I guess I'm also missing how your service adds value if it's not also performing this function. Otherwise, as a filmmaker, what am I paying you for?
- chrischen 17y ago
  Right and initially we're not focusing on providing a discovery platform. We're simply providing a means to self-distribute, customized to the indie filmmaker's flavor. The 90 minute low quality content is an extreme. I'm saying these guys have put effort into something and they will look for a way to distribute. They will try, even if they know their content doesn't have much of a market, and there will always be these films and people who make these films. These films will probably make up the majority of films produced. So this is simply one monetizable group. This is in fact Lulu.com's business model. Lulu.com wants to sell a service to low quality content. Of course my ultimate goal is not just to cater to these people, but to target this service to content of all quality, and then create a marketplace later of higher quality content (once they come). I believe that with the internet, and with the speed of communication, managing marketing and distribution is accomplished much more easily. So yes in a sense our immediate revenue model isn't too legit, because we don't really care if films succeed in making money, but our goal is to charge them very little, hope the volume makes up for the difference, and rely on the mass of new films that just don't make it to resort to our service. Initially it will be do-it-yourself service for films that aren't good enough to be distributed otherwise, but the long term goal is to offer better films a more profitable distribution method. And who knows, maybe one of these 90 minute low quality films that everyone ignores turns out to be a smash hit (http://www.theroommovie.com/ http://www.theroommovie.com/).
  - wgj 17y ago
    Whatever happens, I'd enjoy reading about it, especially lessons learned. Good luck to you.