6 ms·
Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
- M_Grey 10y agoI truly hope that Netflix doesn't sell to Disney; I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney. I'm not that worried though, I think that Netflix sees its future as something more than being bought out at this stage. Then again, money does speak its own powerful language.
- stupidcar 10y agoI don't know. I think Netflix has a good idea of what they'd like their future to be, but no clear path to get there. Their subscriber growth is slowing, and their content library is shrinking (and was always pretty anaemic outside of a few core territories). Being owned by Disney would give them guaranteed access to a AAA content catalogue, and far more firepower in reciprocal licensing negotiations. And for their part, Disney gets a ready-made, world-class streaming service. While I'm apprehensive about the idea of this as a Netflix subscriber, I think it probably makes a fair bit of sense for both businesses.
- ousta 10y agoas a production company they will be much more successfull than disney in 5 years
- samfisher83 10y agoDisney owns so much IP: Marvel, Star Wars, Disney. You expect them to come up with that much stuff in 5 years?
- exclusiv 10y agoThose are definitely powerhouse IP, but Netflix has a wider range of quality content. I agree it will be a challenge, but if you look at the talent that appears to want to work with Netflix and do originals, I wouldn't rule out the parent's 5 year estimate. It's not like you can just go to Disney and say "let's do this". They have a brand and image to uphold so their content choices will always be limited.
- stupidcar 10y agoNo chance. They could be a digital-only HBO, but even HBO need the backing of a big media company (Time Warner).
- serge2k 10y agoI'm curious whether you can make any reasonable argument at all for this.
- M_Grey 10y agoThey need a big company behind them sooner or later, but for the love of god, not Disney.
- samfisher83 10y agoWhat is netflix's competitive advantage? They have some customers and some technology, but the customer's probably care more about the content. They don't own the content. Their own IP is limited. The Studios own Hulu so they are better off licensing their content to Hulu.
- M_Grey 10y agoThey've shown a remarkable ability to rapidly iterate new shows which people like, revive old shows that people still want, and they've begun to enter the culture in the form of "Netflix and Chill" and the like.
- samfisher83 10y agoThe problem is they don't own the old shows. They are owned by AMC, Disney, Fox etc.
- M_Grey 10y agoI'm not sure why that's a problem if they still get to be exclusive carriers of them and they enjoy great success along the way.
- exclusiv 10y agoTo add to that, they're more responsible for cable cutting than any other service. I still have tv service but I'm finding it harder and harder to talk about anything on cable with people. They'll talk about Stranger Things and other shows. Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. It will probably be too late. With less revenue, it will be harder to produce top shows and compete with the high quality content that is being produced at a fraction of the cost. I think it's going to continue to grow to be one or two services and a few direct a la carte channel subscriptions for consumers. Sports is a big driver for many services (ex: NFL for DirecTV) but you can now subscribe to Sunday Ticket if you can't get DirecTV where you're at. Big Ten Network can be streamed without a tv service too. You can just add a cheap HD OTA antenna to get network channels. Once most the sports outlets go direct, there'll be a huge exodus.
- grosbisou 10y ago-- I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney Why do you say that? Just curious.
- foobarrio 10y agoI don't know if this is what GP means but for one, Disney is one of the driving forces behind extending copyright periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- M_Grey 10y agoThat's exactly what I'm thinking of, thanks.
- tzs 10y agoI'm not sure "driving force" is really accurate. The main impetus for the 1976 Act, which changed the term from 28 years with the possibility of one 28 year renewal to life + 50 was to allow the United States to join the Berne Convention. Berne required a minimum of life + 50. The extension to life + 70, or 95 years after publication for corporate works, was in the 1998 Act. Disney did lobby for that, but the big argument for it was that was to match EU copyright terms, which went to life + 70 under the "Directive harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights" in 1993.
- M_Grey 10y agoI think you're overestimating how much the US cares about adhering to international laws and guidelines, and underestimate the power and volume of Disney's lobbying.
- exclusiv 10y agoDisney is pretty much only a huge force from using public domain to make money, yet they routinely do things to avoid their IP from entering the public domain. Some examples [1]: - Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845) - Revenue = $810.3 million - Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865) - Revenue = $1.02 billion - Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (1857) - Revenue = $416 million (10th highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation) - Aladdin (1992) from a folk tale in One Thousand and One Nights (1706) - Revenue = $504 million Then you have their lobbying: "In 1998, Copyright was up for it’s last copyright term extension, from life +50 years to life +70 years. Disney’s Mickey Mouse copyright had accounted for up to $8 billion in revenue in 1998 when they were lobbying for copyright extension. Disney’s Chairman, Michael Eisener personally met with then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. The day Lott signed on as co-sponsor of the bill, Disney’s PAC donated to Lott’s campaign. Within a month Disney also gave $20,000 in soft money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Of the 13 initial sponsors of the House bill, 10 received contributions from Disney’s PAC. On the Senate side, 8 of the 12 sponsors received contributions" [2] Protect $8B with some cheap lobbying. What a deal! [1][2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/#394c4cf41645 http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney...
- edwhitesell 10y agoInteresting the article didn't mention Disney owns ABC, which owns a chunk of Hulu (along with others in the consortium).
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y agoPlease no. Disney is not the right company to be driving Netflix.
- gjolund 10y agoA logical move on both sides. Some of Netflix's biggest hits are Disney owned IP's, and Netflix needs some more AAA titles in its catalogue. Star Wars distribution alone makes it worth it.
- e1ven 10y agoI know that Netflix is relying more heavily on it's 1st-party content lately, but I can't see how Disney could buy Netflix without making negotiations much harder with every other studio.. Why would Sony/etc allow movies to be shown on a Disney owned platform?
- serge2k 10y agobecause Sony needs money badly?