Netflix Gets Into The Original Content Game, Buys Upcoming Show For $100m(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Netflix Gets Into The Original Content Game, Buys Upcoming Show For $100m
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/15/netflix-gets-into-the-original-content-game-buys-upcoming-show-for-100m/
14 comments
It would be brilliant, but it isn't realistic at the moment. I don't think anyone would want to watch Firefly without Mal and Jayne, and those actors are both under contract (to Castle and Chuck, respectively).
I've said before, and I'll say again -- those cast members are crucial to what we think of as Firefly, but in reality, it was Joss Whedon who put it all together.
I can't imagine how great it would be to get the original cast and crew back together to continue work on Firefly, but in reality, anything that Joss Whedon considers good enough is likely good enough for me, whether or not it's a spin-off, new series or what have you.
I can't imagine how great it would be to get the original cast and crew back together to continue work on Firefly, but in reality, anything that Joss Whedon considers good enough is likely good enough for me, whether or not it's a spin-off, new series or what have you.
I assert that Firefly without Fillion or Baldwin would be a travesty of entertainment and not worth the attempt.
I'd buy two subscriptions to Netflix if it carried a new season of Firefly. Now I'm sad that Wash and Book are gone. Crap.
I'd buy two subscriptions to Netflix if it carried a new season of Firefly. Now I'm sad that Wash and Book are gone. Crap.
I respectfully disagree. This isn't to say that I don't fully appreciate the brilliance exhibited by both of those actors (especially seeing how mediocre Baldwin is in almost everything else I've seen) in those roles, but Joss Whedon does two things really well -- write compelling dialog, and make exceptionally good cast choices.
I do consider Firefly to be Whedon's magnum opus, but you can keep the concept without those two actors, or without any of the original cast really, but there's nobody you could cut that wouldn't be sorely missed. The real question is whether or not it's still 'Firefly' or a spinoff. And, my take on that is to accept whatever Joss Whedon says. If he calls it Firefly, so will I.
I do consider Firefly to be Whedon's magnum opus, but you can keep the concept without those two actors, or without any of the original cast really, but there's nobody you could cut that wouldn't be sorely missed. The real question is whether or not it's still 'Firefly' or a spinoff. And, my take on that is to accept whatever Joss Whedon says. If he calls it Firefly, so will I.
That's probably an expansion path being considered. There are plenty of series that have had big cult success after their cancellation. Firefly is one of them but there's also Arrested Development and, more recently, Better Off Ted for example. Letting others take the risk and capitalizing after proven market viability (basically picking up half of what Fox cancels) could be interesting.
Stargate Universe & The Sarah Connor Chronicles come to mind for me. Both went under just as they were hitting their stride IMO.
Yeah, the last few episodes of Sarah Connor Chronicles were really exciting. The last episode is a twister, and you really want to know what happens next in the story.
Disclosure: I never saw Terminator 4, so my knowledge of the series is not complete. I'm told that I'm one of the lucky ones, though. :-)
Disclosure: I never saw Terminator 4, so my knowledge of the series is not complete. I'm told that I'm one of the lucky ones, though. :-)
I guess grad school really is a bubble. I had no idea they canceled SG:U. What's this Sarah Conner Chronicles I'm hearing about?
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851851/)
FYI, it supposedly fell somewhere between the T2 & T3 movies in the timeline. Mostly good episodes with the story picking up (and frankly getting crazier in a good way) by the second season.
It's worth a watch if you can handle knowing you won't get all the answers due to its cancellation.
FYI, it supposedly fell somewhere between the T2 & T3 movies in the timeline. Mostly good episodes with the story picking up (and frankly getting crazier in a good way) by the second season.
It's worth a watch if you can handle knowing you won't get all the answers due to its cancellation.
Clone High!
I canceled my Netflix subscription, but I promise to resubscribe at any feasible commercial price and get another 10 new subscribers as well if we could only restart Firefly (under the condition that it's under the creative control of Whedon)
Now that would get a lot of people's attention! I'd sign up...
While there at it buy Stargate Universe, say what you want about the show but some of the recent eps have been excellent, after the viewers have abandoned it due to some of the first season pacing. Add to that SyFy really losing favor with scifi fans and the move to digital as most of the core audience would be internet savvy.
I agree, Netflix should just buy SyFy from NBC and revamp it. But where would they show movies akin to Sharktopus?
Original content is a natural evolution for Netflix. Look at most of the pay-tv channels (HBO, Showtime, now Starz). All of them started as just ways to monetize existing content but realized that original content could make them more money and boost subscribes while reducing churn.
This is why Chris Albrecht (the new CEO at Starz) is pushing for original content. They've tried a couple shows so far (Spartacus, now a show about Camelot) and continue to be moving ever increasingly in that direction.
To those of you who are complaining about it only being one show or that it is going to be too narrow of an audience, sure. But to me this is Netflix just dipping their toes in the original content game.
This is why Chris Albrecht (the new CEO at Starz) is pushing for original content. They've tried a couple shows so far (Spartacus, now a show about Camelot) and continue to be moving ever increasingly in that direction.
To those of you who are complaining about it only being one show or that it is going to be too narrow of an audience, sure. But to me this is Netflix just dipping their toes in the original content game.
They're gonna need a lot more than one show if they're going to try to use original programming as a reason to buy Netflix - 13 episodes a year means weekly for 3 months. They're going to need at least 3 shows to do yearly coverage (they can have breaks in between). If the original programming is the reason you buy Netflix, you won't pay year-round if they don't have year-round programming, you'll just binge on TV six months of the year and cancel for the other six months (and if it's not the reason you're paying for Netflix (and/or upgrading to the next tier or whatever), then it's a waste of their money).
I think two things will help them. The first is that they have no competition in their timeslot, because they'll have no timeslot. The second thing which will help them is that they can break a lot of TV rules in ways even HBO can't - they're less restricted in episode structure or length, for instance.
I think two things will help them. The first is that they have no competition in their timeslot, because they'll have no timeslot. The second thing which will help them is that they can break a lot of TV rules in ways even HBO can't - they're less restricted in episode structure or length, for instance.
First of all, people don't often cancel once they are getting something. That's why those CD-of-the-month club things worked in the 90s, and book-of-the-month before them.
But I'm not even sure that's important. I don't think the goal here is to directly make money on new subscriptions. This is a massive strategic move.
It sends a signal to content providers that Netflix, if need be, can cut them out of the picture, or at least can make things very expensive for them by bidding up the price of content.
But I'm not even sure that's important. I don't think the goal here is to directly make money on new subscriptions. This is a massive strategic move.
It sends a signal to content providers that Netflix, if need be, can cut them out of the picture, or at least can make things very expensive for them by bidding up the price of content.
I think it's more of a message to Amazon that just streaming a few thousand movies won't be enough to steal the market from them. Amazon is great at breaking into new areas, but I think they would have to think twice about moving into television production, given that it's so far outside their sphere.
That's what "they" said about Netflix.
I think "so far outside their sphere" was poor word choice on my part. What I was trying to say was that, for Netflix whose sole business is delivering movies and tv shows to consumers, moving into TV production is not a stretch. For a company like amazon, who already does so many disparate things, to now add something so monolithic as TV production might stretch them in uncomfortable ways. I'm an enormous Amazon fan so I don't put anything past them, but this is kind of a double-dog dare on Netflix's part, in my opinion.
There is an alternative interpretation of this play, which is that it is primarily a chess move. Demonstrating that they have the capacity to route around the content providers if necessary means that the content provider's negotiation position is thereby weakened. It may be the case that if they even so much as put out a credible series this will easily be worth $100 million to Netflix just in reduced content-provider-negotiation-position. Of course, the content providers will see that as well and react in their own ways (as always), but it's an interesting play.
I just don't see that working. It's a classic British show dominated by one impressive and charismatic actor and just won't translate to american audiences (it's all talking, no action, everything is implied rather than pushed in your face). "Edge of Darkness" which was a huge Mel Gibson bomb seems like the closest analog.
I highly recommend the original BBC show.
I highly recommend the original BBC show.
By the same token, there's NO WAY a movie about nerds taking depositions for two hours would EVER go anywhere. Ever.
("Humm," says the studio, "is it shot in 3D?" "No, it's shot in brown.")
("Humm," says the studio, "is it shot in 3D?" "No, it's shot in brown.")
As a matter of fact, I thought of that movie as I was writing the comment. I could have added "however The Social Network might be the exception that proves the rule."
For what it's worth, they're both by David Fincher. I have to admit, I'd also be pretty skeptical if if were anyone else.
And you're right about the original. It is SO insanely good.
And you're right about the original. It is SO insanely good.
Can someone explain to me how netflix is in a good position when all major broadband providers are looking at throttling and/or caps?
When all the major ISPs are also selling their own video content, how can Netflix continue to compete?
When all the major ISPs are also selling their own video content, how can Netflix continue to compete?
Throttling (to the point that it degrades the quality of online video) or caps will mostly work against ISPs. Sure, netflix uses a lot of bandwidth, bo so does youtube, hulu, TechCrunch TV or Khan Academy. The online video is here and will only grow, so ISPs will have to get on with the program or face backlash from their users.
If ISPs target netflix specifically, there will be PR disaster for them, possible anti-trust investigation from the government and a likely lawsuit.
ISPs are not even a blip on the radar when it comes to selling video content so today Netflix has a clear value proposition: it's a cheap (about 10x cheaper than cable) access to a lot of online video. Netflix's strength is that it's content producer-agnostic. ISPs that are also cable providers can at best offer ability to view via internet their cable programming. Except they're not doing it, it would still be 10x more expensive, they cannot offer anything else that is not part of the cable subscription and probably they can't even offer time-shifting (without re-negotiating contracts with content providers).
If ISPs target netflix specifically, there will be PR disaster for them, possible anti-trust investigation from the government and a likely lawsuit.
ISPs are not even a blip on the radar when it comes to selling video content so today Netflix has a clear value proposition: it's a cheap (about 10x cheaper than cable) access to a lot of online video. Netflix's strength is that it's content producer-agnostic. ISPs that are also cable providers can at best offer ability to view via internet their cable programming. Except they're not doing it, it would still be 10x more expensive, they cannot offer anything else that is not part of the cable subscription and probably they can't even offer time-shifting (without re-negotiating contracts with content providers).
Will it really work against the ISPs? I have three choices in my area: 768kbps - 1mbps adsl through Verizon, 15mbps (nominally, typically 3mbps during peak hours) cable through Cablevision, or 3-6mbps high latency Clear 4G.
Not sure how the third option would hold up for streaming netflix - the first definitely would not.
So really, I don't have any choice about it, so I have no leverage. So capping it won't work against my ISP until they cap it below the other options.
Not sure how the third option would hold up for streaming netflix - the first definitely would not.
So really, I don't have any choice about it, so I have no leverage. So capping it won't work against my ISP until they cap it below the other options.
Depending on the area Clearwire works fine for streaming Netflix. I've used it to stream Netflix in NYC, Tampa and Seattle without issue.
They'd have some clout when negotiating with ISPs if they have content the ISP's customers want.
Like Cablevision & Scripps http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/scripps-cablevision-deal-r...
Or ABC http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-oscars-tonight-for-new-yor...
Like Cablevision & Scripps http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/scripps-cablevision-deal-r...
Or ABC http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-oscars-tonight-for-new-yor...
I wonder if doing it this way will be cheaper for them in the long run than trying to buy the digital rights later from the content cabals.
Actually, Netflix produced and distributed original content on a limited scale several years ago, through their Red Envelope Entertainment division. Then they shut it down "to avoid competing with their studio partners". :)
This is a really interesting move given that Netflix has traditionally tried to push people towards lesser known content. In fact, they don't make that much money on people using Netflix for blockbusters but are much better off with the recommendations. It's a bit odd that they would go for a big name celebrity for their first owned series. This may just be a way to get a foot in the door, and then buy lesser known series for a lot less and push new content in a way we've never seen before.
This is not a part of their core competency. I don't see how this is a good move. If they had bought 10-20 shows, that's a different story...
I don't get it- you are right, this isn't part of their core competency. And, that's why they were smart to only buy one show, with two big names attached to it. They are reducing their risk and seeing if they can play in the content game. If yes, they will likely buy a few more shows and grow that competency.
Actually they are not reducing their risk by keeping the number of shows low. Here is why:
Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils.
Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either.
I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of folks to subscribe. But for myself, I would put it near 12 or so.
If Netflix wanted to reduce their risk, they should have targeted niches that are not so expensive. Mainstream entertainment is not a good idea to start with. Something like History channel or World Travel is.
But going with low risk niches, would not generate so much publicity for them. Would not make the studios and cable companies take notice. Netflix is in a fight with them - and so this is a strategic move to get noticed. Not a risk reduction move.
Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils.
Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either.
I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of folks to subscribe. But for myself, I would put it near 12 or so.
If Netflix wanted to reduce their risk, they should have targeted niches that are not so expensive. Mainstream entertainment is not a good idea to start with. Something like History channel or World Travel is.
But going with low risk niches, would not generate so much publicity for them. Would not make the studios and cable companies take notice. Netflix is in a fight with them - and so this is a strategic move to get noticed. Not a risk reduction move.
Get firefly back together and you will have a lot of new subscribers.
Netflix is not trying to grow their subscription base.
The "risk" to which he was referring to is the risk of the show failing completely by some metric (e.g. no one currently subscribed to netflix is watching it), and all that money being effectively flushed down the drain.
It's the risk of going overbudget. Or the risk of actors and directors having a falling out.
There's dozens of factors that go into making a show successful and this test is to see how Netflix as a company can handle them--either directly or by proxy. If this test is reasonably successful then maybe in the future, they will make a play to have original content garner them more subscribers as a competitor/partner to say HBO or Showtime.
The "risk" to which he was referring to is the risk of the show failing completely by some metric (e.g. no one currently subscribed to netflix is watching it), and all that money being effectively flushed down the drain.
It's the risk of going overbudget. Or the risk of actors and directors having a falling out.
There's dozens of factors that go into making a show successful and this test is to see how Netflix as a company can handle them--either directly or by proxy. If this test is reasonably successful then maybe in the future, they will make a play to have original content garner them more subscribers as a competitor/partner to say HBO or Showtime.
Thanks for making some good points.
You've listed down 3 risks.
- Risk of no one watching.
- Risk of going over budget.
- Risk of actors or directors having a fall out. (Or something else occurring that makes episodes not coming out on time if at all.)
And you make a good point that thats why Netflix is trying with 1 show and not 10.
But aren't all these risks you listed further minimized by experimenting with a $10 million show than a $100 million show?
My thinking is: Netflix does not care about risk at all. If they wanted to minimize risk, they would have gone with lower priced shows. Or they would have gone with a lot more shows. The only reason they have gone after a high priced mainstream show is as a negotiation tactic. To make a stand against studios and cable companies. "Play ball with us. Because if we can't play together, we will compete together."
You've listed down 3 risks.
- Risk of no one watching.
- Risk of going over budget.
- Risk of actors or directors having a fall out. (Or something else occurring that makes episodes not coming out on time if at all.)
And you make a good point that thats why Netflix is trying with 1 show and not 10.
But aren't all these risks you listed further minimized by experimenting with a $10 million show than a $100 million show?
My thinking is: Netflix does not care about risk at all. If they wanted to minimize risk, they would have gone with lower priced shows. Or they would have gone with a lot more shows. The only reason they have gone after a high priced mainstream show is as a negotiation tactic. To make a stand against studios and cable companies. "Play ball with us. Because if we can't play together, we will compete together."
I think Netflix isn't trying to minimize the risk, but rather "test the waters" as it were to see what level of risk exists.
It's more of an experiment than a business strategy.
It's more of an experiment than a business strategy.
When did streaming become part of Netflix's core competency?
Outright rejecting ideas because they're not part of your core competency is a growth-limiting position to take. Core competencies can get commoditized over time. If you don't skate to the next thing, you wither and die.
It's just moving them a step closer toward a more vertically integrated business structure. Why start with 20, when you could test the waters with 1?
Is netflix going to start having premium, extra-charge selections?
I won't mind as long as there is no tricking you to select stuff that costs more vs the all-you-can-eat stuff.
I won't mind as long as there is no tricking you to select stuff that costs more vs the all-you-can-eat stuff.
This makes sense.
I remember a few years ago Mark Cuban had posted his idea for the 'new' content delivery model -- where he was going to produce original content and own the entire delivery chain from filming to DVD to rentals to theater distribution. His idea was that, in the age of 70+ inch televisions and the advent of the home theater system, many people don't get much bang for the buck in going to crowded, noisy theaters when they get an equal or better experience at home.
In support of that, he was going to film movies that one could, for example, watch at home (for an increased rental fee) on the same day it was being released in theaters.
I was just talking with my wife the other day that this idea has apparently fizzled out, as I haven't heard much about it since then, and that's a damn shame. Hopefully this gets us closer to that objective.
I remember a few years ago Mark Cuban had posted his idea for the 'new' content delivery model -- where he was going to produce original content and own the entire delivery chain from filming to DVD to rentals to theater distribution. His idea was that, in the age of 70+ inch televisions and the advent of the home theater system, many people don't get much bang for the buck in going to crowded, noisy theaters when they get an equal or better experience at home.
In support of that, he was going to film movies that one could, for example, watch at home (for an increased rental fee) on the same day it was being released in theaters.
I was just talking with my wife the other day that this idea has apparently fizzled out, as I haven't heard much about it since then, and that's a damn shame. Hopefully this gets us closer to that objective.
This has the potential to make relations with other content producers a bit stickier, and I'm not sure if that's really good considering that the media industry is terrified of the internet anyway. Netflix has built its business as a supplier -- now they're competing with their vendors.
BUY FIREFLY AND MAKE NEW EPISODES.
I would gladly play an extra $4 a month (or more) on top of streaming just for access to new weekly/biweekly episodes of that.