Netflix (DVD Delivery Discussion Only)

[captveg]

I think vsski is correct in that there will also be the "catch-all' streaming services of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. that have packages of classic films in addition to the unique channels. So there will be options, but the cost may go up for these bundle streaming channels to license content because the studios will want to get more subscribers to their proprietary streaming channel.

There will still be various options, but the pricing may get seriously altered. Right now there are more options than people often realize. There's the monthly fee streaming, the one-time purchase streaming/downloads (such as on the PS3), basic cable, "pay" (HBO) cable, pay-per-view cable rentals, DVD/BD rentals/sales, etc.

[vsski]

I think we need to distinguish at least four main groups of players in this whole equation (in reality there are a lot more, but for simplification let's stick to 4 big ones), and their motives are very different from each other, although often overlap and therefore lead to a lot of alliances.

1) The content owners (the studios, music companies, sports franchises, etc.)

Their main goal is to maximize their profit from the content they own in any way they can conceivably fathom, recognizing that ultimately the money comes from the consumer. So they will seek to find ways of getting the most money through making the least amount of investment, a very simply ROI calculation (one that also caters often to the lowest common denominator, i.e. develop Iron Man 3 instead of an untested property); they constantly seek new revenue streams and now that streaming is finally at a threshold where the technology infrastructure and electronic components such as set-top boxes can handle larger and larger bandwidth and storage and consumer are more and more willing to pay for these services, they are looking for ways to get a bigger part of the pie; initially they licensed their content to companies like Apple and Netflix and others to see how consumers reacted and now that it has taken off they will want to renegotiate their agreements once the current contracts expire and ask for higher fees, while simultaneously looking to develop services of their own that market at least part of their content exclusively (and back catalogs of films are an ideal way of doing so, since the mass market isn't interested in a B&W movie from 1931, but there are enough niche markets that are willing to pay). This is the same model that led companies like Warner to create the Archive line which is primarily done to offer niche markets what they want while avoiding higher cost with pressing large number of discs that end up in the Walmart dollar bin - just in time manufacturing has been around for a long time and is done to achieve cost efficencies, pure and simple.

2) Content consolidators - the Apples and Netflix's of the world (and the studios itself).

For companies like Apple and Netflix brand recognition is hugely important as is the amount and attractiveness of the content they own. Their play will always be to cater to the mass market as they wouldn't survive on the occasional download of a 60s Japanese crime movie. So they will do all they can to deliver their consumer base the content they want and for that will need to license from the content owners. The content owners will agree as long as they can make a good profit they couldn't achieve on their own or see it as a way of marketing their content and get a name for their own channels.

3) Content delivery companies - The Telcos/ISPs and Cable/Satellite firms.

They are competing for the "last mile" that is the feed/pipe that ultimately goes into the household. In most cases due to old established networks and legislation, at least in the US, that is driven by geography, as not all cable providers can operate in all markets and neither can the Telcos/ISPs. But with Internet delivery the two camps that used to be completely separate are now in heated competition within their markets. So their aim is to deliver the most possible content to their consumers, in order to tie them to their set-up. They have a huge interest to work directly with the content owners as well as the content consolidators to carry any content channel they can thereby reaching the maximum number of households. So providing choice and ease of use other than price to their consumers is key.

4) The consumer

Other than price ease of use and choice are two of the most important criteria for a consumer to get the content they want. Therefore they will seek the delivery channel that provides them the biggest choice of the type of content they want through the easiest to use channel at the lowest price. In the old days there wasn't much choice as it was typically one company that accessed their house. Through deregulations most consumers can now chose between cable, satellite or phone companies to provide their content. The TV is ultimately nothing but a screen on which to consume the content, the driver is the set-top box in the household through which the content is delivered. What the set-top box provider in connection with the Telco or Cable company aims at is to make the interface through which the consumer receives the content as easy to use as possible. The ideal consumer scenario is to sit in his living room chair, turn on the set-top box and select any type of content they want, not caring whether it comes from the cable provider, Netflix or Warner Brothers. However, all of them want a piece of the pie, which means that the consumer either subscribes individually to multitude of channels or uses a consolidator to provide all the bundling they want for them - the latter plays into the hand the of the Apples and Netflix's as well as cable companies, but not necessarily into the hands of the content owners as they will have to share their profits with the consolidators.


Sorry, this has become a way too long message, and it is of course overly simplied without taking the interests of the likes of the set-top manufacturers or companies like HBO, who overlap several of these categories, into account. But it is a fascinating ecosystem that clearly has conflicting interests, but will always need to creat uncomfortale alliances to gain their objectives.

[warren oates]

It seems to me that you're missing a category that Criterion more or less created for and by themselves back in the Laserdisc days: curators. That is, the trusted names that select and present the best content in the best format with the best context. With your content owners looking to maximize their return on investment, what's their motivation to do anything more than the kind of minimum restoration work on any given transfer to get it up to the current resolution standard, especially with niche titles like, for example Heaven's Gate or Two-Lane Blacktop? Studio streaming services would stop at good enough transfers and wouldn't give a fig about director/DP approval or any kind of extras but the EPKs they already have sitting around. Studio specific subscription streaming services might kill off the likes of Olive Films, but I'd much prefer to pay a higher premium for access to the carefully mastered titles on Criterion's HuluPlus than subscribe to an MGM or Universal streaming service that at best has bare bones acceptable transfers of some of the same titles.

I've bought dozens of Warner Archive discs, but I'm not sure they have so much I want to see that I'd ever subscribe for more than a month or so. I just hope they allow for some kind of a la carte/PPV pricing for individual rentals/sales.

[zedz]

gigantic content libraries with every imaginable piece of music, film or TV content available in one place, I find this not realistic, if for no other reason than licensing cost.

This is a good point, and it seems to me that when the majority of people talk about "every imaginable piece of music, film or TV", what they really mean is "every album by the Beatles, all the Star Wars movies and every episode of 24." I don't believe that truly obscure content is going to suddenly be liberated by the streaming 'revolution' - not even to the extent that we saw with the DVD 'revolution,' where individual elements of content had a much greater market value.

[vsski]

Warren Oates - I agree with you about the Criterions of the world, but didn't include them specifically in my earlier post. They are one of the small players that cater to a niche market and in the above described ecosystem may become a content consolidator that has a Criterion streaming channel (which one can argue is already existing with the Hulu service - but once they feel their brand recognition and technical set-up is strong enough, I wouldn't be surprised if they create their own named channel, especially once pressing discs becomes economically difficult).

The studios typically can't make the economics of a CC style release work for them and therefore either pass on it and license it out or provide a sub-par release through their streaming channel (or a MOD line for as long as physical media is still around, which I believe will be for some time to come), to get a little bit of money for a minimum effort.

There will always be people like you and me who are willing to pay a premium for a CC release, but we are a small minority, so the best we can hope for is to have a CC channel. Whether or not that is a subscription model or a PPV one, or a combination of both, will depend on the economics at the time.

[Perkins Cobb]

I don't believe that truly obscure content is going to suddenly be liberated by the streaming 'revolution' - not even to the extent that we saw with the DVD 'revolution,' where individual elements of content had a much greater market value.

Indeed. What are some example of new transfers of films that were created primarily for a streaming platform? I can't think of any. So far all the business models are off-the-shelf tape dumps or, at best, secondary distribution channels for HD masters created for other platforms (e.g. Criterion/Hulu, or the MGM HD channel masters that just evaporated from Netflix). That's one reason it's scary to see buffet-model streaming providers gaining market share.

[vsski]

In case you haven't yet seen or read this on the Digitalbits - it is another great observation on the whole situation of studios building their streaming channels (skip down to what Bill Hunt calls his rant #2).

[warren oates]

The biggest problem with Bill Hunt's worst-case fears is that the studios themselves created and ecnouraged this idea of owning copies of films that he thinks they're going to do away with forever. I don't see that happening, mostly because it would likely lead to more piracy, even practically justify it. Or the notion that studios would store our purchases/rentals in a cloud, only to then erase them at will? Didn't Amazon.com already try that with some high school kid's digitally marked-up copy of 1984? He sued them and won. And they've since revised their thinking, rhetoric and legal policy accordingly.

[vsski]

I agree with the fact that what Bill states is indeed the intent of many of the studios (even though none of them will publicly admit it the way stated in the article). At the same time I also believe that the physical market will not go away any time soon and as far as taking away streaming and cloud services at a drop of hat is concerned, there is so much in flux right now both from a business as well as legislation side, that one has to see how it all pans out, but ideally, yes that is what the studios would like to do (knowing full well that it is unrealistic to happen given the consumer backlash they would encounter).
I also think we need to distinguish between the handling of the type of movies the average consumer craves and films like Oshima's Boy that most people will have never heard of let alone miss if it's not offered or taken away.

I think CC's place is safe for a long time to come.

[Perkins Cobb]

Anybody else seeing a new layout on the director & actor pages? Icons instead of a list, with no dates displayed (although still in reverse chronological order, at least).

Needless to say, I hate it.

[Dadapass]

A large number of FRF titles will expire on 5/26 according to my instant queue.

[Perkins Cobb]

So that's weird: Netflix gets practically zero catalog titles for the past two years, but they have the White Heat Blu-ray that came out in May? I guess I'll take whatever scraps I can get....

[swo17]

Netflix is raising prices again. It sounds like it will be $1-2 a month more just for streaming customers, and that current customers won't see the increase for another year.

[captveg]

$10 for streaming only is still a ridiculously fantastic deal. Can't wait to see the gnashing of teeth on my facebook feed.

[mfunk9786]

At some point, though, they should really consider making everything they have rights to available all at once. The whole process of retiring/bringing back movies and TV shows without easily accessible notice is exhausting.

[Numero Trois]

I thought they only retired films when the streaming rights expired. Why would they otherwise?

[domino harvey]

Netflix to Saturday Deliveries: Drop Dead

[warren oates]

I definitely noticed something was up. To the point where I was about to complain that two discs I sent back were probably lost in the mail. Living near a huge city used to mean ridiculous speed with disc turnaround, with the few exceptions of the periods of heavy use when my account was likely being throttled. No wonder every third thing I want to see on disc is now listed as "very long wait."

[swo17]

Netflix already stopped mailing DVDs on Saturdays, but you probably didn't notice

Oh I noticed. I also noticed half of my queue changing to "Very long wait" at about the same time. But what other option do we have at this point? Sigh.

[Lowry_Sam]

Netflix to Saturday Deliveries: Drop Dead

To be more clear, Netflix has axed it's Saturday workforce, so it will not be shipping out anything on Saturday. USPS still delivers them on Saturdays.

[Perkins Cobb]

It's discouraging that about half the sites reporting this can't distinguish between Saturday shipping and Saturday deliveries. But not as discouraging as the "wait, Netflix still mails DVDs? der, herr, herr" comments that people are leaving on all of those reports.

[Perkins Cobb]

I have no idea how it came to pass in this day and age, but last week Netflix added Domestic Violence and Frederick Wiseman's four most recent films. On DVD, not streaming!

[Numero Trois]

and Frederick Wiseman's four most recent films. On DVD, not streaming!

Great news, but wouldn't that be DVD-R? I thought Netflix didn't do DVD-Rs.

[Perkins Cobb]

I haven't received any yet, but I'm guessing they're replicated discs. Domestic Violence comes as two DVD-Rs from Wiseman's website, but it's on one disc from Netflix.

(Too bad they don't have the La Danse Blu-ray, and that there isn't one for At Berkeley.)

[flyonthewall2983]

I've started getting deliveries again. Just out of curiosity, which studios only send out rental versions with no special features?