Sorkin's new movie (chicago 7) is only on netflix because of COVID. It was scheduled for theaters, but netflix picked it up in September.
(sorry I don't have a hyperlink for the article I read earlier this week) On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > I still like Netflix. It'll be one of the last TV services I cancelled if > forced to make a choice. I enjoyed the new Aaron Sorkin movie last week, > and this week watched the new version of Rebecca (lavish, but ho-hum - and > I'm a massive fan of the director). It's a no-brainer if they keep churning > out at this rate. > > But there was an interesting piece in Quartz this week about their > reliance on library titles that they don't own. Those Friends, The Office > and Parks & Rec re-runs are (or were) very popular. And they've not yet > managed their own 100 episode+ bingeable comfort food like that. And if > they keep cancelling stuff quickly, they never will. > > https://qz.com/1918007/netflixs-original-shows-are-rarely-its-most-popular/ > > Incidentally, what I really don't like about Netflix is their corporate > culture. Really quite savage. I recommend a recent podcast series by Peter > Kafka and Rani Molla - Land of the Giants. The first episode gets into that > culture: https://www.vox.com/land-of-the-giants-podcast > > > Adam > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 4:55 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don’t know if Netflix’s model will work, but I admire what they have >> been doing. They determined very early on, when they we’re still mostly >> mailing out DVDs, that the future of their business was streaming. >> >> And they knew back then that eventually they would be going up against >> companies with MUCH deeper pockets than theirs. They also knew that soon >> enough the big content companies were going to stop making it so easy for >> Netflix by letting them pass on their product. So they decided to invest >> heavily in developing content, hoping that their commitment to spending, >> market share and name recognition would allow them to beat the big boys in >> the coming wars. >> >> A decade or so later, those wars are here, and the fact that Netflix is >> still holding its own is impressive. Maybe they can’t spend their way to >> victory, but almost certainly if they stop spending, they lose. >> >> Total Assets of Netflix and some competitors (per the Wiki report on each >> company page): >> Netflix: $34B >> Warner Media (HBO): $69B >> Disney: $193B >> Amazon: $225B >> Comcast: $263B >> >> I think Netflix’s strategy basically is to make it so expensive for most >> of the Big Boys to play the streaming game that they decide it’s not worth >> it to lose money in a non-core part of their business. If that is even part >> right, after an initial pandemic pause I would expect them to jump right >> back in to contributing their share and more of Peak TV. >> >> I have been rooting for them from the beginning, and I still am. >> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 6:11 PM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 1:41 AM Doug Eastick <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ok.... so I understand now that Peak TV means quantity.... or a large >>>> pile with a peak -- ok, got it. I've been wondering about this crazy >>>> volume of productions for a few years now (basically once the streamers >>>> like Netflix started winning Emmys). The crazy volume of shows, I don't >>>> think, can be sustained from an economical basis. Sure all these >>>> streaming studios/channels will disrupt the TV economy/landscape, but is >>>> this not like the DotCom boom? So much money out there based on vacuous or >>>> hopeful eyeballs and unproven models. >>>> >>> >>> I think it's widely thought that there *is* also a new golden age of TV, >>> because there are definitely a lot of high quality series out there. You >>> still have to hunt though. Netflix may have hit it out of the park with >>> House of Cards and Orange Is The New Black when it started. But now we get >>> Emily in Paris... but also The Crown. >>> >>> I'm certain that the model isn't economical any more. In the old days, >>> there were massive syndication revenues to be achieved (and for some >>> perhaps there still are), but now you have Netflix spending more than they >>> earn, and attempting to make TV shows not just for the US, but the world. >>> The UK is now their number three production base, but Netflix is making TV >>> in pretty much every European country, as well as places like India, >>> Australia and dozens of other places. And they're making movies - they want >>> to win Oscars. And they're making reality TV. And then there's the vast >>> volume of kids stuff that I suspect few of us here are watching. >>> >>> They need to sign up a hell of lot of people to make their business >>> model work. >>> >>> Meanwhile Amazon and Apple can essentially subsidise their TV services >>> while they play their game (Amazon can amortise their spend against other >>> Amazon revenues, but I reckon Apple will be out of TV production in a few >>> years' time). But the spending is just a rounding error on their >>> spreadsheets. >>> >>> If you're HBO Max or Peacock, you have to build an offering that's equal >>> to that of Netflix. Viewers expect it. >>> >>> It's all got to be unsustainable. And where it leaves traditional >>> networks I have no idea. >>> >>> >>> I would really LOVE to see some of the inside metrics of Netflix and >>>> their "renewal" decisions (prior to Covid-19). >>>> >>> >>> From what I've read, there's a whole bunch of stuff. They're looking at >>> 28 day views from launch, as well as overall views. But they also really >>> need stuff that brings in new viewers. So if a show has settled down with a >>> viewership base after a couple of seasons, and isn't still growing, or >>> bringing in new viewers, then it's more likely to be cancelled. >>> >>> There's also the production model and the costs. In traditional TV, the >>> production company can do things with the show after it's been on network >>> TV. They can put it in syndication, sell it globally, licence it to >>> streaming services or whatever. That's where the profit for the studio who >>> makes it comes from. But Netflix doesn't really do most of those things. So >>> they have to overpay on production costs for their originals because they >>> want *all* the rights upfront. So the only revenues the producing studios >>> can get are the fees from Netflix. So these tend to be stepped upwards - >>> the show gets more expensive the longer it's on air. While that's often >>> true for network TV too - casts of hit shows getting massive pay bumps - >>> there's those down the road deals to mitigate the increases. For Netflix, >>> they just see costs increasing season or season. >>> >>> There does seem to be a lot of "cancelled after two seasons" on Netflix, >>> and these are some of the reasons. The downside for viewers is shows that >>> don't wrap up properly or get left on unresolved cliffhangers. Will viewers >>> start to get fed up with Netflix if they continue that? Maybe in due course. >>> >>> Now you can factor in the Covid costs too. >>> >>> Personally I can't see the Netflix model ever making enormous sense. The >>> scale they have to work at to entertain the world is too much. While >>> Americans might watch the odd British show and certainly vice versa, the >>> same isn't always true of, say French viewers or Indian viewers. They'll >>> watch a bit, but they like things in their own language featuring their own >>> cultures. So Netflix has to make local language stuff in pretty much every >>> territory they operate in. Netflix *has* done a decent job with this to an >>> extent - the Spanish series Money Heist is truly popular globally for >>> example - but that's an exception. Netflix needs those global viewers to >>> all be spending their $5-15 a month to make the numbers add up. >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGANOXEtdvJm%2BSAqpqxaA-t67zcVAr39d4_YFC-PTqQDRg%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGANOXEtdvJm%2BSAqpqxaA-t67zcVAr39d4_YFC-PTqQDRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B0yj4vm6XF1HR22S8OTm8khRMGJUQ_Un5ZdpnHYdgvTA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B0yj4vm6XF1HR22S8OTm8khRMGJUQ_Un5ZdpnHYdgvTA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGAWLiGQAdhN%2BadNWGMrtL%3DTarDWx90%2BJ94sbLkpqmmk5g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGAWLiGQAdhN%2BadNWGMrtL%3DTarDWx90%2BJ94sbLkpqmmk5g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Doug Eastick <[email protected]> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAK5Q1BpCTTp%2BvjE9n8fr_OVFs%2BFZfbpiC%2BJt8LHcaRR0fC__Ew%40mail.gmail.com.
