3 ms·
The sell (though they seem to be avoiding this particular avenue) is that they have become the owners of a LOT of cultural cornerstones and can leverage that co
by joshspankit 4y ago
The sell (though they seem to be avoiding this particular avenue) is that they have become the owners of a LOT of cultural cornerstones and can leverage that content to create something Netflix cannot:
A complete multi-generational back-catalog that is always available to stream.
Netflix’s irrevocable back-catalog can only go as far back as their first Netflix original. Everything else is licensed.
- dangus 4y agoIn a romantic sense the idea that a multi-generational back catalog being a profitable pursuit might feel right, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a marketable product. Netflix hasn’t needed much of a back catalog to out-earn the competition. The truth is that back catalogs have the potential to be basically worthless except for a select few “best of the best” classics. The majority of Disney back catalog content is most certainly not at the level of Snow White or Cinderella. I think about many of their package (anthology) films as a great example of near-unwatchable garbage that only has non-profit historical value. Media companies quite literally let their back catalogs rot (like the neglect and disinvestment that led to the Universal masters fire of 20008).
- joshspankit 4y agoWhile I think your points are valid, I also think that simply making “trusted archive” part of their brand is enough to justify the cost of employees watching through everything and tagging offensive content.