2 ms·

> Basically, we need to watch out for these intermediaries. In what sense is the company that plans, funds, creates, and delivers a show an "intermediary"? >

by dpark 8y ago

> Basically, we need to watch out for these intermediaries. In what sense is the company that plans, funds, creates, and delivers a show an "intermediary"? > Why can't we both watch both shows? It wouldn't defund the shows, since we both keep paying the same. It wouldn't be skin off either of our noses either. Show creators would prefer universal availability and so would consumers. You are proposing that all content should be free. You just don't realize that's what you're saying. You believe you should get Amazon content for free because you pay for Netflix. You argue this doesn't de-fund, but it does, because if I can watch Amazon content for free, I'll cancel my subscription to Amazon. I'll pay for the cheapest streaming service that exists if it somehow grants me access to the entire world of content. Universal access would mean a race to $0/month.

dalbasal 8y ago
To your first point, "delivers" is the key term. Netflix' "moat" is built around being the deliverer of content. It does other things too, but they are optional. I'm not saying Netflix suck. They don't. You believe you should get Amazon content for free because you pay for Netflix. It's impolite to tell people what they believe, or what they said, so I'll take these as conversational questions. In any case, I do not. I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason intermediaries pay extra for exclusivity is exclusivity, cutting out their competition. This doesn't generally happen in markets with enough buyers and sellers. If there were only two or three retailers in a market, they'd be cutting exclusivity deals with wholesalers or manufacturers of goods.
- dpark 8y ago
  > I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason intermediaries pay extra for exclusivity is exclusivity, cutting out their competition. This doesn't generally happen in markets with enough buyers and sellers. I am pointing out that your claim is fundamentally contradictory. You assert that universal access would not "defund", but your universal access idea is predicated on a free market driving down the cost of access across the board. It realistically cannot be both. You can't have Netflix bundle Amazon content and vice versa and not expect a drop in total revenue. Sure, you'd expect some additional subscribers, but you'd also expect current dual-subscribers to cancel one of their subscriptions[1], and you'd also expect Netflix and Amazon to be reduced to competing primarily on price, driving revenue down. Exclusives drive an increase in funding because they encourage the market to pay for more than one option. > If there were only two or three retailers in a market, they'd be cutting exclusivity deals with wholesalers or manufacturers of goods. It happens all the time. Crate and Barrel sells exclusive furniture designs. So does every other furniture store. It's not hurting the market and in fact increases choice because most retailers actively pursue the creation of new exclusives. [1] There aren't a lot of people paying for HBO Go and HBO Now. Once you've got access to the content, you don't pay for it in other ways as well.

by dpark 8y ago

dalbasal 8y ago

To your first point, "delivers" is the key term. Netflix' "moat" is built around being the deliverer of content. It does other things too, but they are optional. I'm not saying Netflix suck. They don't. You believe you should get Amazon content for free because you pay for Netflix. It's impolite to tell people what they believe, or what they said, so I'll take these as conversational questions. In any case, I do not. I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason intermediaries pay extra for exclusivity is exclusivity, cutting out their competition. This doesn't generally happen in markets with enough buyers and sellers. If there were only two or three retailers in a market, they'd be cutting exclusivity deals with wholesalers or manufacturers of goods.

dpark 8y ago
> I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason intermediaries pay extra for exclusivity is exclusivity, cutting out their competition. This doesn't generally happen in markets with enough buyers and sellers. I am pointing out that your claim is fundamentally contradictory. You assert that universal access would not "defund", but your universal access idea is predicated on a free market driving down the cost of access across the board. It realistically cannot be both. You can't have Netflix bundle Amazon content and vice versa and not expect a drop in total revenue. Sure, you'd expect some additional subscribers, but you'd also expect current dual-subscribers to cancel one of their subscriptions[1], and you'd also expect Netflix and Amazon to be reduced to competing primarily on price, driving revenue down. Exclusives drive an increase in funding because they encourage the market to pay for more than one option. > If there were only two or three retailers in a market, they'd be cutting exclusivity deals with wholesalers or manufacturers of goods. It happens all the time. Crate and Barrel sells exclusive furniture designs. So does every other furniture store. It's not hurting the market and in fact increases choice because most retailers actively pursue the creation of new exclusives. [1] There aren't a lot of people paying for HBO Go and HBO Now. Once you've got access to the content, you don't pay for it in other ways as well.