Netflix Netflix (once again) Raises All Subscription Plans in U.S. (2 Viewers)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ultimately, it will depend on how many companies survive and which ones do not.

Although this is an educated guess on my part and not based on any actual figures that I have seen but my price range is more around $10-$15 per month with ads and perhaps $20-$25 per month without which is not a major difference from what you are saying.

I think once the dust settles the remaining few companies will be in a position to price their services to reflect fully the costs and risks of doing business.

I get the sense your "educated guess[ing]" could use more real info, including actually having a bit more experience w/ the various streamers (and what they're about and where they're coming from).

You already showed you likely have zero experience based on some of the conjectures/rhetoric you posed.

Anyway, seriously doubt the various streamers would be able to push service pricing quite that far unless they merged to form streaming businesses each at least as big as NetFlix... and that's probably not too likely for the foreseeable future at least in part because many of them have other very substantial interests (at least somewhat) external to the streaming business side itself, eg. Disney is much **MUCH** bigger than just Disney+ (or Hulu or ESPN+) and they basically already offer their own version of discounted merged packages (for all 3 w/out necessarily doing as you think), CBS/Paramount isn't just Paramount+ and won't easily/likely sell out to someone else anytime soon, Warner isn't just HBO Max either, NBC/Universal isn't just Peacock streaming, Amazon could probably care less about subscription streaming beyond being a loss leader (as you also admitted) whereas Apple probably cares a bit more, but maybe only a bit more, while both Amazon and Apple also sell/rent digitals, not just streaming subs.

So yes and no -- more no than yes. Disney's sorta already doing what you think on their own (and has been gobbling up studios, not merely struggling streaming bizzes, on their way there)... but they're *not* forcing subscribers to pay that higher price for bundled content they don't necessarily want. IF you want Disney+ plus Hulu plus ESPN+, you could get them all bundled together for a discounted $20/month w/out ads. You can choose smaller/diff bundle or just going w/ 1 at a time (where Disney+ is only $8/month ad-free)... or get more discounts w/ annual subscription.

Apple's also doing their own kind of bundling outside what you imagined w/ the Apple One that bundles their other subscription-based offerings, including iCloud storage. Amazon (and maybe Google at some point) could do likewise if they really want.

Sure, bundling means higher prices... but that doesn't mean the avg subscriber will necessarily pay (significantly) more than before for the same amount of content... and that's really what matters most to the avg subscriber.

Competition is keeping prices low at the moment and companies like Amazon are preventing the likes of Netflix from raising their prices any further than what they are now.

Amazon probably more than any other company with perhaps the exception of Apple can continue to lose money on the service as it is not their main focus of revenue/profits much to the detriment of the companies that are primarily a streaming business.

My thinking leads me to believe that Amazon will probably be one of the few companies left after the fallout along with offering the cheapest service to consumers too.

Amazon *might* be contributing somewhat to keeping prices lower, but probably not by much. Amazon's subscription streaming sucks (and it's been that way forever now). Have you even ever used it at all? Most people who really want to do all that much streaming (and would pay for it) wouldn't really care about Amazon's service for that. There's no real competition between Amazon and Netflix... and Amazon shouldn't actually want to hurt NF's the bizz at all anyway -- they provide the tech backend infrastructure for NF last I checked and probably get paid handsomely for that.

We might even get a bizarre situation where the dedicated streaming firms like Netflix disappear and the conglomerates like Amazon and Apple are the ones left at the table.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Netflix gets bought by Amazon.

This is actually not too likely at all. Amazon already gets their cut from Netflix on the backend by hosting the streaming infrastructure for them. No point in investing much more into NF (and getting into all sorts of muck) unless NF's about to die and Amazon doesn't have a cut from whoever replaces NF at the top of the heap.

Remember. Amazon's not really in this to win the streaming wars. Their own consumer-facing streaming bizz seems mostly just fodder for them (and maybe it's even helpful for sorta staging/beta testing their infrastructure services), and they seem to put almost no resources into it (the frontend) other than the sporadic "Amazon Original" programming... although they now seem to be investing fairly substantially in the upcoming Lord of the Rings prequel series. They're probably very happy if NF keeps being the king of the (subscription) streaming hill and paying them for their backend services w/ essentially no risk to them...

Very doubtful that Disney would ever sell out to Amazon or Apple -- Disney even has additional cut of the non-subscription-streaming pie via Movies Anywhere. And doubtful (newly merged) Warner Discovery, NBC/Universal or Viacom (CBS/Paramount) would sell out to them either. Again, don't think Amazon's even interested in winning the streaming wars, except on the backend side. Similar might be true for Apple too. But don't forget Google and/or even Microsoft might somehow jump into that mix too -- they both sell/rent digitals, but don't currently offer (any significant) subscription streaming.

Of course, waaaay down the line like a 2-3 decades or more from now, anything could happen. But if we're only talking the near/foreseeable future say 5 years from now? No way that happens.

_Man_

 

[Carl David]

I get the sense your "educated guess[ing]" could use more real info, including actually having a bit more experience w/ the various streamers (and what they're about and where they're coming from).

You already showed you likely have zero experience based on some of the conjectures/rhetoric you posed.

Anyway, seriously doubt the various streamers would be able to push service pricing quite that far unless they merged to form streaming businesses each at least as big as NetFlix... and that's probably not too likely for the foreseeable future at least in part because many of them have other very substantial interests (at least somewhat) external to the streaming business side itself, eg. Disney is much **MUCH** bigger than just Disney+ (or Hulu or ESPN+) and they basically already offer their own version of discounted merged packages (for all 3 w/out necessarily doing as you think), CBS/Paramount isn't just Paramount+ and won't easily/likely sell out to someone else anytime soon, Warner isn't just HBO Max either, NBC/Universal isn't just Peacock streaming, Amazon could probably care less about subscription streaming beyond being a loss leader (as you also admitted) whereas Apple probably cares a bit more, but maybe only a bit more, while both Amazon and Apple also sell/rent digitals, not just streaming subs.

Fair comment.

It's true I do not stream so my knowledge of their service levels and choice of content and other aspects I am not familiar with.

But my conjecture is based on some underlying facts and I did mention some of these in my first post on this thread, I think.

I will repeat myself for clarification.

Firstly, Netflix has never been nor still is a profitable business. They have over $14 billion of debt despite the fact they are the market leader in relation to subscriber numbers. Until recently those subscriber numbers have continuously increased year after year which is why their stock price continuously went up in price.

Now it appears those subscriber numbers have reached market saturation hence why the stock price declined on their recent quarter results.

Shareholders and any future investors will be looking at profitability and not subscriber numbers going forward.

They have never been profitable with their current pricing structure and their subscriber numbers have recently declined with a forecast by the company of a projected 2 million loss of subscribers for the next quarter so do you think it is logical that prices will have to rise?

Their revenue is going to take a major hit if their own estimation of 2 million + subscribers leaving will come to fruition in the 2nd quarter. That is their own company forecast.

It stands to reason that either prices will have to rise in the near future or they cut back severely on the amount of content they create which is also just as risky as raising prices because less content could drive even more people away from subscribing.

This is the major dilemma Netflix (and to a lesser extent the whole streaming industry) is in now as I alluded to in my previous posts. Read all of them in this thread and understand them.

What any business comes down to is profitability. It does not matter how good the business may be or if it is a market leader or not. What counts is can it make profits or does it burn through cash and go the way of the dodo.

I don't need to be a streaming user to know that the industry has and continues to lose money. In the real world that does not last for very long before the chickens come home to roost. Amazon and Apple can weather the storm better than Netflix due to their cash-flows, size of business and the fact that they do not need to rely on streaming to stay in business.

Netflix does. And that's the problem.

Netflix has to make profits from streaming. Amazon does not. Neither does Apple.

Amazon and Apple can probably continue to offer their streaming content at current prices for years and it will not bother them much.

Netflix cannot. Their share price will go lower and lower ultimately ending in bankruptcy or being bought out by a rival which is why I suggested the possibility of Amazon potentially buying them out.

If you look at it objectively, all Amazon needs to do is keep offering their service at current prices even if it means losing money to make it very hard for Netflix to increase their pricing that will help make them become profitable with the intention of lowering the stock price until it gets so cheap they can buy them out.

That would be my strategy if I was at Amazon or Apple.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

If you look at it objectively, all Amazon needs to do is keep offering their service at current prices even if it means losing money to make it very hard for Netflix to increase their pricing that will help make them become profitable with the intention of lowering the stock price until it gets so cheap they can buy them out.

That would be my strategy if I was at Amazon or Apple.

You must have missed the part of @ManW_TheUncool 's comment that Amazon's web services division is providing the backend infrastructure for Netflix's streaming service. So, it's not in Amazon's best interest to drive Netflix out of business, nor does it make much sense for Amazon to acquire Netflix. Amazon is making money from Netflix right now.

 

[Carl David]

You must have missed the part of @ManW_TheUncool 's comment that Amazon's web services division is providing the backend infrastructure for Netflix's streaming service. So, it's not in Amazon's best interest to drive Netflix out of business, nor does it make much sense for Amazon to acquire Netflix. Amazon is making money from Netflix right now.

Seems I did misread that.

I thought Netflix charged Amazon not the other way around.

However, it still does not change the situation.

It would still be in Amazon's interest to either see Netflix go away or for Amazon to just take them over.

I am not sure which option would be the best of those two, however.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Seems I did misread that.

I thought Netflix charged Amazon not the other way around.

However, it still does not change the situation.

It would still be in Amazon's interest to either see Netflix go away or for Amazon to just take them over.

I am not sure which option would be the best of those two, however.

How does it not change the situation? Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a very profitable division, and having a large customer in Netflix generates a lot of revenue for AWS. Why would Amazon want to buy Netflix if they are not profitable, or want them to go away and lose all that revenue?

 

[Carl David]

How does it not change the situation? Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a very profitable division, and having a large customer in Netflix generates a lot of revenue for AWS. Why would Amazon want to buy Netflix if they are not profitable, or want them to go away and lose all that revenue?

Firstly, if they purchased the company they could keep the most successful shows/content created and owned by Netflix and dispose of the rest. Basically strip the company disposing of the dead weight.

Netflix also has the most subscribers in the industry at the moment which may potentially be turned into a major asset that Amazon could reap good profits from if utilised successfully. Don't underestimate what that could be worth to Amazon.

It would make them the market leader by a long stretch with nobody else that could come close.

As it stands, Netflix is Amazon's closest major rival in relation to subscriber numbers. They are the only company that has more subscribers than Amazon (200m + versus 150m).

Secondly, after having a quick look at the revenue here:

https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws (2020 data).

Amazon Web Services received $19 million per month from Netflix which amounts to around just over $0.2 billion per year.

Assuming Amazon don't raise their prices to Netflix and based on the current forecasts of Netflix subscriber numbers that figure is going to be close to a peak and may even decline year on year from here.

Amazon's net revenue from their subscription service based on their 150 million subscribers was $25 billion. (2020 data).

Amazon: global net revenue by product 2023 | Statista

In 2023, most of Amazon's global revenue came from online retail. Since 2014, subscription services segment has grown steadily.

www.statista.com

It's clear from those figures that Amazon's revenue from streaming/subscriptions & video on demand that the AWS revenue from Netflix in comparison is a drop in the ocean ($0.2 billion versus $25 billion).

In fact, their total annual revenue from AWS was $45 billion + in 2020 so that $0.2 billion is chump change compared to their total income from that segment of their business.

If you look at AWS major customers you will see that some of the worlds biggest corporations are using the service.

In no way do Amazon need Netflix for their AWS business. It's completely insignificant.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Firstly, if they purchased the company they could keep the most successful shows/content created and owned by Netflix and dispose of the rest. Basically strip the company disposing of the dead weight.

Netflix also has the most subscribers in the industry at the moment which may potentially be turned into a major asset that Amazon could reap good profits from if utilised successfully. Don't underestimate what that could be worth to Amazon.

It would make them the market leader by a long stretch with nobody else that could come close.

As it stands, Netflix is Amazon's closest major rival in relation to subscriber numbers. They are the only company that has more subscribers than Amazon (200m + versus 150m).

Secondly, after having a quick look at the revenue here:

https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws (2020 data).

Amazon Web Services received $19 million per month from Netflix which amounts to around just over $0.2 billion per year.

Assuming Amazon don't raise their prices to Netflix and based on the current forecasts of Netflix subscriber numbers that figure is going to be close to a peak and may even decline year on year from here.

Amazon's net revenue from their subscription service based on their 150 million subscribers was $25 billion. (2020 data).

Amazon: global net revenue by product 2023 | Statista

In 2023, most of Amazon's global revenue came from online retail. Since 2014, subscription services segment has grown steadily.

www.statista.com

It's clear from those figures that Amazon's revenue from streaming/subscriptions & video on demand that the AWS revenue from Netflix in comparison is a drop in the ocean ($0.2 billion versus $25 billion).

In fact, their total annual revenue from AWS was $45 billion + in 2020 so that $0.2 billion is chump change compared to their total income from that segment of their business.

If you look at AWS major customers you will see that some of the worlds biggest corporations are using the service.

In no way do Amazon need Netflix for their AWS business. It's completely insignificant.

Amazon's Prime subscription service provides much more than video streaming -- that is actually just a secondary benefit of the plan. It's primary function is free two-day shipping for Amazon's main business of online shopping. Other benefits include music streaming, additional reward points on purchases made with an Amazon Prime credit card, a free Kindle book each month, and other shopping offers.

So, those 150 million Amazon subscribers are mostly joining for things other than video streaming. I have been a Prime member for many years, and it's not the video streaming that gets me to fork over $10 per month (soon going to $12) for the service.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Amazon's Prime subscription service provides much more than video streaming -- that is actually just a secondary benefit of the plan. It's primary function is free two-day shipping for Amazon's main business of online shopping. Other benefits include music streaming, additional reward points on purchases made with an Amazon Prime credit card, a free Kindle book each month, and other shopping offers.

So, those 150 million Amazon subscribers are mostly joining for things other than video streaming. I have been a Prime member for many years, and it's not the video streaming that gets me to fork over $10 per month (soon going to $12) for the service.

Another thing, the last figures I saw the other day, there were over 200 million Prime members.

 

[benbess]

....Firstly, Netflix has never been nor still is a profitable business....They have never been profitable with their current pricing structure....

Perhaps I'm confused or misreading things, but according to the Annual Reports from Netflix, as well as information at wikipedia, Netflix had a profit of about $5 billion in 2021. The stock currently has a price-earnings ratio of about 19, which also indicates that they have large profits. If there are no profits there is no P/E ratio.

Netflix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Netflix - Financials - Annual Reports & Proxies

ir.netflix.net

 

[Carl David]

Perhaps I'm confused or misreading things, but according to the Annual Reports from Netflix, as well as information at wikipedia, Netflix had a profit of about $5 billion in 2021. The stock currently has a price-earnings ratio of about 19, which also indicates that they have large profits. If there are no profits there is no P/E ratio.

They have perhaps had a "profitable" year here or there which is a little dubious due to how their creative accounting is performed.

However, they have over $14 billion of debt. Based on those 2021 accounts that is around half of their turnover.

They have yet to repay the debts on their investments that have got them to the position they are in now.

With subscriber numbers peaking their revenue is going to decline significantly unless they change their business model and adapt to their new reality.

 

[Carl David]

Amazon's Prime subscription service provides much more than video streaming -- that is actually just a secondary benefit of the plan. It's primary function is free two-day shipping for Amazon's main business of online shopping. Other benefits include music streaming, additional reward points on purchases made with an Amazon Prime credit card, a free Kindle book each month, and other shopping offers.

So, those 150 million Amazon subscribers are mostly joining for things other than video streaming. I have been a Prime member for many years, and it's not the video streaming that gets me to fork over $10 per month (soon going to $12) for the service.

Fair comment and I understand that. Their model and service is vastly different from how Netflix operate.

And yes there is probably a lot of Amazon's subscribers that only pay for the service to get the deals on online shopping etc.

That is a major reason why Amazon could benefit from having Netflix subscribers in addition to their current Prime subscribers.

Gives them more options and flexibility in what they can do.

I think I have given plenty of information to put my point across.

I will refrain from commenting in this thread for now probably until Netflix reports their next quarter earnings or unless something drastic happens to their share price before then.

Things will become a bit more clearer later in the year for the streaming industry, I think.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Firstly, if they purchased the company they could keep the most successful shows/content created and owned by Netflix and dispose of the rest. Basically strip the company disposing of the dead weight.

That's true, but NF's content may not be worth nearly enough for Amazon to want to do that (enough).

Maybe if NF's stock price drops well below 10% of what it is now I suppose so that their market cap drops well below $10B. That would come close to what Amazon paid for MGM... though NF doesn't have anything like the Bond franchise. But are you really forecasting for NF's stock price to fall below $20/share w/in these next few years???

Of course, there's also the issue of the debt involved (and that would likely be much bigger than it is now if their stock price does actually fall that far), which was what you were harping on about NF's eventual demise, so... and then, Amazon would likely also lose a valuable AWS customer.

And it's not like Amazon has some sort of track record for doing what you're suggesting here.

Netflix also has the most subscribers in the industry at the moment which may potentially be turned into a major asset that Amazon could reap good profits from if utilised successfully. Don't underestimate what that could be worth to Amazon.

It would make them the market leader by a long stretch with nobody else that could come close.

As it stands, Netflix is Amazon's closest major rival in relation to subscriber numbers. They are the only company that has more subscribers than Amazon (200m + versus 150m).

NF's subscriber base won't necessarily translate much for Amazon because the 2 businesses are actually too different. IF anything, there is probably already tons of overlap between them.

Again, you seem to completely miss the point that NF and Amazon aren't competitors at all.

It's quite likely that most of their customers already subscribe to both NF and Amazon Prime. And really, what NF customer wouldn't already know about Amazon and likely already shopped at Amazon (and are fully aware of Prime services even if not subscribed at the moment)???

And if Amazon wants a target list to increase their customer base, they already have other likely better ways to do so -- we're not still in the old days of telemarketing afterall... and Amazon's actually a big dog in the tech backend side alongside the likes of Google, et al. Have you never surfed the web either and seen ads that send you to Amazon (even though you apparently don't stream at all), LOL?

Secondly, after having a quick look at the revenue here:

https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws (2020 data).

Amazon Web Services received $19 million per month from Netflix which amounts to around just over $0.2 billion per year.

Assuming Amazon don't raise their prices to Netflix and based on the current forecasts of Netflix subscriber numbers that figure is going to be close to a peak and may even decline year on year from here.

Amazon's net revenue from their subscription service based on their 150 million subscribers was $25 billion. (2020 data).

Amazon: global net revenue by product 2023 | Statista

In 2023, most of Amazon's global revenue came from online retail. Since 2014, subscription services segment has grown steadily.

www.statista.com

It's clear from those figures that Amazon's revenue from streaming/subscriptions & video on demand that the AWS revenue from Netflix in comparison is a drop in the ocean ($0.2 billion versus $25 billion).

In fact, their total annual revenue from AWS was $45 billion + in 2020 so that $0.2 billion is chump change compared to their total income from that segment of their business.

If you look at AWS major customers you will see that some of the worlds biggest corporations are using the service.

In no way do Amazon need Netflix for their AWS business. It's completely insignificant.

They don't really "need" NF for anything, especially their debt that you kept harping on, so why buy them???

$0.2B/year in the green is much better than the doomsday red you are forecasting that Amazon would be acquiring at (very) substantial cost.

It just seems like you're just stuck doubledowning on your argument chasing after the wrong wild goose...

IF anyone wants to buy NF -- and I'm not saying nobody would -- it's probably *not* Amazon anytime soon.

I'd think Google or maybe even AT&T (after their last attempt w/ Warner/HBO Max) might have more interest than Amazon.

IF NF's stock price does eventually fall far enough, I suppose ViacomCBS/Paramount might eventually want to consider merging w/ them -- they're probably not big enough to "buy" NF outright even at that point. Paramount+ is probably the weakest (and least well resourced) streaming platform of the majors right now, and they don't seem to have quite the same aspirations (nor clout) as HBO Max, Peacock, et al w/ content/channels/etc aggregation and such that would likely conflict w/ adopting/adapting NF's frontend. And Paramount+ could certainly use the subscriber base along w/ additional content library and maybe whatever licensed content contracts... although I imagine any merger between them would likely mean the NF brand/frontend survives w/ the Paramount+ streaming platform itself going away (for the most part)... maybe dubbed as NetFlix+ (w/ company name Paramount NF?) or some such...

Anyway, if there's going to be a merger/acquisition, Amazon may be one of the least likely suitors for NetFlix...

_Man_

 

[Desslar]

Amazon's Prime subscription service provides much more than video streaming -- that is actually just a secondary benefit of the plan. It's primary function is free two-day shipping for Amazon's main business of online shopping. Other benefits include music streaming, additional reward points on purchases made with an Amazon Prime credit card, a free Kindle book each month, and other shopping offers.

So, those 150 million Amazon subscribers are mostly joining for things other than video streaming. I have been a Prime member for many years, and it's not the video streaming that gets me to fork over $10 per month (soon going to $12) for the service.

I guess everyone is different. Without Prime Video, I would be constantly debating whether or not the Prime subscription is worth the money (poring over Amazon and Whole Foods receipts). With Prime Video, signing up is a no-brainer.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I guess everyone is different. Without Prime Video, I would be constantly debating whether or not the Prime subscription is worth the money (poring over Amazon and Whole Foods receipts). With Prime Video, signing up is a no-brainer.

It no doubt makes a diff to some like you, but highly doubtful it's the #1 reason for 99.9% of their customers to subscribe given what they charge for it. Would you pay their ~$15/month (or ~$140/year) asking price just/predominantly for their Prime video streaming?

The only time I ever consider paying remotely that price for Amazon Prime is once-per-year during the holiday shopping season... and even then, I often get some kinda free or deeply discounted trial offer from them to satisfy that want/need, so I've almost never paid full price when I reactivated... and then, I make good use of their "no rush" rewards (and the extra cashback/promos w/ my Amazon Visa) to essentially recover most/all (and often more) of what I pay for their service.

Their subscription video streaming service simply pales in comparison to most others amongst the majors in too many ways, at too many different levels (and I often completely skip using it at all when I do reactivate). I don't doubt a very small demographic of streaming customers find Amazon's streaming service offer something/enough they want on a reasonably regular basis, especially if they also already subscribe to NetFlix and/or some other platforms/services, but it's gotta be very small (and they most likely aren't paying full price just to have the video streaming alone)... at least until they land on some really big hit franchises (like maybe the upcoming Lord of the Rings prequel series and similar) that can sustain regular viewership, but that hasn't happened so far... and Amazon does seem very quick to cancel what would seem promising enough...

_Man_

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Netflix apparently laid off a shitload of employees today in its marketing department:

 

[Desslar]

It no doubt makes a diff to some like you, but highly doubtful it's the #1 reason for 99.9% of their customers to subscribe given what they charge for it. Would you pay their ~$15/month (or ~$140/year) asking price just/predominantly for their Prime video streaming?

The only time I ever consider paying remotely that price for Amazon Prime is once-per-year during the holiday shopping season... and even then, I often get some kinda free or deeply discounted trial offer from them to satisfy that want/need, so I've almost never paid full price when I reactivated... and then, I make good use of their "no rush" rewards (and the extra cashback/promos w/ my Amazon Visa) to essentially recover most/all (and often more) of what I pay for their service.

Their subscription video streaming service simply pales in comparison to most others amongst the majors in too many ways, at too many different levels (and I often completely skip using it at all when I do reactivate). I don't doubt a very small demographic of streaming customers find Amazon's streaming service offer something/enough they want on a reasonably regular basis, especially if they also already subscribe to NetFlix and/or some other platforms/services, but it's gotta be very small (and they most likely aren't paying full price just to have the video streaming alone)... at least until they land on some really big hit franchises (like maybe the upcoming Lord of the Rings prequel series and similar) that can sustain regular viewership, but that hasn't happened so far... and Amazon does seem very quick to cancel what would seem promising enough...

_Man_

Would I pay the current Prime subscription rate just for Prime Video? Hmm... that would be tougher to justify.

Until recently I think I would have said yes, but since Prime started to move all its vintage TV content over to Freevee, the value of the subscription has really dropped for me.

 

[DaveF]

Netflix apparently laid off a shitload of employees today in its marketing department:

Best comment I’ve heard on the closing of the Tudum blog was: Tudum should be an in-Netflix vlog. People don’t go to the web to read about Netflix. They go to Netflix to watch Netflix. So have Netflix promo and interviews and sneak-peaks and coming-soon and recaps and all the things in Netflix.

Also noted for obvious improvements for all the streaming services: Why do people have to go to YouTube to get recaps and best-of montages? Why aren’t Disney and Netflix producing in-service their own season recaps, or montages of the best moments from Umbrella Academy?

 

[DaveF]

Also interesting — and I didn’t save the tweets so you’ll have to just believe me -- were reports from the Tudum team that they couldn’t get interviews with actors signed to exclusive contracts with Netflix, while those actors were breaking the exclusivity to talk with external interviewers.

All the reports of “throw money and big ideas into action but break it all with corporate obstacles and mismanagement” are coming out.

 

[benbess]

My wife and I watched this very good documentary series yesterday. Made me feel like my money to Netflix each month is going for some good stuff. I imagine this was less expensive than most of their shows and movies, although for the reenactments they actually built some big and detailed sets.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Netflix Admits Some Shows Won’t Make It To Ad Tier, In Talks With Studios Over Licensing Deals​