5 ms·

TLDR: Both are afraid of Netflix making channel subscriptions superfluous. It's an interesting read with lots of explanations.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
I think this whole way of thinking about Netflix is dumb though, e.g. “ Netflix dominating means that shows are sold directly to Netflix.” Netflix is not good at creating content. As time goes forward, Netflix is even less good as they need to cater to mass markets, thereby losing niche markets, and without having a brand or catalog like a Disney, or live sports, or trusted news, etc. Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators.
- xkjkls 7y ago
  > Netflix is not good at creating content. Why would you say that? These days, many of the most talked about and watched shows are Netflix content. Like for instance, Tiger King is the most talked about show in America right now, Netflix owned and produced. > Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators. This seems to be a five plus year ago view on the company. They've pivoted mostly to making original content at this point, which in my mind is the hardest reason to be long them. They've had to accumulate enormous debt to produce all of this content and have exclusive ownership rights, which makes their balance sheet look terrible.
  - eitally 7y ago
    I think a perhaps more accurate way of stating the position is that "Netflix is not good enough at creating enough good content [to make up for 1) existing back catalogs and 2) parallel activity from strong competition]. I don't think anyone could definitively state that Netflix content is subpar when it's at its best, but I also don't think anyone would suggest they'd be willing to give up the big studios and rely exclusively on Netflix original content.
    - Talanes 7y ago
      As things start to fracture more and more, the big studios kind of find themselves in the same position. Disney+ probably has one of the strongest single-publisher back catalogs, and there's still a lot of talk about there being nothing to watch after you finish the few originals and whatever old thing you were interested in.
      - xkjkls 7y ago
        Yeah, Netflix has far more new exclusive content. And by that, I'm counting out all of the currently released movies Disney has also on Disney+, since many saw those in theaters.
        mark-r 7y ago
        Disney knows better than most how much appeal there is in movies that you've already seen.
    - xkjkls 7y ago
      Content ages. People want new topical content. Even someone who owned the entire criterion collection would still have problems.
  - bigphishy 7y ago
    Too true, I hardly hear about trending media, I try to avoid it, but my housemate told me about tiger king yesterday.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  I think that may have been true at some point but they aren't really a distribution company, for almost a decade they've been a content publisher with their own distribution.
- bsder 7y ago
  > Netflix is not good at creating content. Neither is anybody else. It's a random crapshoot. To be fair, though, Netflix seems to be doing a bit better than random. Disney+ has a huge advantage in that they have a significant back catalog that people actually want. Everybody else can basically be ignored. Amazon will blink first to Disney+ and Netflix terms, and Apple will be forced to follow or be irrelevant in video.
  - notriddle 7y ago
    > Netflix is not good at creating content. The difference is that the others don't have to be good at creating content. Amazon, Google, and Apple have a bunch of other businesses to prop up their streaming services. And Disney doesn't have to be good at creating new content because they've got so much enviable OLD content. But if NetFlix can't keep people coming back, then the company goes under. NetFlix can't just run their streaming service at a loss until everybody else dies like Amazon, they can't rely in pure brand recognition like Disney, they can't rely on sheer volume like YouTube Premium, and they can't just charge more because they're not Apple.
three_seagrass 7y ago
Yeah, I don't agree with their analysis of Disney+ either. It's as you say, these big corps are trying to claw back revenue that Netflix has been enjoying. I doubt the reason Disney really went into Disney+ was to enhance the Disney magic experience or whatever. Maybe if Walt were still alive. It seems more likely that Disney did the cost/benefit analysis and decided that Netflix subscriptions were not zero sum and that parents would definitely pay for another subscription for Frozen and other shows.
- TrainedMonkey 7y ago
  Disney+ is more than just a revenue stream. It is a sales channel for their brand. If you have Disney+ you are going to watch more Disney content... and if you watch more content you are going to buy more merchandise (0). Modern Disney is a brand company making money from selling merchandise (1). Even more importantly Disney+ is a platform. Most little girls in western countries (3) already dream of being a princess. So if you provide a channel which parents can subscribe to put their kids in front of the TV... that is a tremendous value proposition for both sides. Parents because kids are out of their hair while watching family friendly shows and disney because see my previous point. 0. In my humble opinion. I have not done any research, but having disney+ -> watching more disney -> becoming a fan and buying their stuff makes sense to me. 1. $54.7bn from merchandise in 2019 with next highest revenue source bringing in $24.8bn - https://www.statista.com/topics/1824/disney/ https://www.statista.com/topics/1824/disney/ 3. Like every single 5 yo girl I've met... which is actually not a big number, so maybe not most little girls, but still a pretty sizeable portion.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    Until you can purchase merchandise inside Disney+ it's as much a sales channel as HBO Go is for Game of Thrones.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

I think this whole way of thinking about Netflix is dumb though, e.g. “ Netflix dominating means that shows are sold directly to Netflix.” Netflix is not good at creating content. As time goes forward, Netflix is even less good as they need to cater to mass markets, thereby losing niche markets, and without having a brand or catalog like a Disney, or live sports, or trusted news, etc. Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators.

xkjkls 7y ago
> Netflix is not good at creating content. Why would you say that? These days, many of the most talked about and watched shows are Netflix content. Like for instance, Tiger King is the most talked about show in America right now, Netflix owned and produced. > Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators. This seems to be a five plus year ago view on the company. They've pivoted mostly to making original content at this point, which in my mind is the hardest reason to be long them. They've had to accumulate enormous debt to produce all of this content and have exclusive ownership rights, which makes their balance sheet look terrible.
- eitally 7y ago
  I think a perhaps more accurate way of stating the position is that "Netflix is not good enough at creating enough good content [to make up for 1) existing back catalogs and 2) parallel activity from strong competition]. I don't think anyone could definitively state that Netflix content is subpar when it's at its best, but I also don't think anyone would suggest they'd be willing to give up the big studios and rely exclusively on Netflix original content.
  - Talanes 7y ago
    As things start to fracture more and more, the big studios kind of find themselves in the same position. Disney+ probably has one of the strongest single-publisher back catalogs, and there's still a lot of talk about there being nothing to watch after you finish the few originals and whatever old thing you were interested in.
    - xkjkls 7y ago
      Yeah, Netflix has far more new exclusive content. And by that, I'm counting out all of the currently released movies Disney has also on Disney+, since many saw those in theaters.
      - mark-r 7y ago
        Disney knows better than most how much appeal there is in movies that you've already seen.
  - xkjkls 7y ago
    Content ages. People want new topical content. Even someone who owned the entire criterion collection would still have problems.
- bigphishy 7y ago
  Too true, I hardly hear about trending media, I try to avoid it, but my housemate told me about tiger king yesterday.
tehwebguy 7y ago
I think that may have been true at some point but they aren't really a distribution company, for almost a decade they've been a content publisher with their own distribution.
bsder 7y ago
> Netflix is not good at creating content. Neither is anybody else. It's a random crapshoot. To be fair, though, Netflix seems to be doing a bit better than random. Disney+ has a huge advantage in that they have a significant back catalog that people actually want. Everybody else can basically be ignored. Amazon will blink first to Disney+ and Netflix terms, and Apple will be forced to follow or be irrelevant in video.
- notriddle 7y ago
  > Netflix is not good at creating content. The difference is that the others don't have to be good at creating content. Amazon, Google, and Apple have a bunch of other businesses to prop up their streaming services. And Disney doesn't have to be good at creating new content because they've got so much enviable OLD content. But if NetFlix can't keep people coming back, then the company goes under. NetFlix can't just run their streaming service at a loss until everybody else dies like Amazon, they can't rely in pure brand recognition like Disney, they can't rely on sheer volume like YouTube Premium, and they can't just charge more because they're not Apple.

three_seagrass 7y ago

Yeah, I don't agree with their analysis of Disney+ either. It's as you say, these big corps are trying to claw back revenue that Netflix has been enjoying. I doubt the reason Disney really went into Disney+ was to enhance the Disney magic experience or whatever. Maybe if Walt were still alive. It seems more likely that Disney did the cost/benefit analysis and decided that Netflix subscriptions were not zero sum and that parents would definitely pay for another subscription for Frozen and other shows.

TrainedMonkey 7y ago
Disney+ is more than just a revenue stream. It is a sales channel for their brand. If you have Disney+ you are going to watch more Disney content... and if you watch more content you are going to buy more merchandise (0). Modern Disney is a brand company making money from selling merchandise (1). Even more importantly Disney+ is a platform. Most little girls in western countries (3) already dream of being a princess. So if you provide a channel which parents can subscribe to put their kids in front of the TV... that is a tremendous value proposition for both sides. Parents because kids are out of their hair while watching family friendly shows and disney because see my previous point. 0. In my humble opinion. I have not done any research, but having disney+ -> watching more disney -> becoming a fan and buying their stuff makes sense to me. 1. $54.7bn from merchandise in 2019 with next highest revenue source bringing in $24.8bn - https://www.statista.com/topics/1824/disney/ https://www.statista.com/topics/1824/disney/ 3. Like every single 5 yo girl I've met... which is actually not a big number, so maybe not most little girls, but still a pretty sizeable portion.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  Until you can purchase merchandise inside Disney+ it's as much a sales channel as HBO Go is for Game of Thrones.