3 ms·

I'm sure economics played a role but I don't overall find that to be a compelling reason to not shoot for longer deals. They are any number of ways to generate

I'm sure economics played a role but I don't overall find that to be a compelling reason to not shoot for longer deals. They are any number of ways to generate the money necessary and contractually they could have structured things such that there were automatic extensions built in based on arbitrary criteria. I think Netflix took a huge bet, and knew they were doing so and thus hedged their bets. They either hoped they could re-negotiate better deals later on or were scared the service would fail leaving them with huge liabilities.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
I would bet the media owners had some inkling that the internet would change the nature of the game and the elimination of a middle man was on its way (assuming net neutrality, but that of course has changed). Anyone in their position would have been wise to let Netflix have the rights while they tested the business model and/or the media owners themselves built their product, but definitely not let them have it for any longer than necessary.
- dcole2929 8y ago
  The problem is from all the evidence we have (granted it's all anecdotal) that wasn't the case. Every interview, every story from this period times reinforces the fact that Network execs thought they were getting a great deal from a company that would never work. Every bit of data we have says that the networks fundamentally believed there was nothing that was going to change the status quo. They had every incentive given that belief to get as much money from Netlfix as possible because what did they care. They already assumed Netflix would fold anyway, so why not license things for 10 years or 15 or however long netflix wanted if it got you x million dollars more. When netflix went under they would have got back the content and kept the money.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    I hadn't heard of that, and if that's true, then I see your point. But I'm sure there were also hard decisions being made at Netflix about how much of their limited resources to devote to developing their own media versus how much to license.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

I would bet the media owners had some inkling that the internet would change the nature of the game and the elimination of a middle man was on its way (assuming net neutrality, but that of course has changed). Anyone in their position would have been wise to let Netflix have the rights while they tested the business model and/or the media owners themselves built their product, but definitely not let them have it for any longer than necessary.

dcole2929 8y ago
The problem is from all the evidence we have (granted it's all anecdotal) that wasn't the case. Every interview, every story from this period times reinforces the fact that Network execs thought they were getting a great deal from a company that would never work. Every bit of data we have says that the networks fundamentally believed there was nothing that was going to change the status quo. They had every incentive given that belief to get as much money from Netlfix as possible because what did they care. They already assumed Netflix would fold anyway, so why not license things for 10 years or 15 or however long netflix wanted if it got you x million dollars more. When netflix went under they would have got back the content and kept the money.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  I hadn't heard of that, and if that's true, then I see your point. But I'm sure there were also hard decisions being made at Netflix about how much of their limited resources to devote to developing their own media versus how much to license.