Pay TV providers already “know how to deal with HBO and would like to have a competitor to HBO,” Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference. So even though he doesn’t expect Netflix to join the pay TV line-up as a premium channel any time soon, “it’s in the natural direction in the long term” and “might be very powerful, especially as we have more original content.” But Hastings won’t give up the company in return for carriage, the way many cable channels have. Also he says that in any distribution arrangement it’s important that “the consumer knows they’re using Netflix and have our application on the TV.” Meanwhile, he says that cable operators have good reason to like having Netflix on broadband — despite their frequent complaint that the video service is a bandwidth hog. “They’re making a fortune,” he says. “Comcast and others are selling a (broadband) service for $40, $50, $60, $70 a month with no content costs.”
Hastings says that Netflix will benefit from having exclusive content, including re-runs of Mad Men, but notes that it wasn’t initially part of the company’s game plan. TV stations and cable networks that buy syndicated shows “won’t share with us. They’re just being good capitalists. So we have to buy more exclusives.” Now he expects to increase his spending on unique content. He notes that HBO spends about 60% of its programming dollars licensing movies from studios, and about 40% on original content. “Maybe we’ll get there.” But he still likes buying re-runs. Indeed, he defended Comcast’s new online video service for its customers, Streampix, which some consider a potential Netflix competitor even though it initially will be filled with older content. “You might say, it’s only re-runs. But look at TBS. It’s a very valuable franchise.”
For now Hastings says that Amazon is likely to become one of his biggest competitors — but he’s not concerned. “Amazon’s strength is that they’re super long term (planners) and keep everyone guessing, especially me.” But while the online retailer will have “some share of the market,” he says that Netflix can fight back by offering a better consumer experience. “We’re not trying to win by being broad. That’s their game. We’re super focused” on particular kinds of content — and having a slick user interface that also helps users locate the kinds of content that they want. “When you combine (on demand) with personalization you get high hours and high satisfaction,” he says. “When you pick up the remote control is the moment of truth. Do you turn on the grid, or do you turn on Netflix?”


Consumers don’t need another content source (unless Netflix plans to make the kind of content that we can’t get anywhere else, which doesn’t at all seem to be the case). Consumers need a one-stop-shopping source for all streamed content that interests them, regardless of who makes it. Whoever wins, will win by being broad – something Netflix could have been, but apparently is giving up on.
I would suggest that they are trying to go broad. They are making deals for older TV shows and obscure films while letting deals for major studio films expire. I don’t think that one company can buy the rights for EVERYTHING unless they have the pocketbook for it, and who does?
Who does? Apple.
Netflix’s DVD library is already quite broad. I like to play the Stump Netflix game and think of titles I’d like to see, that they don’t carry (and that I can confirm via Amazon etc do exist on DVD). I haven’t been able to stump them much. And most renters aren’t going to be playing that game. They want the big movies, the big TV series, maybe some well known docs.
PS, how odd there’s an article today where Comcast is claiming to be a “one-stop shopping” source for streaming. They even stole my language, hah! Well that just goes to show that it’s obvious what needs to happen next. What’s not so obvious is how we get from Point A to Point B. I wouldn’t hold my breath for Netflix – they’ve shown remarkable ineptitude in the most basic customer management tasks.
I could easily stump Netflix a thousand times.
Comsumers don’t need a another content source? I beg the differ. The more variety the better. starz didn’t have to produce own content, but they did it anyway and now we have great Shows like Spartacus and Boss.
Same counts for AMC which brought us Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Rubicon and Hell On Wheels.
Even if I don’t like the content, I know that somebody else does.
I think the point Scifi_fan was trying to make was that the location you find get your content should be the same for everyone. Starz can continue to make television shows, but at some point it would be nice if I’m able to watch all of these shows using one interface regardless if it’s HBO, NBC or a website. Sort of like how RSS or web browsers work? I doubt it will ever happen, but competition for a better interface and features versus competition over content would be nice.
So you would support an entertainment monopoly because it’s much more important that we’re lazy and not have to “change the channel.”
That was sort of my point, but my bigger point is, we have lots of sources for TV and movie content, and unless Netflix can start addressing some of the “empty niches,” I’m not sure how valuable they will be, vs the high value of being a one-stop-shopping source for streaming (which Comcast just declared they want to be, picking our pockets in the process even if they can pull it off.)
So far, Netflix has rolled out Lillyhammer, which hasn’t done well, and more to the point, is the kind of thing we could already get through premium cable. They announced they are developing Orange is the New Black, which sounds similar to Weeds – another show type that could very well be developed by existing producers. They announced plans for Hemlock Grove, which maybe won’t pan out, but if it does – it’s a supernatural horror series. We’ve got those on TV already.
Thinking about all the types of shows we get from any source, I know there are some huge gaps. Pre-1950s historical dramas are still somewhat rare (although there seems to be a coming mini-boom in Westerns.) We do not need any more shows about cops, lawyers, detectives or law & order in general. And there’s also Gilded Lilys (no doubt inspired by Downton Abbey) and who could forget Spartacus but there’s a whole lot to history other than cowboys, grande dames and sweaty gladiators. We could have dozens of historical series that don’t tromp on each others’ turf.
Personally, I’m wondering where all the space operas on TV have gone. Where are the Star Treks and Fireflys and Farscapes and Bablyon 5s and BSGs? Netflix, there’s your next assignment. Hope you’ve got a big budget at your disposal, space opera fans won’t tolerate bad SFX even tho it’s a relatively small niche taste.
Hastings, buddy, the last thing you want to do is count their chickens before they hatch. And no, we do not need another premium TV/movie channel like Epix.
“know how to deal with HBO and would like to have a competitor to HBO,”
It’s called Showtime – and they run movies and shows like Dexter, Shameless and Californication. Reed Hastings is a hopeless moron.
More unfocused, weird comments from a man who should have lost his job at this time last year.
Netflix had it all… and they fumbled it away. Now that the Starz deal has expired, their goal is to freakin’ TBS???
pls forgive the typo… I am shocked that they want to be TBS. A year ago, their aspirations were so much grander, the sky was blue-r, and the stock was at $204 (today it’s $110)… Hastings seems to lurch from idea to idea desperately; at one time the company was visionary and led the market. There is no reason to pay a premium price for “Mad Men” reruns. It’s laughable.
Amazon should buy Netflix and then they will be the biggest and best online distributer for entertainment and will kill Comcast and anyone who tries to compete.