Netflix last week was the object of envy and fear. The firm that’s evolving from DVD-by-mail provider to Web video subscription service showed in latest quarterly earnings that it’s growing at an astonishing rate. By charging as little as $7.99 a month, Netflix signed up 3.6 million new subscribers in the first three months of 2011, giving it a total of 23.6 million. That’s a 69% increase in just one year and puts Netflix ahead of Comcast and Sirius XM. Still, media executives don’t know what to make of the company. Is it friend or foe? Is it just another customer for studio-produced movies and TV shows looking to complement existing broadcast and pay TV providers? Or is Netflix poised to become a competitor to existing channels –- and even a formidable new gatekeeper for Internet entertainment?
The most realistic fear is that Netflix will amass enough subscribers so it can dictate prices to studios that want to transmit their entertainment over the Web to PCs, smartphones, and tablet computers — as well as living room TV sets. If Netflix keeps its subscription price low, then it also may devalue all entertainment: A $4 charge for a VOD movie would look out of whack when you can watch an entire month of interesting shows for just twice that amount. But some industry forecasters say Netflix could do far more damage to existing business models if it drives a consumer stampede away from pay TV. The system would collapse if masses of TV viewers decide they’re fed up paying for hundreds of channels that they don’t watch, and cut payments to companies such as Comcast and DirecTV in favor of Netflix and free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
These are some of the considerations executives are weighing as Netflix takes its checkbook to Hollywood. Its spending for streamed content was up 534% last year to $406 million and is likely to keep growing this year. The company needs attractive programming so it can continue to reel in customers as DVDs start to become passé. But it’s unclear where Netflix fits in to the programming mix. Premium channels led by HBO, Starz, Epix, and Showtime have subscription broadcast rights for most hit theatrical films; the deals typically prevent studios from licensing the films to anyone else for at least a year. Netflix has persuaded most premium channels to provide it with online streaming rights to at least some of the movies and shows they’ve rented. Netflix has separate arrangements with studios and networks, mostly for re-runs of their TV shows. Arrangements have run the gamut to include all episodes of oldies such as Cheers and Family Ties, to previous seasons of current shows including Desperate Housewives, The Suite Life of Zach & Cody, 30 Rock, The Office, and Law & Order: SVU.
Meanwhile CEO Reed Hastings is saying all the right things to try and calm studios’ fears: He says he doesn’t expect Netflix to lead to cable cord cutting. He also says that his company will face formidable competition: Netflix’s rivals include Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, and Blockbuster (now owned by Dish Network), and may soon include Apple, Google’s YouTube, and Walmart. Cable and satellite companies also are working on TV Everywhere offerings, free services that let their subscribers watch the same shows on Web devices that they can see on their home TVs.
But Netflix’s recent actions are starting to make some programmers nervous. The company looked like a rival to premium cable channels last month when Netflix agreed to pay an estimated $3 million an episode for the first-run rights to House Of Cards, an original hour-long drama that will star Kevin Spacey and run for at least 26 episodes beginning in late 2012. Hastings says it’s mostly a test, although he’s looking to add a few more originals to the mix. Showtime now refuses to provide its original series including Californication and Dexter to Netflix. Starz has started to hold originals such as Camelot for 90 days before turning them over for online streaming.
Whether friend or foe, Netflix can’t be ignored. It’s the only Web subscription service that’s available on virtually every major Internet-enabled TV set, game console, Blu-ray player, and connection device (including TiVo DVRs, Apple TV, Google TV, and Roku). It’s also on iPhones, iPads, and Windows Phone 7 mobile devices. Hastings says that “it’s a big priority” to get his service on Android-powered phones and tablets. Meanwhile, Wall Street’s betting that Netflix will upend entertainment. Its stock price, which closed Wednesday at $235.96, is up about 120% over the last 12 months and equals to about 80 times the company’s earnings –- which makes it far more expensive than shares of other media companies including Comcast (about 20 times earnings), Disney (19 times), and Viacom (29 times).


Are you really joining the chorus, proclaiming that Netflix is the ultimate winner and game changer; the most important company in the media universe today?
Despite arguments to the contrary, could it be that Netflix may be the shiny disc…an interim solution but ultimately made obsolete.
Netflix has no proprietary pipe into the home. Comcast owns the pipe. The last mile. XM (or Sirius or whatever) owns the first mile and the receiver. Netflix has no first mile control. Nor does it control the receiver or exhibition device.
Netflix rides on the back of Comcast or Time Warner or AT&T or Sprint or any other delivery system on the planet. Netflix rides on the back of other’s proprietary networks like Microsft’s and Sony’s.
What it has is ubiquity…or, more accurately, it has the possibility of ubiquity. And there’s the rub.
There is no longer any barrier to entry for anyone to compete with Netflix. If it proclaims Net Neutrality as a critical element of its success and future, then it has to support Net Neutrality for all. Another barrier removed. As it reduces its reliance on the USPS or other hard delivery systems for discs, it also opens the door to significant competition. Barriers falling all over the place.
Can the new DISH/Blockbuster make a run at them? Maybe. Will HBO get its act together and step up? Could be. But what about Warner Bros or Sony or Paramount of Viacom or the content side of Comcast or the rest of Time Warner or any other major creator, distributor of Intellectual Property?
Over time, do they really need Netflix?
Here’s the likely studio point of view: let’s allow Netflix to invest in demand creation and audience awareness and technology solutions and all those pesky expensive things that come with establishing new platforms and consumer behaviors…and then say thank you very much and take back control of our products.
Exclusivity is not on the table. Which returns us to ubiquity. But, if ubiquity is the requirement for Netflix’ success, isn’t it at risk of creating itself right out of business? Sound like Tivo? DVR anyone?
As long as I don’t have to pay late-fees, bro… I don’t care.
There’s a lot of error in your logic, chiefly: “ubiquity is the requirement for Netflix’s success.”
It’s not. Or you don’t understand what ubiquity means.
Solid common sense.
The content providers are obviously letting Netflix blaze the trail here.
Netflix doesn’t even own it’s software.
It off the shelf Microsoft Silverlight.
In the very near future every studio will be offering their own Netflix type channels.
We will all have to pay $8 times 5 or 6 or 7 to get the content Netflix is streaming now.
I love Netflix. Have had it for many many years now. Go Netflix! Really looking forward to seeing what kind of innovations you guys come up with over the next few years. They are the Apple of content distribution, lol…..
The key is right there: Netflix is an attack on the price point. Starving one company like Netflix (or Hulu or Apple TV, etc…) of content will not make people forget that the price point’s been breached (plus, it will just push those companies to create their own content on a platform with deep penetration.
This is exactly what happened to music. It’s not that the product (film, tv) doesn’t have value in the new world. It’s just that the value is not high enough to support the top-heavy media industry. This is a fight for white-collar jobs, pure and simple.
One things for sure. The DirecTV, Comcasts and HBOs of the world need to stop with the “view it here first” stuff. If I waited 5 months after it was in a theater I’ll gladly wait another 30-60 days for it to be on Netflix or Redbox. Very few movies these days are appointment viewing.
And it’s not rocket science. Millions of people bought the new Apple TV and just about all of them ordered Netflix. It’s easy. Cheap and it works. I mean really. $7.99 for a month of tv shows and movies or $8 for the matinee of Your Highness?
I’d gladly go to more first run movies at the theater if it didn’t cost so much. A movie ticket, drink and a snack is like $20.00 if not more in some cities. Complete rip-off. You can count on one hand the number or movies over the last decade that were worth $20 to see at a theater.
Spot on. Well written. Moral of story: “Nothing lasts forever”. Business models for nearly every business are going thru change. Content owners are no exception. Waiting in hopes it will “solve itself” is a fools errand.
able providers force consumers to pay for a plethora of channels they have no interest in and for the first time, consumers finally have an alternative. As my friends have moved out and into their own apartments, cable is always one of the options they choose to live without and why not? It’s a heavy expense when we can get by on the content legally provided online by services like Netflix, Hulu and ESPN3.
It will be a very slow transition, but I personally think that this is the direction the business is heading, and cable’s best chance of avoiding extinction is to explore offering channels à la carte.
It’s funny that you post this as my family is in the process of getting netflix and dropping directv. Directv costs us 80 bucks a month and we watch only about 10 hours a week (2 dollars for every hour of programming that we watch). I really believe that a la carte is the solution. Charge 1-2 bucks per channel (I’d need USA, ESPN, locals, and from pay cable, HBO) or 10-12 bucks for tiers by company (NBCU, Disney/ABC).
“The system would collapse if masses of TV viewers decide they’re fed up paying for hundreds of channels that they don’t watch, and cut payments to companies such as Comcast and DirecTV in favor of Netflix and free, over-the-air broadcast TV.”
I agree. This is the main reason I got rid of my “200 channel package” for $ 89.99 and switched to the cheaper BASIC cable. The money that I would have spent on those 200 channels now goes to Netflix and I find that I watch more programming by streaming it on Netlfix than anything I might have happened to “stumble on” while surfing through 200 channels.
Sure, I still don’t have EVERYTHING I might hope for, but I find I’m watching more television now than I was when I had over 200 channels at my fingertips. (And I’m saving money as well!)
I suspect that some cable providers CAN initiate a system where subscribers can actually choose from several smaller packages to fit their individual needs but there isn’t “a market” as yet.
To that, I say BULL.
This way, the sports fan can get a package of sports programming, the nature lover can get a nice package of something geared towards their likes. Same with Home repair, gardening, classic films and…well, you get the idea. I really think a majority of families would prefer such programming. Especially when those same families have to juggle the family budget. The growing online markets show that we aren’t stuck with the old system of “unlimited choices” that 200 channels provide.
More and more people raise the possible a la carte model for pay TV, but what hasn’t been explained is how that model sustains programming costs. $3-$4 million/episode dramas may not work with lower, individualized subscription fees. This is what keeps the pay cable heads up at night.
Intelligent article based on my 40 years of experience.
To take it to the next level you have to review the financial im plications of revenue that goes to each picture and basic film financing and not cherry picking.
To understand Net Flix you have to separate the video rental business of DVD rental and streaming which competes with pay tv.
Windows are an issue vis a vis VOD.
Right now Google and Amazon are off center in their competitive approach.
The video business for NetFlix is a simple concept like FEd Ex that they have built up critical mass. Fed Ex revitalized UPS Subscription TV on NetFlix competes with HBO, Starz and Showtime
making that market more otentially vibrant for indieproducers.
NetFlix is avoiding the AOL syndrome and they will only be the friend of content creators if enough revenue goes back to support production accross the board.
All stakeholders have an interest in continued viable production.
Although rather myopic in their content orientation Net Flix ould be the shot in tghe arm for movies that video, pay cable and foreign tv provided over the last 30 years.
I think the real question is what do you want to watch? If Net Flix provides what you need then yes it works for you but if all you are interested in is current programing then it looks like Hulu would be a better fit. Of course the number of people who actually buy what they need is small to say the least otherwise impluse buying wouldn’t work and the housing market crash wouldn’t have just about doomed us all to PBJ sandwiches for the next year.
I live in the North East. Comcast provides cable, internet and phone service with no compition except for the phone so here I am stuck with a $200.00 a month Comcast bill. I also use Tivo on one of my TV’s for another $22.00 a month. I also have Net Flix at $19.95 a month. $241.95 a month later, I find myself watching Net Flix 70% of the time. I would get down grade my cable to $89.00 month but someone in my family needs NESN so they can watch the Red Sox games and someone else would rather go to school with her hair in a mess than miss some shows that make me want to up chuck in the round file, so I’m stuck with that cable bill for a while. Of course to be fair I made an error when I subscribed to Tivo because I saw I could watch Net Flix on my TV and Hulu was coming soon. Still looking for Hulu to arrive and I only have very limited access to my Net Flix account so I got sucked in.
What I want is my internet connection to get Net Flix and Hulu maybe a phone but beyond that I don’t need anything else. Net Flix should be the wave of the future but time will tell.
AOL had “ubiquity” and we see where it got them once the gp caught on to the internet thing. Maybe the companies you name are catching on too and nf will be marginalized out of business…..seems reasonable given your last mile first mile description.
Pricing is absurd across the board. 4PM shows in theatres cost $15.50 for a SINGLE TICKET. VOD prices are not competitive with Netflix disc or Redbox rentals. Premium VOD (and regular VOD) pricing is laughable. If someone can wait 3 months to pay $30 they can wait 6 to pay $1 or own outright at around $20. Studios and many stores still try to sell BluRay’s for $30-$35 or more.
There is no doubt that streaming services are going to pressure people as they look at their subscription options. Hulu Plus was just added to XBOX 360…for another $8 a month, which I would be foolish to pay for alongside a TV subscription AND a Netflix subscription. In place of it, sure, but people will not have DirecTV or Comcast AND Netflix AND Hulu AND XBOX Live AND Broadband fees AND mobile voice/data for everyone in the house.
Throw the relentless box office pricing in with ever dismal theatrical experiences (we are at an absolute height of audience boorishness, which paired with B.O. pricing is devaluing theatrical faster than anything else) and something, probably several things, will give.
The main and emerging problem now is the likes of AT&T and Comcast, under no obligation to play nice with anyone else, especially Netflix, capping bandwith and tolling its use. Something better get sorted out soon or the public/govt. WILL be organizing the deck chairs.
I’ve seen the light. As an experiment at my new apt, rather than get cable, I relied solely on Netflix for the last month. In that time, I’ve discovered older programming and movies to take the place of crap cable channels I once mindlessly skipped over. For example, upon reading Tarantino’s upcoming film would reference “Django” I searched Netflix instant and was ecstatic to find it available which I promptly watched. And all seasons of Bourdain’s “No Reservations” programs are available on demand!
However, I think I will miss the Bravo and HBO cable channels. But if Netflix’s upcoming original programming via David Fincher/Kevin Spacey “House of Cards” makes them the new HBO plus unlimited instant and one dvd via snail mail – the plan I have now, I won’t miss cable at all. The idea of cable as it’s set up now seems so antiquated: forced to buy a package of low quality pre-ordained channels.
All I know is despite my huge monthly FIOS Premium channel bill (every single Premium out there) AND a Netflix subscription (2 DVDs + endless streams) I STILL have to buy DVDs if I don’t want to wait forever to rent.
Just Watching, there are no barriers to entry for Google’s competitors either. That hasn’t stopped Google from flourishing and their competitors from languishing. That’s because what distinguishes winners from losers is the quality of their execution. Netflix is delivering what people want everywhere that people want it (except for Android, because the brain-dead content providers demand brain-dead Digital Restrictions Management which is isn’t available there yet) at a price that people want to pay.
“4PM shows in theatres cost $15.50 for a SINGLE TICKET”
Huh? What theaters are you going to? I live in NYC which has probably the most expensive tickets in the country and the most tickets cost here are about $12.00 with tax, cheaper if it’s a matinee.
“The system would collapse if masses of TV viewers decide they’re fed up paying for hundreds of channels that they don’t watch, and cut payments to companies such as Comcast and DirecTV in favor of Netflix and free, over-the-air broadcast TV.”
You need to change “would collapse” to “will collapse”. I cut the cord on cable several months ago with no regrets.
I may be an early adopter, but it’s just a matter of time before the current cable TV model is replaced. Executives need to come up with a strategy now rather than wringing their hands and/or sticking their heads in the sand.
Whether Netflix will be the ultimate winner is unclear, but having each content provider / studio / broadcaster develop their own platform for delivering content is stupid and way too complicated for the end user. Same thing with all of the complex licensing rules that are currently in place.
And Netflix’s $7 price point isn’t who they are really competing with…it’s the free price point enabled by piracy. You think you can’t find any of the TV shows or movies that supposedly have lockout periods online for free? That should be the real fear.
I had Netflix one week before I downgraded my cable service and would eliminate cable completely if it weren’t for the Comcast monopoly in my area which limits high-speed internet service options, resulting in highly skewed pricing. What the studios really need to worry about is the high quality independent, international and out-of-copyright material that Netflix and similar services can make available. International offerings on Netflix have made me aware of how America does not have a film industry, southern California has a film industry, and it’s become inbred.
Thank God the plural of anecdote is not data, but I know plenty of people ditching cable for Netflix – talked to three Mom’s on the playground at school about it last week.
In Canada cable is tiered, so you are stuck paying extortion for crap you will never, ever watch to get to the one channel in your interest.
Blech. I tossed cable out the door a decade ago as a bad deal and it hasn’t become cheaper since then.
The Netflix price is right and the quality is pretty decent. The children’s programming isn’t huge, but it has enough to justify the price on that alone.
I’ll still buy the occasional season of a TV show I love or download a movie off of Itunes because I am not a picture quality freak, but cable is dead and buried to me.
I cut the cord and now have a grand total of 4 stations to watch and Netflix. I use DSL for $35 per month and have Netflix for $11.99 per month. Do I have everything I used to have? No, but I have at least 75% of what I used to watch and a much broader selection of useful programming to choosed from. I am no longer subjected to paying for the left handed knitting network, or the almost as sport network jus to have the few channels I wanted to watch.
Having spent 40+ years in commercial and public broadcasting, with the last 10 years running two network affilated broadcast stations and a small cable company I can attest to the profits of both, they are huge. Feel no sorrown for the death of old media and rejoice in the fact that there are so many alternatives to choose from.
Movie theaters can go extinct as far as I am concerned. Movie Ticket sales are just too dam high.
I work in the entertainment business as a creative, and have a wife and two kids. I cut the cable a year and a half ago – no more Comcast Digital Cable. For $15 a month (Hulu Plus and Netflix) we have WAY more than we need. In fact – we could cut Hulu Plus too – we rarely if ever use it.
Oh…AND… between the 4 of us, none of us have been to the theatre except our older son (on his allowance) – and even him – maybe only 2 or 3 times in a year.
“The system would collapse if masses of TV viewers decide they’re fed up paying for hundreds of channels that they don’t watch, and cut payments to companies such as Comcast and DirecTV in favor of Netflix and free, over-the-air broadcast TV.”
No, the system won’t collapse if this happens…although it will change radically in ways that are likely to dramatically cut the profit margins of entertainment companies. Considering that broadcast TV survived and prospered for over 50 years without the benefit of those monthly subscription fees, I tend to figure that someone would figure out how to make a profit in the future if those fees go away (or are drastically reduced).