Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
There will come a point at which Netflix will be able to scale down on the number of new commissions it makes because they will have such a quantity of good stuff in their library, it would take years for anyone to watch all the programmes that appealed to them. This would reduce the current levels of expenditure needed, and all the time, as Netflix extends worldwide, it will be picking up new subscriptions.
|
This will never happen. It can never happen. It is Netflix’s core strategy to be a commissioner of original content. This is the case because it realised long ago that simply being a video library would never appeal to enough people to keep them subscribing. They can no more stop commissioning original content than the BBC can - and significantly reducing commissioning would be tantamount to the same thing.
Quote:
|
There are two other things I would do about the content. First, I would make some of the older stuff available to other providers to generate a further income stream.
|
If reduced original commissions risks losing them long term subscribers, then farming out their older material to other distributors risks their ability to attract new ones. Nobody gets Netflix to watch the entire back catalogue - there’s too broad a range of material to be of interest to any one person (which is entirely how it’s meant to be). But if you let people watch your older material without subscribing to Netflix, why would they then subscribe to Netflix?
Unlike the BBC and ITV, which are designed around mostly one-time broadcast of original content, Netflix’s lack of a linear schedule means the only way it can flesh out its offering is by always having its entire catalogue available at all times.
Quote:
|
Secondly, I would enable all customers to be able to see a huge range of additional content belonging to third parties on a PPV basis. Accordingly, Netflix could be a one-stop shop for any programme that subscribers wanted to watch. There could be additional subscription tiers enabling viewers to watch a limited number of those PPV shows in a month as an alternative for paying extra for each view.
|
Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video already do exactly this. Other similar platforms specialise in only offering PPV content. It’s a crowded market and entering it would muddy Netflix’s brand positioning. At present it is very clear what you get with Netflix. I doubt they could make enough extra money to justify the upheaval.
Quote:
|
I think Netflix has a big advantage over most other forms of viewing, not only because of the amount of original content, but also because it is free of advertising. However, I do think that Netflix should think about making lower packages available with perhaps more limited choices but with advertising included. Under no circumstances should they introduce advertising slots to their top subscription packages, and the CEO is on record as having agreed with that principle. However, if they wanted to introduce sponsors for their titles, I would not object to that - it would be a nice little earner without disrupting the viewer’s evening.
|
I think it quite likely that the existing tiers will increase in cost to a certain point, and then a cheaper, ad-supported tier will come in at the base.
Quote:
|
Another source of useful income could be established by setting up a music option. They could have a ‘live’ channel with continuous music videos, they could have videos of concerts and of the artists themselves.
|
Which would be a linear channel. Hallelujah, the sinner repents
Quote:
|
They could introduce an app, very much like Amazon Music or YouTube Music, that you could play on any suitable device and in your car. I think there is plenty of room to expand beyond what we know and love Netflix for at the moment. Perhaps Netflix could have their own set top boxes as well.
|
As above, a crowded market already well served by Apple and Amazon and, most notably in this sector, Spotify. Breaking in to that would require a lot of effort and investment Netflix can ill-afford right now.
Quote:
|
I was disappointed by your cheap reference to the 2025 date when ever since that disputed post, since 2015, in fact, I have been consistently stating that I believe that by 2035 the existing broadcast channels will have been superseded by IPTV. I said that over 5 years ago now, and I am still saying that today.
|
You are literally the only person regularly contributing to this thread that thinks this is what you originally said. That’s why Harry repeated it, it’s why I repeat it from time to time, and it’s why it’s never going away.
Quote:
I believe that our conventional method of transmitter broadcasts will make way for 5G+ and that the abolition of the licence fee for a subscription-based model will ensure that the BBC moves to IPTV not long after the next 10-year review of the licence fee. The commercial channels will all go the same way as viewer loyalty gradually transfers to the streamers and become too expensive to operate with diminishing advertising revenue. I am well aware that others have different views, but that is mine.
Feel free to disagree - this is a discussion group, after all!
|
If forced to operate on commercial terms the BBC would simply sell off its uneconomic divisions and then support itself with advertising. There’s no reason for it to go behind a paywall. ITV doesn’t; nor does Channel 4 or Five. It is doubtful that a law could be successfully drafted and passed that could compel the BBC to do so either. As a private company it would be free to choose how to cover the costs of its services.