Hello Again,
My wife and I were watching a movie on Netflix streaming last night and as usual started talking about the lousy selection offered via streaming. We’ve already watched all the “good” movies. Even classics such as Top Gun, Wall Street, Breakfast Club etc. aren’t offered on streaming. There are a some “A” run movies there, but it is filled by page after page of “b” movies and such. I have to admit that I do like the TV shows section as it allows me to watch a series all the way through. I have made it through the entire run of Wings and now going through the entire run of Scrubs. (Why yes, I have terrible taste in comedy).
The question I have is why in the world aren’t more titles available on streaming. I do understand that the biggest constraint is the studios not allowing certain products to be streamed, but why? Netflix has to pay for the DVD’s so I am assuming that they are paying for the streaming as well. Is the problem the studios have is that for each time a single disc is watched that if it was streaming it could be watched 10,000 times?
I won’t keep guessing b/c I don’t have any idea why the studios oppose streaming. They get paid either way, so what is the problem. To me streaming is the future. Not to mention that it seems a much “greener” (my God, I can’t believe I just said that) way to go. No DVD’s, no paper for mailers and no fuel to deliver. What am I missing here?
Studios, music publishers, etc. are notorious for having their feet firmly planted in the past and sticking their heads in the sand to avoid embracing new technology. Broadcast TV fought cable TV, Hollywood fought Sony’s VCR, the musician’s union fought against mono sound recordings and then again against stereo, RIAA is still fighting music downloaders. Streaming is indeed the future, but the studios will have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Somewhere, in the dark recesses of their minds, they are hanging on to the hope that if they wait long enough, the Internet will just go away.
It’s only because of visionaries like Steve Jobs that we are this far along.
Your assumption is incorrect. Netflix does not get streaming rights as a result of purchasing a copy of a DVD any more than you do when you purchase one. Netflix needs to negotiate for the streaming rights for every movie and television show individually.
I realize that they pay for streaming under a separate negotiation from the DVDs. But what I don’t understand is that the studios are STILL getting paid for the product. Does it really matter if the end user is watching it on DVD or is watching it via streaming? What is the difference? In either case the end user isn’t purchasing the material, only using it. So why do the studios have a stick up their billionaire butts about the delivery system? Seems to me they make money either way, the problem they have is the delivery system.
Oh, and to be clear I have absolutely no problem with the studios making profit, huge/obscene or otherwise. I just don’t get their problem with the delivery method.
Payment amounts. Since no product needs to be produced to stream, the cost should be less. But if the amount offered by Netflix is less than the Studio is used to receiving, we have a problem.
The studios are still getting paid, but maybe not as much.
Well, then all is good for it will change naturally. Once streaming (and it is almost that way now) supersedes DVD usage companies like NetFlix will decrease the orders of physical DVD’s. Less orders, less profits for the studios. They will be forced to embrace streaming.
A big part of the studios’ problem is they think they could make even more money if they cut out the middleman (Netflix) and offer their own streaming service (i.e Crackle (Sony), EPIX On Demand (Paramount)). Never mind that it’s a pain in the butt for the consumer - having to maintain multiple accounts. They seem determined to learn absolutely nothing from the music industry’s troubles a decade ago.
Netflix streaming options are going to be even worse in the future. Studios are moving more towards exclusive deals with different streaming companies. Eventually, Netflix will have movies from studio X only, Blockbuster from studio Y, Amazon Studio Z, etc. In order to get any decent selection you’ll need to subscribe to 4-5 different streaming companies, completely destroying its cost savings vs. cable or renting.
Streaming companies like Netflix are running smack into a wall of existing business practices of the studios and the cable companies.
The studios cycle their product through a series of release ‘venues’ which is (roughly), first run theaters, DVD/BluRay, pay per view on cable, premium ‘Movie’ channels on cable, broadcast/cableTV channels. Each of those has a reason to not want competition from streaming video - so it becomes very difficult for Netflix to get into the series.
I read recently that they offered $300 Million to Starz to renew the streaming contract (which was 10 times the orginal contact that expires next year). Starz wanted Netflix to charge users a premium charge to get Starz products - in otherword, to have Netflix treat customers just like the cable companies do - and extra charge for each premium movie channel. I’m sure the cable companies also liked that approach.
Don’t worry about the cable companies though, if Netflix and others succeed in a new business model for streaming video that is better than cable packages - the cable companies still control ‘our’ end of the internet and will be able to increase their internet service prices to make up for lost cable business :rolleyes:
IANAL, but my understanding is that under the first-sale doctrine, if I buy a videotape, DVD or Blu-ray of a movie, I can then rent out that single copy as many times as I want. So your local video store might buy twenty copies of a movie and rent out each one at a time, while Netflix might buy a thousand copies of a movie and rent out each one at a time. The only revenue the movie studio is entitled to is whatever the video store or Netflix paid to buy the copy or copies of the title. They’re not entitled to ongoing revenues. (Note that Blockbuster Video changed from a model where they bought copies of movies to one in which the copies were provided by the studios for free or at cost, in exchange for a share of the per-rental revenues.)
With streaming, on the other hand, the payment is strictly a matter of negotiation between the studio and Netflix. A few years ago, for instance, Starz gave Netflix streaming rights for a bunch of content for $25 million per year. (They’ve since come to regret that they charged such a low amount.) The studio can charge for each time a movie is streamed, a fixed amount per subscriber or a fixed amount total.
By the way, the other half of the equation is the difference in the delivery costs for DVD-by-mail vs streaming. I’ve heard that it costs Netflix something like $0.84 to send a disc out by mail (presumably not just postage costs but also processing and other costs) but that streaming a title costs only five or ten cents.
So if you’re the sort of Netflix DVD-by-mail subscriber who leaves a movie on top of the TV for weeks before returning it, you’re actually more profitable than the type, like me, who sees a movie upon receipt and then returns it within a week. The latter type can actually be unprofitable to have as a member, and is one reason that Netflix started to “throttle” such customers.
Thinking of Netflix (or any other streaming service) like a video store is missing the point entirely. It’s not like Blockbuster, where you walk in looking for a specific title and walk out with it in hand. Netflix is like a TV channel, in that it offers a finite range of programming which you’re either on board with or you’re not. You pick something from the menu or you eat elsewhere. if you want to re-watch movies you love – that’s what DVDs are for.
And in defense of Netflix, sources say they have more than 20,000 titles available for streaming, and my sense is that the number has been going up. They’ve also added a lot of TV series in the last six months.
Let me humbly suggest that you use Netflix to broaden your movie-watching horizons. There are enough undeniably classic films to watch a different one every night, no matter what genre you like. Use a site like instantwatcher.com to find them.
I’m another quick turnaround guy and I haven’t seen any evidence of “throttling”. I always manage to turn around movies at least once a week and sometimes twice a week if there isn’t a postal holiday.
I’m on the three movies-at-a-time plan and have been for years. A few years ago, I spent one summer seeing six movies a week via that plan. After that, the throttling began. So what I do now is to return the three movies on Saturday so they receive them on Monday and make sure that the newly released movies that week are at the top of my queue. That way, I can see the new movies immediately. If I don’t do that, and then add a relatively new movie to my queue, it sits in Long Wait or Very Long Wait for months. They admit that they ship hard-to-get titles to infrequent users first.
If I put an old movie in my queue, the wait is much less, or not at all.
If you want the new movies, you always have to send them back on Saturday, but I don’t see any throttling, even though I send movies back on Wednesday for twice a week turnaround, but you don’t get the new stuff on Friday.