6 ms·

> “This decision is a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and

• forrestthewoods 15y ago
  It's perfectly reasonable if that legitimate and convenient method isn't a sustainable business model. Tragically $10 a month for every movie and TV show ever isn't viable. It is in Starz' interest to focus on acquiring expensive premium cable subscriptions rather than collecting a small portion of the Netflix $10 monthly subscription.
  • nknight 15y ago
    People still have cable?
  • Quarrelsome 15y ago
    Why has it always got to be this direction though? Next time you watch a film try tracking the wastage, the unnecessary cuts, the plethora of extras, the ridiculous quantity of explosions and/or CGI. IMO the future is about more films with lower budgets. At present the amount of money that film studios piss away with their bloated budgets is utterly unsustainable.
    • res0nat0r 15y ago
      Not really. The movies which have racked in the most money of all time all cost 200 million+ to make. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/ http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/ The public loves and wants big budget expensive movies.
      • Joakal 15y ago
        How much of the 200 million+ is marketing? Even some celebrity actors are marketing.
        • res0nat0r 15y ago
          Does that really matter? The total cost being 200 million plus of every flick on that list shows that big huge expensive movies, marketing, actors included, still are super popular.
          • Joakal 15y ago
            It's contributing to the popularity, and there's a belief that hollywood is 90% marketing, 10% fluff. I'm just curious if you knew how much was marketing.
            • rprasad 15y ago
              Reported budgets for movies do not include marketing, as such costs are highly variable. Thus, those $200 million budgets are the budgets for making the movie, with additional outlay for marketing the movie.
  • derleth 15y ago
    > Tragically $10 a month for every movie and TV show ever isn't viable. Why not? Further, can you explain that in terms an avid Netflix customer can understand?
    • res0nat0r 15y ago
      Why do you think 10$ for all you can eat movie watching via Netflix is sustainable, when new releases at the theater cost $7-12 PER movie? Unfortunately the industry set the price this low and now it is expected to be that cheap. Since the price is going to inevitably go up, or Netflix will just lose more content, the public is going to have to deal with the increase, or the people who don't want to pony up will just have to cancel their service.
      • archangel_one 15y ago
        The fact that new releases cost $lots doesn't affect the viability of Netflix's operation, any more than the fact that a new car costs $20,000 affects the viability of selling it secondhand later on for $5,000. Any costs related to property, rent etc are not relevant, and the (much larger) licensing costs of movies are arbitrary figures set by the industry. They could set them pretty much wherever they want for Netflix and still make money since their marginal cost is pretty much zero. And while they may not want to do that, the alternative to customers paying $10/month for Netflix is probably not customers paying $100/month when most people know there are other alternatives.
        • res0nat0r 15y ago
          Netflix had to raise prices eventually, I wonder if they will have to do it again in the future to stay in business. Their licencing fees went from ~200 million in 2010 to ~2 BILLION in 2012. They must raise prices somewhere along the line. $10 a month is a hell of a deal for all you can watch movies. This is the price of 2 trips to McDonalds. They have to charge more somewhere due to their skyrocketing license renegotiation costs the studios are charging. And they can charge this, because there is a demand for their content.
      • 15y ago
  • moe 15y ago
    Tragically $10 a month for every movie and TV show ever isn't viable. Then they'd better make it viable really quick because that seems to be about the price point that the market has decided on. I also don't see why it wouldn't be viable as long as you distribute it to the content that's actually being watched.
    • dhbanes 15y ago
      Lots of people pay $50-$100/month for cable/satellite. I don't.. and I don't understand the value, and you might not either, but a huge amount of the population does.
      • endersshadow 15y ago
        Live events. That's the value of that subscription. It's why ESPN can charge nearly 4x what other channels charge providers. Almost the entirety of my value from television I derive is from watching sports. If I can watch 20 hockey games in a month for the price of actually going to one live, then that's worth it to me. If I can watch my alma mater play some hockey, then that's worth the substitution of buying an expensive plane ticket, getting a hotel, and watching them play (I live about 2000 miles from the good ol' alma mater). I think for this reason, you'll never see that expense go away and TV will remain fairly ubiquitous.
      • snprbob86 15y ago
        It's not really that simple when you account for the "triple play" style packages. People are getting their internet, phone, and TV all together for around $100/month. People don't really understand what portion of their bill goes to each of those services, but they view all three of them as critical (with phone service rapidly becoming provided by cell phones). There is pretty well understood psychological effects of bundle pricing. When you break out just movies, $10/mo might be what people actually want to pay. I suspect the actual right price point for the mass populous is somewhere > $10 and < $50... but Netflix has to live in a world where people already have TV, thanks to aggressive bundle pushing strategies from cable companies. At $10/mo, Netflix is priced the same as Stars & friends: like "channel packs".
      • 15y ago
  • toomuchtodo 15y ago
    They better get used to $10/month vs $0 when consumers go to The Pirate Bay instead.
  • lukifer 15y ago
    A smarter move would be to offer their own streaming service, or even a download store.
    • chrisguitarguy 15y ago
      Agreed. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen. Maybe because the royalties and such get more and more complex with that sort of system? Can anyone shed some light on this?
• brown9-2 15y ago
  It's worth noting here the Starz isn't making these movies - they're paying for to access the content from the creators just like Netflix is. (Starz produces a few tv shows but obviously none of the titles in the title here)