Bonus points if you can also explain what the deal is with different movies and shows being cycled between the different services!
In: 8
Before streaming services the system was pretty consistent. A movie is released at the cinema and it’s only there for the next 90 days, nowhere else.
After 90 days it becomes available to buy or rent (in the old days that was VHS or DVD, today it means renting through Amazon, NowTv/ Sky TV (UK) or any other service that allows it digitally).
About 6-12 months after that, the movie would become available in the subscription window. I don’t know who that means in the US other than Netflix, but in the UK that was mostly Sky Movies, who had deals with all the major studios to take the first subscription window.
After 6-12 months on Sky Movies or Netflix, the movie would move into its second subscription window, which means whoever had that deal would get it next (in the UK that was Sky, then Netflix or Amazon generally).
The movie would go through a cycle of different companies before eventually coming all the way back around to the first company.
But note – that’s subscription. The purchase and rental deals remain available across all platforms. This is why you will sometimes see a movie to buy or rent on Amazon, but not to watch for ‘free’ (it’s not free, you’re paying a subscription).
These days things are changing. The studios now have their own platforms to distribute movies on, so they don’t need Sky and Netflix anymore. Sky used to have 95% of the previous year’s top 100 movies, now they have about 20% and it’s going down all the time.
Instead, studios are producing content for their own platforms in an effort to win subscribers. Netflix can no longer rely on deals with studios for content, so they produce their own too.
What you have touched on here is what happens when there are no more subscribers to gain. When growth peaks. Will it still be sensible to make streaming-only shows and movies? It would be for the aim of customer retention, but I assume won’t make as much money as distributing through other platforms (particularly theatrical).
Before streaming services the system was pretty consistent. A movie is released at the cinema and it’s only there for the next 90 days, nowhere else.
After 90 days it becomes available to buy or rent (in the old days that was VHS or DVD, today it means renting through Amazon, NowTv/ Sky TV (UK) or any other service that allows it digitally).
About 6-12 months after that, the movie would become available in the subscription window. I don’t know who that means in the US other than Netflix, but in the UK that was mostly Sky Movies, who had deals with all the major studios to take the first subscription window.
After 6-12 months on Sky Movies or Netflix, the movie would move into its second subscription window, which means whoever had that deal would get it next (in the UK that was Sky, then Netflix or Amazon generally).
The movie would go through a cycle of different companies before eventually coming all the way back around to the first company.
But note – that’s subscription. The purchase and rental deals remain available across all platforms. This is why you will sometimes see a movie to buy or rent on Amazon, but not to watch for ‘free’ (it’s not free, you’re paying a subscription).
These days things are changing. The studios now have their own platforms to distribute movies on, so they don’t need Sky and Netflix anymore. Sky used to have 95% of the previous year’s top 100 movies, now they have about 20% and it’s going down all the time.
Instead, studios are producing content for their own platforms in an effort to win subscribers. Netflix can no longer rely on deals with studios for content, so they produce their own too.
What you have touched on here is what happens when there are no more subscribers to gain. When growth peaks. Will it still be sensible to make streaming-only shows and movies? It would be for the aim of customer retention, but I assume won’t make as much money as distributing through other platforms (particularly theatrical).
By getting more people to subscribe. Plus many of them will have merchandise, meaning that they’re making money from that. Merch is also good because it means they’re making money even from the people who pirated the show.
“ZOMG, did you hear about the new show Smoke and Mirrors on WebFilmz? I should subscribe this month and binge it.”
WebFilmz just made $15, or whatever. Now, multiply that by millions of subscribers.
Before streaming services the system was pretty consistent. A movie is released at the cinema and it’s only there for the next 90 days, nowhere else.
After 90 days it becomes available to buy or rent (in the old days that was VHS or DVD, today it means renting through Amazon, NowTv/ Sky TV (UK) or any other service that allows it digitally).
About 6-12 months after that, the movie would become available in the subscription window. I don’t know who that means in the US other than Netflix, but in the UK that was mostly Sky Movies, who had deals with all the major studios to take the first subscription window.
After 6-12 months on Sky Movies or Netflix, the movie would move into its second subscription window, which means whoever had that deal would get it next (in the UK that was Sky, then Netflix or Amazon generally).
The movie would go through a cycle of different companies before eventually coming all the way back around to the first company.
But note – that’s subscription. The purchase and rental deals remain available across all platforms. This is why you will sometimes see a movie to buy or rent on Amazon, but not to watch for ‘free’ (it’s not free, you’re paying a subscription).
These days things are changing. The studios now have their own platforms to distribute movies on, so they don’t need Sky and Netflix anymore. Sky used to have 95% of the previous year’s top 100 movies, now they have about 20% and it’s going down all the time.
Instead, studios are producing content for their own platforms in an effort to win subscribers. Netflix can no longer rely on deals with studios for content, so they produce their own too.
What you have touched on here is what happens when there are no more subscribers to gain. When growth peaks. Will it still be sensible to make streaming-only shows and movies? It would be for the aim of customer retention, but I assume won’t make as much money as distributing through other platforms (particularly theatrical).
“ZOMG, did you hear about the new show Smoke and Mirrors on WebFilmz? I should subscribe this month and binge it.”
WebFilmz just made $15, or whatever. Now, multiply that by millions of subscribers.
By getting more people to subscribe. Plus many of them will have merchandise, meaning that they’re making money from that. Merch is also good because it means they’re making money even from the people who pirated the show.
“ZOMG, did you hear about the new show Smoke and Mirrors on WebFilmz? I should subscribe this month and binge it.”
WebFilmz just made $15, or whatever. Now, multiply that by millions of subscribers.
A short version of it is that if they own the content, they can keep it on their service almost indefinitely.
If Netflix buy third-party content e.g. if they pay NBC money for the rights to stream The Office, then they can only show it for the length of that deal, be it a year, two years, or whatever – after which other services can also make a bid for that show. If they lose the bid or the content owner makes their own streaming service (in this case Peacock) then their service becomes less attractive to customers.
If the cost of licensing content becomes large enough, then it’s worth the gamble to create your own and avoid those problems.
The issue with this is its very hard to tell which original shows will be a hit. This is why many Netflix shows get cancelled. It’s not enough for them to be a decent show with a moderate fanbase, they want to land a huge hit like Stranger Things, or ultimately if they’re really lucky something like The Office.
A short version of it is that if they own the content, they can keep it on their service almost indefinitely.
If Netflix buy third-party content e.g. if they pay NBC money for the rights to stream The Office, then they can only show it for the length of that deal, be it a year, two years, or whatever – after which other services can also make a bid for that show. If they lose the bid or the content owner makes their own streaming service (in this case Peacock) then their service becomes less attractive to customers.
If the cost of licensing content becomes large enough, then it’s worth the gamble to create your own and avoid those problems.
The issue with this is its very hard to tell which original shows will be a hit. This is why many Netflix shows get cancelled. It’s not enough for them to be a decent show with a moderate fanbase, they want to land a huge hit like Stranger Things, or ultimately if they’re really lucky something like The Office.
Latest Answers