12 ms·
Netflix Plans to Spend $7B on Content in 2018
- le-mark 9y agoAnyone have any thoughts in how to get in on the content production game? Go get a film degree? Because this is really where the future is headed it seems.
- pgeorgep 9y agoStart hustling and pushing content on YouTube, Snap, etc. Find a niche that interests you and just push out massive quantities of content. What's your goal and what kind of content do you want to make?
- majormajor 9y agoSeems like the path is increasingly to focus on creating your own short-form content first. This route has led to television series pickups - Broad City and Insecure are two that come to mind immediately. There's also a bit of discussion of its effect on the film circuit here: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/a-generational-shift-in-independent-filmmaking-at-the-2017-maryland-film-festival http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/a-generationa...
- banderman 9y agoStart producing content that you care about. Practice and get better at it. The equipment costs are low, or some places (schools, non profits) offer classes and equipment loans.
- Jemmeh 9y agoSchool's okay and all but you can learn a lot from just youtube tutorials and google tutorials. You can start with a setup as simple as your cell phone + tripod and shooting outside during the day so you don't need special lights. Watch a few basic tutorials on getting good audio, that makes a big difference in quality. Seriously just google "How to make a short film" or something similar. Make a short video and post it on youtube, then monetize that video. Make enough Youtube videos and other creators will hit you up / listen to proposals to work together or you can use it as a portfolio for jobs.
- matwood 9y agoSame as most (all?) creation professions - start creating.
- MediumD 9y agoAt what point is Netflix no longer considered a technology company? Streaming the amount of video that they do is definitely a monumental technical challenge, but if content is the key to their future, it seems like they are an entertainment company.
- notfromhere 9y agowhat's even a technology company anymore?
- MollyR 9y agoWith more and more content providers pulling content, I'd say Netflix is the middle of the pivot from technology focused distributor to content creator already.
- harigov 9y agoI think the direction is clear. They are going to be a fully content based company in the near future. I think they should spin out their streaming technology arm into a separate company or license/sell services so other companies can benefit from it.
- pgeorgep 9y agoI'm curious, what does the difference mean to you? I classify them as a technology company because they continue to innovate. With your argument, you could classify Facebook or any other social media site an entertainment company.
- xienze 9y ago$7B... let's see, with the astronomical amount of money Netflix dumps into individual projects, that's what, 10 or 12 shows? :)
- pgeorgep 9y agoWith a quarter of them coming from Adam Sandler.....
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- overcast 9y agoWith the quality of content they produce, that's more than enough. They are headed towards HBO level of production.
- alexanat 9y agoAgreed. To the younger generation I am sure they already are considered equal to or better than HBO, they are less likely to factor in any legacy content.
- adrianlmm 9y agoIts 7 billion in content, not 7 billion in Netflix originals, big difference.
- ProfessorLayton 9y agoStaggering costs like these are exactly why Disney is actually in a great position to start its own streaming service. It is already one of the biggest media companies in the world, and has ownership of tons of IP beloved worldwide. I'm all for competition so I hope both companies succeed, but its pretty evident that Netflix needed Disney more than Disney needed Netflix. I'm also all for the democratization of great content thats happening on YouTube et al.
- r00fus 9y agoSo begs the question, which will win, current content companies creating streaming equivalents or streaming companies creating their own content channels? Hint: answer is not boolean, but float.
- agumonkey 9y agoWhat the lifespan of IP ? will people still love Mickey Mouse in 50 years ?
- runevault 9y agoIP continually used and refreshed can potentially have infinite shelf life. Look at James Bond, the original books came out a long time ago. Look at Lord of the Rings, those books came out a long time ago. There's a reason Disney keeps fighting to extend copyright, despite how much of their own material is derived from works based on expired copyright.
- bhaak 9y agoThey love Mickey Mouse already for 90 years. Merchandising, too. That started already in the 1930s. Daffy Duck was referenced in Babylon 5 which plays in the 2250s and it felt believable. Shakespeare plays are still popular and adapted today, that's even longer ago. I don't think that Disney and its IP will go away any time soon.
- icebraining 9y agoPlus Disney should know the longevity - they made a lot of money by adapting folk tales with hundreds of years to animation.
- Aron 9y agoContrast this to HBO's budget which is ~2B$ I believe and they generally cost 15$+\month. Netflix is just getting started in ripping up the old order.
- gutnor 9y ago> Netflix is just getting started in ripping up the old order. Not sure I like the direction the new order is taking, really look more and more like the old order to me. Before you need to pay for cable packages to get a random set of channels. The new order is that you pay various providers offering a random set of exclusive shows. It is still cheaper at the moment though. What I'm hoping to see is big streaming network starting to use exclusive content as currency between themselves to share their catalogs. However, I'm not sure what would be their differentiator. Netflix is superior to DVD and the channel delivery mode of cable. However, Netflix vs Hulu vs HBO vs ... there is not much more to fight than price. Keeping their content exclusive on the other hand is very easy to sell.
- dave5104 9y agoAt least with the new order, you can choose to not purchase Netflix or Hulu or Disney's option. With the old order, it was all or nothing.
- eyeinthepyramid 9y ago>With the old order, it was all or nothing. Not really, HBO was always an add-on. In the new order, Internet access = basic cable, streaming services = premium channels.
- shmerl 9y agoYep. No DRM-free releases, quite on the contrary, they are starting to get more into legacy media mindset.
- digikata 9y agoAt least with the new order, the barriers are low for new entrants offering direct content. That will hopefully keep competition alive between the providers - at least more than in the cable/satellite market.
- shmerl 9y agoAren't they funding The Witcher series?
- jgalt212 9y agoThat's really not that much money, ESPN spends $1.9B on just one show--Monday Night Football.
- matwood 9y agoSure, and it's starting to look like that is not sustainable. ESPN just cut tons of expensive on-air talent. Cord cutting is killing ESPN as they are getting a very large portion of everyones cable bill.
- digikata 9y agoESPN is a big reason that non-sports watchers cut the cord - why subsidize costly sports channels for everyone else? If the demographic data is right, non-sports watchers are a larger proportion of younger demographics.
- joering2 9y ago7B?? Where is it coming from?? If average monthly fee is $19 then you need 333,000,000 paying customers. Or 33,000,000 annul.
- uses 9y agoIt feels like we're pretty far past the point where there could be a "Spotify of movies" or TV. Instead we have streaming companies getting into media and media companies getting into streaming. Multiple platforms each with their exclusive media content, each with their exclusive software and streaming protocols. Not exactly what I had in mind...
- deegles 9y agoIt was only a matter of time before large scale streaming tech got commoditized. That was Netflix's moat early on and now it will have to be their content library. They clearly saw the writing on the wall long ago. The golden age of streaming is over IMO, now content will be increasingly divided into their own streaming services. I wish that streaming video were regulated like radio, with a flat rate per minute that gets paid back to the license owner. I can dream...
- hkarthik 9y agoWith this kind of spending, they must be planning to monetize beyond the subscription fees. Get ready for the ads. Cable was ad-free in the early days too.
- likelynew 9y agoI don't know why people think that one can earn billions in online ads so easily. In my calculation, Netflix can't earn anywhere close to $10 per month on ads that people are willing to watch.
- ryanwaggoner 9y agoIt's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile on a half dozen services like that, and you're still only around 50-60% of what the average cable bill in the US is (just over $100 / month). Did you really think that all these media companies were going to magically shed 90% of their revenue? The user experience does kinda suck, but I think Apple TV, Roku, and other meta-streaming-platforms will solve most of that in the long run. They'll be the new cable companies, essentially. But I bet you'll get less bundling than cable has now. Although I constantly see people saying that they want bundling. "I'd love to just pay $100 / month for every tv show, movie, song, etc. out there..." That's the ultimate bundling :) Also, for the people who keep saying they want to just pay for a single show, can't you do that on iTunes and Amazon? Buy a season pass for a show? I haven't really done this much, so maybe it's outlandishly expensive, or they have poor coverage of shows people want.
- marcell 9y agoAlso, while its hard to measure objectively, I would expect quality to be higher, because of the incentives. There is a higher pay off to a hit show because it can attract subscribers directly to your stream. In the old model, there is a layer of instruction (cable companies) which blunts the effect.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- BeetleB 9y ago>It's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile on a half dozen services like that, and you're still only around 50-60% of what the average cable bill in the US is (just over $100 / month). People are crazy to pay over $100/month. A half a dozen similar services + Netflix would already exceed any cable TV plan I've ever had. And for less than $60/mo, I will get more content than I would if I just sign up for individual services. The reason I don't bother is that the content is pretty poor regardless.
- deleted 9y ago
- ghostbrainalpha 9y agoNetflix has almost 100 Million users. That means they are spending approximately $70 per user on new Content in 2018. Netflix costs between $7-$12 per month. Many of those subscribers will not last the whole year. It is awesome they are spending basically 100% of their revenue on new content, but this model is not sustainable.
- msmith 9y agoMost of the content has a shelf life much longer than one year, so I'm sure that factors into the equation.
- sanmon3186 9y agoPlus good content invites new customers. Netflix has expanded to pretty much entire world now (China is the only major market with no Netflix). From my experience in India, they are investing heavily on local content. Existing, original or licensed, content is not enough for these markets.
- tybit 9y agoThey made $8.8 billion in 2016, I think it's fair to say they expect to make far more than that in 2018. While their US rates may be $7-$12 per subscriber, their international revenue projections may be quite different. For example at current exchange rates I'm paying just under $15 USD for my account in Australia(though I'm sure not every country is so expensive).
- probe 9y agoI'm confused, based on the numbers you provided, doesn't their model make a lot of sense? If on average you're getting ~$10/user/month, that's $120/user/year of which you're just spending $70/user/year, and thus have gross profits of ~$50/user/year. In other words, you're getting $12B in revenue, $7B of which you're spending on content to ensure that churn stays low and people continue to re-subscribe.
- pmoriarty 9y agoI'd love to believe that the vast majority of that money will go to the artists, actors, directors, muscians, and other creatives actually making this content, but I have a bad feeling it'll just wind up in the pockets of executives, board members, and stockholders.
- elvirs 9y agobuying passes to all 5 top streaming/content services costs $53 which is less than any cable package costs and give you access to so much content across all your devices and absutely no ads. amazon $8.25/mo netflix $7.99/mo youtube $12.99/mo hulu $7.99/mo hbo go $14.99/mo
- uptownfunk 9y agoGreat we can look forward another half dozen remakes of the life and times of Pablo Escobar
- jasonkostempski 9y agoI'd like to see a DRM-free Netflix Original content only streaming plan. I'd sign back up and they could really set a good example.
- new299 9y agoNot only this, but could they at least enable Netflix original content through VPN/proxies? (as they've started blocking all access via proxy now).
- puranjay 9y agoThey'll do far better to spend a bit of that money on improving the content experience. I unsubscribed because there is far too much content and I never know what to watch
- BartSaM 9y agoThis is really very hard to fix the problem. So you have unsubscribed because there are too much media to digest available? You must be an extreme minority with a problem like that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]