5 ms·

The entertainment industry isn't stupid. They are doing their best to maximize revenues from their products given the current landscape of cable networks, strea

by ssharp 10y ago

The entertainment industry isn't stupid. They are doing their best to maximize revenues from their products given the current landscape of cable networks, streaming providers, on-demand, etc. The ability to make bolder strategy choices is also hampered by the need to enter into distribution contracts with the above-mentioned providers. If you do the math, I'd guess revenues would be higher doing what the entertainment industry currently does than what you propose. While this will lead many people into pirating, it's still likely a pretty small percentage. Netflix did $8.8 billion in revenue last year. U.S. domestic box office receipts were around $11.3 billion and were around $30 billion globally. In the US alone, given Netflix' current subscriber base of 49 million, it would cost each subscriber would have to pay a little over $19 per month extra just to make up for domestic box office revenues. When you factor in that Netflix needs to make some money on top of that, as well as whatever scaling is necessary, that number needs to go up even further. And then you need to makeup all the additional money that comes from rentals and distribution deals outside of Netflix. There is a reason why Netflix only gets a small portion of quality movies -- because companies can make more signing deals with companies other than Netflix. Would most people be willing to pay over $100 per month for an all-you-can-eat movie service? I doubt it, considering that doesn't even account for all the television programming, which takes up a much larger portion of people's screen time than movies do. First-run television content earns a lot of revenue, as do live shows, particularly sports. ESPN alone costs cable companies $7 per subscriber and that's with lots of ad-supported content. Without ad support, that number would be closer to $12 and that doesn't account for the additional production costs to make up for all the additional airtime that needs filled. I think to truly create an all-you-can-eat, comprehensive entertainment streaming service, you'd be look at several hundred dollars per month in subscription fees. And you'd still have to figure out some sort of way to incentivize content producers to continue producing the same level of content they currently do and support competition so there is a continued push towards higher quality.

Hello71 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0
adrianN 10y ago
You assume that box office goes down to 0 if a movie can be downloaded easily. This is evidently not true, since most movies already can be download easily, just not legally.
- pc86 10y ago
  Most movies can be downloaded easily by people who know to use computers. There are tens of millions of fully functional adult Americans who can barely operate Word, they certainly cannot start torrenting movies. Well, they might be able to once, at which point they're going to get some ransomware or become part of a botnet.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Zero-day movies are nearly always CAMs or TS. They are a terrible experience. Streaming or downloading a full 4k version would mean I'd probably never go to the theater again (and I go roughly 12 times a year). Some people would still go for the social experience / big screen, but a lot less frequently. I bet most theatres would have to shut down.
bcg1 10y ago
Do 100% of "box office receipts" go to the production company? Or is a portion of that overhead for the theater showing the movie? Also I think you're really missing something important, which the entertainment industry is also ignoring... "all you can eat" is not the only way to do it, there is a market for "a la carte" as well. My wife has been trying to find a way to pay to stream 3 or 4 TV channels only, she specifically does not want to pay for ESPN or other trash television we won't watch. It would be even better if we could find it without ads. Of course such a model is probably unthinkable for content producers that want to bundle their losers in with their winners in order to boost their value.
- ssharp 10y ago
  I don't think theaters make much, if anything at all, from ticket receipts. That's why concession are so overprice. Some theaters even flat-out tell you this. I think the "a la carte" model is much more realistic than the "all you can eat" model but I don't think that model solves what the parent comment was saying. The a la carte model doesn't really work that well for movies either. I still think people would complain and go to torrents. "Why should I pay $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones when I can torrent it?" will still be a question but that's already better than things were two years ago when it was "Why do I have to pay a $70 cable subscription PLUS $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones?"
  - Retric 10y ago
    Theaters get an increasing percentage as the movie get's older. First weekend they get ~0-25%, but they also fill the seats. "after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales" However, the seats are mostly empty. http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/ http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-thea... I would guess Hollywood get's around 80% of overall ticket sales, but it can very a lot. However, production costs can be less than advertising costs. So, the production side might get 60% of stated ticket sales and that's the percentage that Netflix would need to cover. That said, if Netflix had every movie ever for 25$ a month they would also likely have far more customers and probably be revenue neutral for Hollywood. But, at the same time every studio would want a larger cut and the only way it would work is if there where similar rules for streaming movies as streaming songs.
funnyfacts365 10y ago
If people aren't willing to pay $100 for an all you can eat movie service did it even cross your mind that it only means it's overpriced?
acejam 10y ago
> There is a reason why Netflix only gets a small portion of quality movies -- because companies can make more signing deals with companies other than Netflix. Yet they can afford to pay Dave Chappelle $60 million for 3 episodes. I love Netflix, but it's clear they are focused on their own original content, and they do a great job at it. Every Netflix show I've watched is great. They don't have the latest and greatest movies because they choose not to buy them.
tomjen3 10y ago
I guess that makes sense, if you assume Netflix would not grow widely when they have everything. You are also assuming the rest of the entertainment complex isn't going to shrink, especially espn which is losing a lot of subscribers.

by ssharp 10y ago

Hello71 10y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0

adrianN 10y ago

You assume that box office goes down to 0 if a movie can be downloaded easily. This is evidently not true, since most movies already can be download easily, just not legally.

pc86 10y ago
Most movies can be downloaded easily by people who know to use computers. There are tens of millions of fully functional adult Americans who can barely operate Word, they certainly cannot start torrenting movies. Well, they might be able to once, at which point they're going to get some ransomware or become part of a botnet.
rhino369 10y ago
Zero-day movies are nearly always CAMs or TS. They are a terrible experience. Streaming or downloading a full 4k version would mean I'd probably never go to the theater again (and I go roughly 12 times a year). Some people would still go for the social experience / big screen, but a lot less frequently. I bet most theatres would have to shut down.

bcg1 10y ago

Do 100% of "box office receipts" go to the production company? Or is a portion of that overhead for the theater showing the movie? Also I think you're really missing something important, which the entertainment industry is also ignoring... "all you can eat" is not the only way to do it, there is a market for "a la carte" as well. My wife has been trying to find a way to pay to stream 3 or 4 TV channels only, she specifically does not want to pay for ESPN or other trash television we won't watch. It would be even better if we could find it without ads. Of course such a model is probably unthinkable for content producers that want to bundle their losers in with their winners in order to boost their value.

ssharp 10y ago
I don't think theaters make much, if anything at all, from ticket receipts. That's why concession are so overprice. Some theaters even flat-out tell you this. I think the "a la carte" model is much more realistic than the "all you can eat" model but I don't think that model solves what the parent comment was saying. The a la carte model doesn't really work that well for movies either. I still think people would complain and go to torrents. "Why should I pay $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones when I can torrent it?" will still be a question but that's already better than things were two years ago when it was "Why do I have to pay a $70 cable subscription PLUS $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones?"
- Retric 10y ago
  Theaters get an increasing percentage as the movie get's older. First weekend they get ~0-25%, but they also fill the seats. "after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales" However, the seats are mostly empty. http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/ http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-thea... I would guess Hollywood get's around 80% of overall ticket sales, but it can very a lot. However, production costs can be less than advertising costs. So, the production side might get 60% of stated ticket sales and that's the percentage that Netflix would need to cover. That said, if Netflix had every movie ever for 25$ a month they would also likely have far more customers and probably be revenue neutral for Hollywood. But, at the same time every studio would want a larger cut and the only way it would work is if there where similar rules for streaming movies as streaming songs.

funnyfacts365 10y ago

If people aren't willing to pay $100 for an all you can eat movie service did it even cross your mind that it only means it's overpriced?

acejam 10y ago

> There is a reason why Netflix only gets a small portion of quality movies -- because companies can make more signing deals with companies other than Netflix. Yet they can afford to pay Dave Chappelle $60 million for 3 episodes. I love Netflix, but it's clear they are focused on their own original content, and they do a great job at it. Every Netflix show I've watched is great. They don't have the latest and greatest movies because they choose not to buy them.

tomjen3 10y ago

I guess that makes sense, if you assume Netflix would not grow widely when they have everything. You are also assuming the rest of the entertainment complex isn't going to shrink, especially espn which is losing a lot of subscribers.