20 ms·

What is missing in a lot of these comments is acknowledging that Netflix may become the largest global "television" network in the world as adoption increases.

What is missing in a lot of these comments is acknowledging that Netflix may become the largest global "television" network in the world as adoption increases. They have original content lined up and control those rights, and they will continue to expand their reach with that content. Whether they add the "same" streaming content as they have purchased from other providers in the US is not the point here - the big impact is the expansion of their original content to such a massive global audience. Interesting to see this finally come to fruition now that they have enough content to justify a subscription on its own. It will also be interesting to see how other content providers (Amazon, but also CNN, HBO, and more conventional TV Providers) follow suit in the pursuit of eyeballs and expanding global markets. Netflix is based on subscription, but it would be interesting to know if there is a company or network of companies equipped to sell digital advertising localized, at global scale to support a "free" model often seen on US network applications.

smackfu 11y ago
Essentially NetFlix is paying their producer partners for worldwide rights, while conventional US networks only pay for US rights, and the producers sell the other country rights separately. But I'm not sure any of the partners in the conventional setup have a reason to change. US networks don't care about worldwide rights. Producers don't care who is paying them for the rights. Other country networks like having content to license.
- dasil003 11y ago
  Having spent the last 8 years of my life building a streaming film company that has from day one streamed globally and dealt with this patchwork of rights issue, I can tell you one reason: Other than China and India, no other market is as big or insular as the US. In Europe people travel across borders and speak multiple languages all the time, and yet it's like pulling teeth to put together multiple regional subtitle rights for use in a country where it is not the native language. For someone to subscribe to Netflix and be able to use it in multiple countries with the subtitles of their choice consistently available is a huge benefit to a huge number of affluent users. This is something which the existing film industry is incapable of doing structurally, and therefore is a huge advantage that can only be replicated by the biggest producers (ie. major studios). And those big companies do not have product development and UX in their DNA, so they will struggle to compete with Netflix in this regard (to date only HBO shows promise). But meanwhile the Netflix experience will be so much better that they will undermine the foundations of industry. I'm reminded of how in 2007 no corporate IT department would allow employees to use iPhones, and even though Apple never explicitly addressed the enterprise market, and Microsoft bent over backwards to give corporate buyers what they wanted, at the end of the day companies which didn't allow their employees to use their iPhones for work suffered a competitive disadvantage.
  - avar 11y ago
    > Other than China and India, no other market > is as big or insular as the US. Isn't Japan's market generally recognized to be even more insular than the U.S.?
    - umeshunni 11y ago
      But it is a much smaller market
  - izacus 11y ago
    Well, to be fair, Netflix STILL switches subtitle language when I cross the border making me stuck with german subtitles on everything even though I'd prefer english :/
    - dasil003 11y ago
      Do you mean they literally don't make the English subs available? Even for the stuff they produced? A clunky UX is one thing, but if they legitimately restrict the sub availability where the rights are available then I'm a bit shocked.
      - te0006 11y ago
        I'm not the one you asked the question but yes, that's what they do and it is a really dumb decision. I'm German and for perfecting my passive(i.e. understanding while listening) English language skills, I really like to view movies in English _and with English subtitles_. But in Germany, Netflix only offers German subtitles when the audio is set to English. Anyone got a contact at Netflix whom to approach with this? Edit: typo
        didsomeonesay 11y ago
        I am bothered by this too and from two friends I got these tipps (not tried it yet): One is using full VPN solution (US-based I think) and the other is just using a Canada-based DNS server. BTW the problem extends beyond subtitles. International movies typically are just available in their original language + local translation (German). Then sometimes the video stream also differs from the English version (e.g. when there is a sign in German language).
Shebanator 11y ago
youtube?
fudged71 11y ago
Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or something like that. What do you think? At some point I assume they will also become the channel that VR content could be sent through as well, maybe in partnership with Facebook?
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.
  - shortstuffsushi 11y ago
    Unless they move to a model where you have to PPV for new / premium content like box office movies.
    - jsmeaton 11y ago
      That's the model that I think would actually be acceptable to all parties in the short to medium turn. I'd be happy to fork over $5-$10 ppv for a cinema release over the $23 I'd pay at the cinema. I'd still go to the cinema for bigger movies that I wanted to watch for the experience/sound/screen.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Here's an idea your comment made me think of: I wonder when are we going to see DLCs for movies? Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.
petke 11y ago
Amazon has a long way to go. As far as I can tell prime or Amazon Fire TV is only available in a few countries. I think they needs to go global quick, or they will not survive against netflix. As it is now, the internet is a rather segregated place. Many media sites are only available in the US. "This is not available in your country". I wonder if a big reason why netflix decided to make original content in the first place, is that its a huge pain to go global with content with regional rights.
- Havoc 11y ago
  >Amazon has a long way to go. Indeed. Its OK at the moment given that its piggy-backing off the Prime subscription. Without that I doubt I'd subscribe.
  - myko 11y ago
    Considering I can't even watch it on my Chromecast without having my laptop stream it I barely use the service at all. The integrated "smart TV" Amazon app I have is a total pain to use.
    - Havoc 11y ago
      >The integrated "smart TV" Amazon app I have is a total pain to use. Seems fine on my Sony. No better/worse than the netflix one anyway
    - Goosey 11y ago
      Same here. Vizio?
- jedberg 11y ago
  The purpose of Amazon Prime Video is to get you to sign up for Prime and then order stuff on Amazon. It only makes sense for them to be where Amazon actually delivers stuff quickly via Prime. The purpose of Netflix is to provide entertainment. It makes sense for them to be everywhere. I doubt we'll see Amazon PV around the world anytime soon -- it doesn't make sense for them to spend on the global licensing costs since it won't boost Prime subscriptions.
dtjones 11y ago
glo-lo-mo. Global scale, local reach, mobile devices.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I believe this is exactly right. And all the things that gave networks monopoly power (like spectrum ownership) will become irrelevant. You can mark the day this happens when NetFlix starts offering a daily 'news' update type program. Of course most people see this already, and the extreme tactics around last mile broadband are exactly around this problem. Netflix can't work if their packets can't get to you, and the person who controls that last mile can hold their packets hostage (and has). If you want to poke a dragon some time, start advocating for equal access to broadband in your municipality :-).
- lsaferite 11y ago
  I didn't know I needed a Netflix live news channel until you mentioned it. Now I can't stop hoping they do that.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    They should just start picking up the conventional news channels; an custom one would instantly make them enemies who thought it was either too conservative or too liberal. At some point the channels will realize that cable carriers are a dead end and start selling to online companies like Netflix. Why should Netflix replace cable when it could become cable (less the exorbitant pricing and punch-a-hole-in-the-wall customer service)?
  - neolefty 11y ago
    Could that fit with Netflix's current culture? They're big on content that's curated, high-quality, high-definition (with graceful degredation). Live news' editorial agility and responsiveness would require a department with a substantially different attitude and expertise. They're capable of expanding and pivoting though, more than most companies, so if they decide it's a priority, it's possible. It seems like a pretty big commitment though.
    - ChuckMcM 11y ago
      I could certainly imagine them doing a much better job of news coverage where all the "Stories" would be available independently and when things changed you got an indication of new data so you could, if you wanted to, watch from the change forward, or the whole piece. Sort of like the NY Times pushing and re-pushing an article as the available information gathers texture. Since most of the news channels consist of rehashing things with the assumption that this is the "first" version you are seeing, they could provide a much better viewing experience that would certainly feel more curated and much more efficiently inform.
gshx 11y ago
Content and programming are still quite limited. There are a few good original shows. Also, they keep adding a lot of movies with poor ratings (rotten tomatoes). There's definitely potential for some disruption in this space. Also, some more competition from others would be nice.
Consultant32452 11y ago
While I'm a Netflix fan and subscriber I find them terrifying. They're clearly the monopoly power in streaming TV and whatever you call the competition that comes from Hulu or traditional cable companies is a joke in comparison. I predict in the future we'll have to break up the Netflix monopoly and require that they sublicense out the content they have license to stream to smaller suppliers much like the way it works for some utilities.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  > They're clearly the monopoly power in streaming TV and whatever you call the competition that comes from Hulu or traditional cable companies is a joke in comparison In some countries Netflix is the only choice. Your right to be at least a little terrified. A few years ago Google was in the same position. Everyone loved them. Google could do no wrong. Now we're in a situation where search has been monopolized by an advertising company. Everyone is upset about the cable company monopolies, while at the same time happily handing Netflix a new monopoly.
- seunosewa 11y ago
  Netflix wont become a lucrative monopoly because they own/control neither the content that they distribute (except for the few shows they produce) nor the distribution channel (the Internet). Moreso they have no pricing power; they faced a huge backlash the first time they tried to increase their subscription fees and only just managed to raise it by $1. Unless they can convince their customers to pay much more so they can sponsor and buy much more content, Netflix will be at best the largest among a group of streaming services you have to subscribe to to get all the content you want.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    I think that works until the cable companies essentially become defunct. Once that happens Netflix, being the 500lb gorilla in the room, will be the highest bidder for your content even if Netflix is the lowest bidder per view because Netflix will have all the eyes. Showtime is now available as an add-on to Hulu. It will be interesting to see how this model works out for them as opposed to the HBO self-streaming model. I suspect the end game will kill off both of those models because, again, I speculate even if the per-view revenue via Netflix are lower your over-all revenue would be higher.
prostoalex 11y ago
Why is HBO a follower here? They did original content for as long as they existed, and HBO Now has been available globally for a while now.
- sorich87 11y ago
  How can I access HBO globally? I see at the bottom of their website "HBO NOW is only accessible in the U.S. and certain U.S. territories where a high-speed broadband connection is available."
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    My bad, when it first came out all my foreign friends were raving at availability of Game of Thrones. Looks like they all had a proxy setup. Grandparent comment is right, Netflix is the trailblazer.
    - kalleboo 11y ago
      Game of Thrones is also internationally licensed out to local TV stations around the world
  - werid 11y ago
    It depends where you are. There are different offerings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_%28international%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_%28international%29
thegenius2000 11y ago
I agree with what a lot of people have mentioned, though not focused on: Netflix needs to add sports if they want to really dominate at a global level. As an example, consider Africa (I'm Kenyan): the Barclays Premiere League is watched in virtually every country, but provided by one company, known as MultiChoice. Because almost everyone wants to watch football, and there is only one option, if they can afford it, they pay. If Netflix (or some other company) was to obtain the rights to airing the BPL, all the middle-to-upper-class families in Kenya with decent internet connections would immediately consider switching.
- nordify 11y ago
  Counterpoint: nobody really cares that much about footy around here. Furthermore sports are quite useless as on-demand content. Netflix isn't synonymous with live TV. Why waste a lot of money on very expensive content that does not scale and does not fit the Netflix profile?
- onion2k 11y ago
  Are a large number of people actually interested in sports, or is it a large number of people within your filtered and biased social group that are interested? If I look at what my friends watch I'd get the impression no one watches sports or soaps and everyone would like the TV schedules to be filled with documentaries and satire. That doesn't make it true - it's just that's the sort of people I socialise with. I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning whether you've done enough actual research to know if this is really the case.
  - kagamine 11y ago
    Is football (the real football, not handegg) popular in Europe and Africa? Is that your question? Football is most certainly popular.
    - onion2k 11y ago
      I'm not really debating the popularity of football. Here in the UK it's popular - I'd guess that about 30% to 50% of adults watch it regularly (in a pub or going to a game), with maybe 1/4 of those being interested enough to pay for a TV service to watch it at home. It definitely isn't even close to "all middle to upper class families" as thegenius2000 suggested might be the case in Kenya though. An interesting related statistic: Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London as go to all the major Premiership football games[1]. I doubt many people would guess that if they were asked. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-twice-as-many-people-visit-the-theatre-than-attend-Premier-League-games.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-t...
greggman 11y ago
Why Netflix and not Youtube?

smackfu 11y ago

Essentially NetFlix is paying their producer partners for worldwide rights, while conventional US networks only pay for US rights, and the producers sell the other country rights separately. But I'm not sure any of the partners in the conventional setup have a reason to change. US networks don't care about worldwide rights. Producers don't care who is paying them for the rights. Other country networks like having content to license.

dasil003 11y ago
Having spent the last 8 years of my life building a streaming film company that has from day one streamed globally and dealt with this patchwork of rights issue, I can tell you one reason: Other than China and India, no other market is as big or insular as the US. In Europe people travel across borders and speak multiple languages all the time, and yet it's like pulling teeth to put together multiple regional subtitle rights for use in a country where it is not the native language. For someone to subscribe to Netflix and be able to use it in multiple countries with the subtitles of their choice consistently available is a huge benefit to a huge number of affluent users. This is something which the existing film industry is incapable of doing structurally, and therefore is a huge advantage that can only be replicated by the biggest producers (ie. major studios). And those big companies do not have product development and UX in their DNA, so they will struggle to compete with Netflix in this regard (to date only HBO shows promise). But meanwhile the Netflix experience will be so much better that they will undermine the foundations of industry. I'm reminded of how in 2007 no corporate IT department would allow employees to use iPhones, and even though Apple never explicitly addressed the enterprise market, and Microsoft bent over backwards to give corporate buyers what they wanted, at the end of the day companies which didn't allow their employees to use their iPhones for work suffered a competitive disadvantage.
- avar 11y ago
  > Other than China and India, no other market > is as big or insular as the US. Isn't Japan's market generally recognized to be even more insular than the U.S.?
  - umeshunni 11y ago
    But it is a much smaller market
- izacus 11y ago
  Well, to be fair, Netflix STILL switches subtitle language when I cross the border making me stuck with german subtitles on everything even though I'd prefer english :/
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Do you mean they literally don't make the English subs available? Even for the stuff they produced? A clunky UX is one thing, but if they legitimately restrict the sub availability where the rights are available then I'm a bit shocked.
    - te0006 11y ago
      I'm not the one you asked the question but yes, that's what they do and it is a really dumb decision. I'm German and for perfecting my passive(i.e. understanding while listening) English language skills, I really like to view movies in English _and with English subtitles_. But in Germany, Netflix only offers German subtitles when the audio is set to English. Anyone got a contact at Netflix whom to approach with this? Edit: typo
      - didsomeonesay 11y ago
        I am bothered by this too and from two friends I got these tipps (not tried it yet): One is using full VPN solution (US-based I think) and the other is just using a Canada-based DNS server. BTW the problem extends beyond subtitles. International movies typically are just available in their original language + local translation (German). Then sometimes the video stream also differs from the English version (e.g. when there is a sign in German language).

Shebanator 11y ago

youtube?

fudged71 11y ago

Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or something like that. What do you think? At some point I assume they will also become the channel that VR content could be sent through as well, maybe in partnership with Facebook?

macspoofing 11y ago
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.
- shortstuffsushi 11y ago
  Unless they move to a model where you have to PPV for new / premium content like box office movies.
  - jsmeaton 11y ago
    That's the model that I think would actually be acceptable to all parties in the short to medium turn. I'd be happy to fork over $5-$10 ppv for a cinema release over the $23 I'd pay at the cinema. I'd still go to the cinema for bigger movies that I wanted to watch for the experience/sound/screen.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Here's an idea your comment made me think of: I wonder when are we going to see DLCs for movies? Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.

petke 11y ago

Amazon has a long way to go. As far as I can tell prime or Amazon Fire TV is only available in a few countries. I think they needs to go global quick, or they will not survive against netflix. As it is now, the internet is a rather segregated place. Many media sites are only available in the US. "This is not available in your country". I wonder if a big reason why netflix decided to make original content in the first place, is that its a huge pain to go global with content with regional rights.

Havoc 11y ago
>Amazon has a long way to go. Indeed. Its OK at the moment given that its piggy-backing off the Prime subscription. Without that I doubt I'd subscribe.
- myko 11y ago
  Considering I can't even watch it on my Chromecast without having my laptop stream it I barely use the service at all. The integrated "smart TV" Amazon app I have is a total pain to use.
  - Havoc 11y ago
    >The integrated "smart TV" Amazon app I have is a total pain to use. Seems fine on my Sony. No better/worse than the netflix one anyway
  - Goosey 11y ago
    Same here. Vizio?
jedberg 11y ago
The purpose of Amazon Prime Video is to get you to sign up for Prime and then order stuff on Amazon. It only makes sense for them to be where Amazon actually delivers stuff quickly via Prime. The purpose of Netflix is to provide entertainment. It makes sense for them to be everywhere. I doubt we'll see Amazon PV around the world anytime soon -- it doesn't make sense for them to spend on the global licensing costs since it won't boost Prime subscriptions.

dtjones 11y ago

glo-lo-mo. Global scale, local reach, mobile devices.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I believe this is exactly right. And all the things that gave networks monopoly power (like spectrum ownership) will become irrelevant. You can mark the day this happens when NetFlix starts offering a daily 'news' update type program. Of course most people see this already, and the extreme tactics around last mile broadband are exactly around this problem. Netflix can't work if their packets can't get to you, and the person who controls that last mile can hold their packets hostage (and has). If you want to poke a dragon some time, start advocating for equal access to broadband in your municipality :-).

lsaferite 11y ago
I didn't know I needed a Netflix live news channel until you mentioned it. Now I can't stop hoping they do that.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  They should just start picking up the conventional news channels; an custom one would instantly make them enemies who thought it was either too conservative or too liberal. At some point the channels will realize that cable carriers are a dead end and start selling to online companies like Netflix. Why should Netflix replace cable when it could become cable (less the exorbitant pricing and punch-a-hole-in-the-wall customer service)?
- neolefty 11y ago
  Could that fit with Netflix's current culture? They're big on content that's curated, high-quality, high-definition (with graceful degredation). Live news' editorial agility and responsiveness would require a department with a substantially different attitude and expertise. They're capable of expanding and pivoting though, more than most companies, so if they decide it's a priority, it's possible. It seems like a pretty big commitment though.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    I could certainly imagine them doing a much better job of news coverage where all the "Stories" would be available independently and when things changed you got an indication of new data so you could, if you wanted to, watch from the change forward, or the whole piece. Sort of like the NY Times pushing and re-pushing an article as the available information gathers texture. Since most of the news channels consist of rehashing things with the assumption that this is the "first" version you are seeing, they could provide a much better viewing experience that would certainly feel more curated and much more efficiently inform.

gshx 11y ago

Content and programming are still quite limited. There are a few good original shows. Also, they keep adding a lot of movies with poor ratings (rotten tomatoes). There's definitely potential for some disruption in this space. Also, some more competition from others would be nice.

Consultant32452 11y ago

While I'm a Netflix fan and subscriber I find them terrifying. They're clearly the monopoly power in streaming TV and whatever you call the competition that comes from Hulu or traditional cable companies is a joke in comparison. I predict in the future we'll have to break up the Netflix monopoly and require that they sublicense out the content they have license to stream to smaller suppliers much like the way it works for some utilities.

mrweasel 11y ago
> They're clearly the monopoly power in streaming TV and whatever you call the competition that comes from Hulu or traditional cable companies is a joke in comparison In some countries Netflix is the only choice. Your right to be at least a little terrified. A few years ago Google was in the same position. Everyone loved them. Google could do no wrong. Now we're in a situation where search has been monopolized by an advertising company. Everyone is upset about the cable company monopolies, while at the same time happily handing Netflix a new monopoly.
seunosewa 11y ago
Netflix wont become a lucrative monopoly because they own/control neither the content that they distribute (except for the few shows they produce) nor the distribution channel (the Internet). Moreso they have no pricing power; they faced a huge backlash the first time they tried to increase their subscription fees and only just managed to raise it by $1. Unless they can convince their customers to pay much more so they can sponsor and buy much more content, Netflix will be at best the largest among a group of streaming services you have to subscribe to to get all the content you want.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  I think that works until the cable companies essentially become defunct. Once that happens Netflix, being the 500lb gorilla in the room, will be the highest bidder for your content even if Netflix is the lowest bidder per view because Netflix will have all the eyes. Showtime is now available as an add-on to Hulu. It will be interesting to see how this model works out for them as opposed to the HBO self-streaming model. I suspect the end game will kill off both of those models because, again, I speculate even if the per-view revenue via Netflix are lower your over-all revenue would be higher.

prostoalex 11y ago

Why is HBO a follower here? They did original content for as long as they existed, and HBO Now has been available globally for a while now.

sorich87 11y ago
How can I access HBO globally? I see at the bottom of their website "HBO NOW is only accessible in the U.S. and certain U.S. territories where a high-speed broadband connection is available."
- prostoalex 11y ago
  My bad, when it first came out all my foreign friends were raving at availability of Game of Thrones. Looks like they all had a proxy setup. Grandparent comment is right, Netflix is the trailblazer.
  - kalleboo 11y ago
    Game of Thrones is also internationally licensed out to local TV stations around the world
- werid 11y ago
  It depends where you are. There are different offerings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_%28international%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_%28international%29

thegenius2000 11y ago

I agree with what a lot of people have mentioned, though not focused on: Netflix needs to add sports if they want to really dominate at a global level. As an example, consider Africa (I'm Kenyan): the Barclays Premiere League is watched in virtually every country, but provided by one company, known as MultiChoice. Because almost everyone wants to watch football, and there is only one option, if they can afford it, they pay. If Netflix (or some other company) was to obtain the rights to airing the BPL, all the middle-to-upper-class families in Kenya with decent internet connections would immediately consider switching.

nordify 11y ago
Counterpoint: nobody really cares that much about footy around here. Furthermore sports are quite useless as on-demand content. Netflix isn't synonymous with live TV. Why waste a lot of money on very expensive content that does not scale and does not fit the Netflix profile?
onion2k 11y ago
Are a large number of people actually interested in sports, or is it a large number of people within your filtered and biased social group that are interested? If I look at what my friends watch I'd get the impression no one watches sports or soaps and everyone would like the TV schedules to be filled with documentaries and satire. That doesn't make it true - it's just that's the sort of people I socialise with. I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning whether you've done enough actual research to know if this is really the case.
- kagamine 11y ago
  Is football (the real football, not handegg) popular in Europe and Africa? Is that your question? Football is most certainly popular.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    I'm not really debating the popularity of football. Here in the UK it's popular - I'd guess that about 30% to 50% of adults watch it regularly (in a pub or going to a game), with maybe 1/4 of those being interested enough to pay for a TV service to watch it at home. It definitely isn't even close to "all middle to upper class families" as thegenius2000 suggested might be the case in Kenya though. An interesting related statistic: Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London as go to all the major Premiership football games[1]. I doubt many people would guess that if they were asked. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-twice-as-many-people-visit-the-theatre-than-attend-Premier-League-games.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-t...

greggman 11y ago

Why Netflix and not Youtube?