CAA TV lit agent Peter Micelli was surprisingly forthcoming about how Netflix is outspending the broadcast
networks on high-end hour-long TV series. During a panel discussion Saturday at the annual UCLA Entertainment Symposium for showbiz lawyers, he spoke about the “huge” budgets behind some of the Netflix drama series. He said the cheapest show is $3.8 million an episode and House of Cards started at $4.5 million with executive producer David Fincher taking it ”way above that”. According to Micelli, the next series Hemlock Grove is costing $4 million an episode, while Orange Is The New Black is just under $4 million as well. (CAA sold some of the shows to Netflix but Micelli later clarified for Variety that these numbers were only his estimates.) Micelli said Netflix, whose deals are structured to cover multiple regions around the world, will control each series for 4 years exclusively and then re-sell them to a linear cable channel. Micelli expects Microsoft’s XBox whose studio is led by CBS vet Nancy Tellem to compete with Netflix for high-end programming. But not necessarily Amazon Studios which is looking at a smaller scale – comedies for $1 million an episode. Also programming will be Redbox and Verizon via Redbox Instant By Verizon. Micelli further forecast that TNT and USA will not buy the reruns like they once did. Meanwhile, moderator Craig Emanuel, a partner at Loeb & Loeb, said the number of TV housekeeping and overall deals was down – with everyone except high-end players taking pay cuts.


None of these numbers are surprising; Netflix is courting the HBO audience offering subscriptions at half the price. What’s surprising is Micelli’s willingness to be the source on specific numbers associated with specific shows CAA is involved with. May not be anything in the end, but if I’m Reed Hastings and I’ve already seen what customer backlash can do to my stock price, I may not be too happy having my financial linens hung out to dry for all to see.
Pete Macelli has no idea about what he’s talking about. Estimates indeed. And he had better start returning calls (he is known to not return calls to anyone, clients included — and that’s a public joke behind his back) or he will find himself on the wrong side of the revolving CAA door. Time is now for Pete to do some hard work, get in the game and actually accomplish things rather than talk about them and take credit for them.
Micelli is the co-head of packaging. Really doubt he’s going to find himself on the wrong side of any door. Probably didnt call you back for a reason.
Is this really news? Netflix already announced they spent $100M on 26 episodes of Cards…so, about $4M/per ep. The only potential news is that Fincher went over budget..but does that really merit any mention?
It seems that Netflix is spending it’s money on new exclusive programming and not re-negotiating distribution contracts for classic films. I’m not sure this is a good idea. Lot’s of classic films that people enjoy watching every few years are disappearing from their streaming library. The last three that I tried to find are no longer on the service. Chinatown, for example. One of my favorites. As a filmmakers, I love re-watching great films for storylines, shooting/camera work, pacing, etc. Looks like I’ll have to make sure that I rent/download-to-own movies from a platform that gives me ultralight, like M-Go, so that I can re-watch whenever I want. I hope this practice doesn’t continue, but I’m afraid it might.
Chinatown rotates in and out. It’s part of the EPIX/Netflix deal that is expiring soon. It’s been on, it’s been off. It’s been on, it’s been off.
All Netflix is is a PayTV window…. so you need to start thinking of it as a pay tv channel. Same with Amazon.
-RnsW
How does the pay TV/basic cable arrangement play into the paid online sale and rental of such films? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen movies like Independence Day for $2.99 on Time-Warner Cable’s VOD platform while it’s in rotation on basic cable. Can’t be sure if I’ve seen the same thing for a film in its premium window on HBO, Showtime, etc. Can a studio sell/rent its movies on web and VOD at any time? If I can pay to rent a movie from Blockbuster at any time, can the same be said of Amazon, iTunes, Cablevision, or any other provider of a pay-per-view experience?
I’ve recently noticed DirecTV searches pulling up a paid VOD of a movie that is also airing free on their channels. Found it odd, but I’m sure there’s a market that will pay to see the movie tonight rather than record it next Tuesday.
It’s an interesting tactic, I’ll be curious to see if it sticks.
They’re all technically different “windows”
It’s a giant mess right now and I don’t see anyone leading the charge attempting to clean it up. NETFLIX isn’t VOD, it’s considered SVOD (subscription video on demand) which is a different window than PPV….
DIE HARD 1 and 2 was available on direcTV in 1080p for a VOD charge of $3.99 I think, HOWEVER it was also running on HBO and available to download through HBO GO and HBO VOD. The poster below correctly stated this issue.
Sometimes all I want to do is watching something like CASABLANCA and all the video stores have closed down, i use DirecTV as my provider and THEY don’t have it, NETFLIX doesn’t have it, AMAZON had it free in prime for a few months, but now I have to shell out $2.99 to “rent” it.
what a pain in the ass. no wonder why film library values are diminishing….. it’s not what it once was….
-RnsW
If there are films that mean that much to you, you should buy a copy on Blu-Ray or even DVD. On Amazon (or Amoeba in LA), you can find perfectly good used copies of classic films. By the way, if Apple or Netflix can offer a gazillion titles for streaming/download, then the cable companies can offer as many or more on VOD, at least as pay-per-view options. On Time-Warner Cable, I can pay $5.99 to rent the latest TWILIGHT movie for 48 hours, but it’s really hard to find notable library titles like Chinatown, Star Wars, or Blazing Saddles. How hard is it for cable operators to include more classic movies that people would easily pay a buck or three to “rent” via their cable box? In my mind, VOD should be the equivalent of a pay-per-view Blockbuster with thousands of options for those in the mood to watch something made in 1949 or 2002 as opposed to six months ago. They are leaving money on the table. Rather, they are losing future profits from the ex-subscribers who’ve already cut the cord for similar reasons. Correct me if I’m wrong, but licensing and exclusivity shouldn’t be a huge issue when it comes to acquiring titles for the PPV model. So what’s the hold-up?
Netflix is crazy to spend so much for so little return. They don’t need to spend that much and eventually it will cost them. There’s no way they can make a profit on this show. The stock holders should be furious.
NFLX stock is doing really well from $60/share to $180/share in the last six months so they don’t need these expensive shows they are better off showing movies and TV episodes that they license from other producers.
It’s an extension of their advertising. They spent almost $500m on advertising last year, putting $100m of that towards original exclusive content worth advertising is prudent rather than profligate.
I don’t understand the negativity towards Netflix. They have a similar business model to HBO, only with significantly more buying power, greater international reach and not being reliant of cable companies. Even if someone matches Netflix’s infrastructure, they won’t be able to compete with the billions they spend on content, and soon the content companies will be too heavily reliant on such a huge revenue stream to consider leaving.
One would like to think that a content provider would see a lavishly produced TV show to be something more than a mere “extension of their advertising.” But you’re spot-on that people don’t quite recognize Netflix for the 800 lb gorilla it’s becoming. As a stock, I’m sure Netflix will have its ups and downs. But, as a company — as an idea! — Netflix is here to stay. A good bet, says I.
I wonder if it will go on to be an independent behemoth that diversifies in some way. Or do they get bought and become HBO-like mega-brand within a larger media company?
Agree Tony…..next step is some EMMY love for Netflix. And why not? The town would be crazy not to help a new, high budget, buyer of content. Just watch.
“Peter Micelli’s office”
“Hi, please have Peter come to RLOV’s office immediately”
If you build it, they will come.
And the big deal is what? The stock is up 300pct so the shareholders are happy The viewers are getting great programming House of Cards so they are happy So who cares how NetFlix chooses to spend their money? Peter Micelli can you hear me? Any relation to the Micelli’s restaurant family? Can you help me with a table for 4 at 8:30 tonight?
Peter Micelli is a great, smart guy who has helped Netflix immensely with this new venture. Obviously, since it was never announced publicly by Netflix themselves in such a pointed way, probably not a great idea on his part to make statements like this, but this really seems to be blown out of proportion. People love to attack agents and agencies, because a lot of the time it’s merited… and also pretty fun. I’m not so sure about this attach though. It seems smart for Netflix to spend money like this on their first venture into original programming. They need to establish quality programming, not just creatively, but visually as well. If it looked cheap there would be major backlash. I think they know old TV hands are looking for any excuse to degrade what they’re doing, while writers are becoming more intrigued at the prospect of working with them.
Micelli isn’t respected by his peers. A blowhard.
1. Linda Nelson, it’s “its” not “it’s”; and “lots” not “lot’s” – learn English.
2. Agent4Change, the restaurant family was was Miceli, not Micelli – get your facts straight.
3. Netflix’s streaming content has always been third-rate for features; HOC unfortunately doesn’t change that.
1. Copy Editor. You may be correct – but that doesn’t make you any less rude. We’ll take graciousness and good manners over perfect grammar anytime!
These comments display incredibly bad judgement on Micelli’s part. To violate the spirit of confidentiality he has with Netflix by revealing these numbers is foolish. His agency packages a lot of the shows being sold in off-net to the cable networks. To incorrectly disparage the prospects of that business is an affront to his clients and his customers. His ego really got out of control on this one. Curious to see how much trouble he gets in.
Although much this information was already released. It does seem that there is additional information in this story, about how Netflix did in fact, agree to syndicate House of Cards and other programs after 4 years. This departs from the original story where Netflix appeared to be only relying on the revenue from their own operations.
This would be a disaster to pay more for programming than television programmers, and still not have any rights to other revenue.
I originally indicated that was merely an avenue to lower (future) production budgets. Financially at least, this (now) makes some sense.
However there is another dilemma. these serialized dramas 10 /2/ not syndicate well in the television world. this is one of the reasons why Mad Men and programs of that nature are on Netflix in the first place. If they pay enough, their customers will simply binge view.
The economics of that have not been determined as of yet. although there’s quite a bit of speculation about it. This appears to be a long winding road ahead.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/networkx
Pete micelli is my agent and I’d follow him anywhere. He is one of the best in the biz BECAUSE of his candor and knowledge. Also, he’s 6’7″ and could crush most of you where you stand. So get out of his way.
Cool story bro.