Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Strike Ending & Amazon Antitrust - Streaming Services: Power Rankings, FALL 2023
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9185170" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>I am going to address this briefly, given this seems to be a popular misunderstanding. Moreover, it seems to be driving your analysis (which I already detailed was ... not in keeping with the actual market conditions). </p><p></p><p>They did not make themselves profitable temporarily. At all. Netflix has <em>always been profitable</em>. Looking at the trailing 12 months, they have been profitable since 2009. What is notable is that they have pivoted from being "kinda profitable" ($1-$3 billion) to "super profitable" (more than $10 billion). The trend was always positive, but was supercharged in the last four years ... and has remained at that level. </p><p></p><p>Why does this matter? Because Netflix is the only streaming company that is able to do that. Every other streaming company has been operating at a loss, and has been attempting to find some way to get to profitability (with the exception of Hulu, which is its own category, and largely because of the number of ad-supported subscriptions).</p><p></p><p>But what about those problems you might have heard about? Well, those weren't related to profitability. Instead, it was about Wall Street turning sour on the stocks- they hammered the stocks of streamers because they were no longer overvaluing them because of growth (in effect, subsidizing the acquisition of subscribers). But while the hit on the stock price wasn't great, and growth slowed, the underlying profitability was always there. Moreover, those issues hit other streamers much harder than Netflix ... because Netflix was actually profitable, and had the most subscribers.</p><p></p><p>Contrast that with the other streamers.</p><p>Prime is heavily subsidized, and is currently facing a massive lawsuit from the government regarding those subsidies. It is unlikely that they will continue to burn money for our benefit given the legal issues as well as the internal issues (which I have covered in prior posts). </p><p>Disney+ is heavily subsidized, and the parent company has a lot of debt and is struggling with a path forward given the amount of capital expenditures that are necessary (parks business, Hulu acquisition etc.) as well as the Peltz issue. </p><p>Paramount+ and Max are "pure plays" with libraries, but have not yet even hit the point of profitability, and have pivoted to licensing their content to other streamers in order to maintain profitability; in effect, going back to acting like more traditional Hollywood studios, and less like "walled garden" streamers than keep everything in-house. </p><p>Apple+ is subsidized and has high quality, but Apple has shown no signs of acquiring a large library or another streamer (perhaps for antitrust reasons) and has a small subscriber base. In effect, they are just burning money for our benefit. Great for us! </p><p>Peacock, because of the Comcast ownership, won't be allowed to fail, but is still an afterthought for most people.</p><p></p><p>As I've repeatedly mentioned, Reed Hastings, in 2013, said, "<em>The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us</em>.<em>" </em>That's what they did. They licensed the content to start, and then (when the content was pulled back) they were able to make their own using the revenue from their vast subscriber base. And now we have gone full circle, and not only are they continuing to make content while maintaining profitability, but they are able to go back to licensing content and make it a hit since other platforms can't (<em>Suits</em>, for example ... a show that was on Peacock that no one was watching). </p><p></p><p>This doesn't mean that they will be successful forever. They still have challenges; for example, they do not have a FAST service. And their ad-supported cheaper version is not as prevalent as they want it to be (fun fact- the services make more money per subscriber off of the "discount" ad-supported services than they do off the premium, ad-free services).</p><p></p><p>But of all the streaming services, they have positioned themselves best given the Wall Street retrenchment and the winds facing the industry.</p><p></p><p>Looking at this in terms of content you like doesn't matter in terms of the overall industry. Even things that you believe matter (such as Netflix cutting shows after a few seasons) ... doesn't actually matter. Why? Because while we can both lament this, the metrics don't lie. The vast majority of shows get more expensive as the seasons go on, and the viewership declines. Which means that for most of the shows, no matter how beloved, juice isn't worth the squeeze. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, the whole point of these posts was to cover the business side.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9185170, member: 7023840"] I am going to address this briefly, given this seems to be a popular misunderstanding. Moreover, it seems to be driving your analysis (which I already detailed was ... not in keeping with the actual market conditions). They did not make themselves profitable temporarily. At all. Netflix has [I]always been profitable[/I]. Looking at the trailing 12 months, they have been profitable since 2009. What is notable is that they have pivoted from being "kinda profitable" ($1-$3 billion) to "super profitable" (more than $10 billion). The trend was always positive, but was supercharged in the last four years ... and has remained at that level. Why does this matter? Because Netflix is the only streaming company that is able to do that. Every other streaming company has been operating at a loss, and has been attempting to find some way to get to profitability (with the exception of Hulu, which is its own category, and largely because of the number of ad-supported subscriptions). But what about those problems you might have heard about? Well, those weren't related to profitability. Instead, it was about Wall Street turning sour on the stocks- they hammered the stocks of streamers because they were no longer overvaluing them because of growth (in effect, subsidizing the acquisition of subscribers). But while the hit on the stock price wasn't great, and growth slowed, the underlying profitability was always there. Moreover, those issues hit other streamers much harder than Netflix ... because Netflix was actually profitable, and had the most subscribers. Contrast that with the other streamers. Prime is heavily subsidized, and is currently facing a massive lawsuit from the government regarding those subsidies. It is unlikely that they will continue to burn money for our benefit given the legal issues as well as the internal issues (which I have covered in prior posts). Disney+ is heavily subsidized, and the parent company has a lot of debt and is struggling with a path forward given the amount of capital expenditures that are necessary (parks business, Hulu acquisition etc.) as well as the Peltz issue. Paramount+ and Max are "pure plays" with libraries, but have not yet even hit the point of profitability, and have pivoted to licensing their content to other streamers in order to maintain profitability; in effect, going back to acting like more traditional Hollywood studios, and less like "walled garden" streamers than keep everything in-house. Apple+ is subsidized and has high quality, but Apple has shown no signs of acquiring a large library or another streamer (perhaps for antitrust reasons) and has a small subscriber base. In effect, they are just burning money for our benefit. Great for us! Peacock, because of the Comcast ownership, won't be allowed to fail, but is still an afterthought for most people. As I've repeatedly mentioned, Reed Hastings, in 2013, said, "[I]The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us[/I].[I]" [/I]That's what they did. They licensed the content to start, and then (when the content was pulled back) they were able to make their own using the revenue from their vast subscriber base. And now we have gone full circle, and not only are they continuing to make content while maintaining profitability, but they are able to go back to licensing content and make it a hit since other platforms can't ([I]Suits[/I], for example ... a show that was on Peacock that no one was watching). This doesn't mean that they will be successful forever. They still have challenges; for example, they do not have a FAST service. And their ad-supported cheaper version is not as prevalent as they want it to be (fun fact- the services make more money per subscriber off of the "discount" ad-supported services than they do off the premium, ad-free services). But of all the streaming services, they have positioned themselves best given the Wall Street retrenchment and the winds facing the industry. Looking at this in terms of content you like doesn't matter in terms of the overall industry. Even things that you believe matter (such as Netflix cutting shows after a few seasons) ... doesn't actually matter. Why? Because while we can both lament this, the metrics don't lie. The vast majority of shows get more expensive as the seasons go on, and the viewership declines. Which means that for most of the shows, no matter how beloved, juice isn't worth the squeeze. Anyway, the whole point of these posts was to cover the business side. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Strike Ending & Amazon Antitrust - Streaming Services: Power Rankings, FALL 2023
Top