3 ms·

Netflix was unlikely to ever be able to forever remain an aggregator of content from other distribution shops. They would've gotten squeezed to death from all s

Netflix was unlikely to ever be able to forever remain an aggregator of content from other distribution shops. They would've gotten squeezed to death from all sides. So now they have tons of content and tons of viewership (and tons of profits the last several years) but they've changed from being "the biggest streaming hub for all your favorites" to "one of many producers and distributors." They might on the whole have more good stuff you'd like - but they have a lot less mindshare for that stuff than when it was stuff that had already done theater and TV rounds. (What's really interesting to me is that the music industry evolved differently, with almost no exclusives, so you have many competing streaming services (but all that seem to be VERY squeezed profit-wise) all with the same content. My best guess is it's because people want to be able to flow music together in custom playlists, spanning a bunch of artists, vs binging a single series or such?)

shafoshaf 3y ago
THe low cost of a single song vs. an entire episode I suspect also plays a factor. A lot of artists are one or two song wonders, so once you take out a Taylor Swift, there's no incentive for artists to limit their songs to a single platform, no platform will pay enough for the exclusivity to make the artist think it is worth it.
jedberg 3y ago
The music industry set up a way for anyone who wanted their content to get it without their permission, as long as they paid for it, and they did that back in the 50s when radio was their main method of distribution. It was too hard to make deals with every radio station, especially since they were mostly independent. So the music streamers were able to leverage that and extend the deal. If movies had a similar licensing model, you'd see a ton of "Netflix"'s who were all licensing the same content and competing on user experience. Like the music streamers. Although it should be noted that the music streamers are now moving towards the exclusivity model, where the big ones are making exclusive deals to keep that music off of any other platform.

shafoshaf 3y ago

THe low cost of a single song vs. an entire episode I suspect also plays a factor. A lot of artists are one or two song wonders, so once you take out a Taylor Swift, there's no incentive for artists to limit their songs to a single platform, no platform will pay enough for the exclusivity to make the artist think it is worth it.

jedberg 3y ago

The music industry set up a way for anyone who wanted their content to get it without their permission, as long as they paid for it, and they did that back in the 50s when radio was their main method of distribution. It was too hard to make deals with every radio station, especially since they were mostly independent. So the music streamers were able to leverage that and extend the deal. If movies had a similar licensing model, you'd see a ton of "Netflix"'s who were all licensing the same content and competing on user experience. Like the music streamers. Although it should be noted that the music streamers are now moving towards the exclusivity model, where the big ones are making exclusive deals to keep that music off of any other platform.