4 ms·

$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive conte

$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive content. I pay $130/mo. for a cable package that provides almost no content that I enjoy and includes a DVR that frequently craps out when recording the few shows that I do watch. I'd rather pay Netflix an extra $30/mo. (or more, depending on what they can offer) for that premium content and ditch my cable package altogether.

pcurve 11y ago
Shhh..... remember my cable bill used to be 40 bucks 22 years ago. That includes hbo.
- brandon272 11y ago
  Mine includes 8Mbps internet access. I'd love to "cut the cord" but I don't want to give up regional sports and live network news.
  - CodeCube 11y ago
    > regional sports and live network news Precisely the things I don't watch :P
- geodel 11y ago
  I think it would be interesting to see rise of actors' fees over that period of time. Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors.
  - petke 11y ago
    Most of the cost of blockbusters is marketing. > Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...
    - gknoy 11y ago
      I would not be surprised if they did that to move money into the "costs" column for the movie, while still funneling value into advertising companies owned by the parent.
  - ska 11y ago
    Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors Do you have figures on that? I would surprise me if actor salaries were major cost, but I don't know the industry.
    - geodel 11y ago
      I guess you are right. This is one link I found about TV show economics http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-a-hit-tv-show/ http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-a-hit-tv-show/
  - massysett 11y ago
    I bet pro athletes, sports leagues, and college conferences take home more of the money than actors.
cornholio 11y ago
>$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix Let's see what the price is when they are entrenched as a global monopoly with a vast catalog of culturally relevant content that you can't get anywhere else. It may very well act as Hollywood on steroids.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Of course it will. If there isn't adequate competition, every company will do this. If you have an executive in place who refuses to do it, the shareholders will fire and replace him. This is exactly why free markets that stimulate competition are extremely important. Our current copyright laws make competition very difficult, especially if you're not starting with a multi-billion dollar war chest.
- tajen 11y ago
  $10 sounds unsustainable for this catalog (heck, €8 in France for single-watchers). The expectable price is rather $30. That's just an initial promotion, the customer lifecycle value they are ready to extract should be much, much higher. Crunchbase tells us that the only investment was $36m. The rest is regular debt, $1.7bn! It just shows how much banks trust their business model. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/netflix#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/netflix#/entity

pcurve 11y ago

Shhh..... remember my cable bill used to be 40 bucks 22 years ago. That includes hbo.

brandon272 11y ago
Mine includes 8Mbps internet access. I'd love to "cut the cord" but I don't want to give up regional sports and live network news.
- CodeCube 11y ago
  > regional sports and live network news Precisely the things I don't watch :P
geodel 11y ago
I think it would be interesting to see rise of actors' fees over that period of time. Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors.
- petke 11y ago
  Most of the cost of blockbusters is marketing. > Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...
  - gknoy 11y ago
    I would not be surprised if they did that to move money into the "costs" column for the movie, while still funneling value into advertising companies owned by the parent.
- ska 11y ago
  Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors Do you have figures on that? I would surprise me if actor salaries were major cost, but I don't know the industry.
  - geodel 11y ago
    I guess you are right. This is one link I found about TV show economics http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-a-hit-tv-show/ http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-a-hit-tv-show/
- massysett 11y ago
  I bet pro athletes, sports leagues, and college conferences take home more of the money than actors.

cornholio 11y ago

>$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix Let's see what the price is when they are entrenched as a global monopoly with a vast catalog of culturally relevant content that you can't get anywhere else. It may very well act as Hollywood on steroids.

cookiecaper 11y ago
Of course it will. If there isn't adequate competition, every company will do this. If you have an executive in place who refuses to do it, the shareholders will fire and replace him. This is exactly why free markets that stimulate competition are extremely important. Our current copyright laws make competition very difficult, especially if you're not starting with a multi-billion dollar war chest.
tajen 11y ago
$10 sounds unsustainable for this catalog (heck, €8 in France for single-watchers). The expectable price is rather $30. That's just an initial promotion, the customer lifecycle value they are ready to extract should be much, much higher. Crunchbase tells us that the only investment was $36m. The rest is regular debt, $1.7bn! It just shows how much banks trust their business model. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/netflix#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/netflix#/entity