Maybe I'm an outlier in how I use streaming services, but I don't really understand why "Consumer Screen Time" is their most valuable metric. Whether I'm playing Fortnite or not my Netflix account is paid for and waiting. I keep it around for kids shows, or for breaks when I want to stream something instead of gaming. Some months I stream more than others, but I _maintain_ my subscription because it serves me when I need it.
This looks like spin to me. I'm much more likely to cut off my subscription due to a lack of satisfying content than distraction by other sources of entertainment. That's probably the message they are trying to push to the background with this "Consumer Screen Time" metric. As content competition increases with other established producers, the likelihood that Netflix original content will be enough for current customers to maintain their subscriptions is reduced. Netflix originals already tend to have a specific "flavor" which I'm not particularly fond of.
There's only enough room in my media budget for one, maybe two services, so whichever one has the content I want gets my money.
>> I'm much more likely to cut off my subscription due to a lack of satisfying content than distraction by other sources of entertainment.
I think their viewpoint is that "amount of satisfying content" is a metric that is purely relative to everything else out there. A complete global monopoly on all passive viewing content wouldn't help them if the entire world has moved on to Fortnite and video games in general for their entertainment.
But are people actually cutting their Netflix subscriptions because they play so much fortnite? I get that the game has a widely varied demographic, but I would assume that a majority of people putting in large amounts of "Consumer Screen Time" are probably still dependents of their parents, who likely maintain a household media streaming subscription of some kind.
I can't imagine that instances of people cutting out media streaming entirely in favor of gaming are significant enough to pose the kind of threat that Netflix is stating. If so, HBO and Hulu and all the others are in similar peril and the entire entertainment economy is due for unprecedented upheaval.
I think a point here to consider is that you yourself call it a "media budget" and there are certainly demographics whose media budget goes to video games first and everything else second. Fortnite for being a "free" game is certainly eating interestingly large chunks of people's media budgets, especially when you also consider "knock on effects" like Twitch and Mixer subscriptions among some of the most invested in Fortnite.
Right, but I think Netflix will be less likely to admit that given that it's the more probable outcome.
If Fortnite is their largest competition then I, as a hypothetical stakholder/investor, am not going to be entirely concerned, since it seems unlikely that it'll actually have an effect.
Then again, there are some thinking people who might think that if this analysis might betray some backwards internal understanding of the company.
This looks like spin to me. I'm much more likely to cut off my subscription due to a lack of satisfying content than distraction by other sources of entertainment. That's probably the message they are trying to push to the background with this "Consumer Screen Time" metric. As content competition increases with other established producers, the likelihood that Netflix original content will be enough for current customers to maintain their subscriptions is reduced. Netflix originals already tend to have a specific "flavor" which I'm not particularly fond of.
There's only enough room in my media budget for one, maybe two services, so whichever one has the content I want gets my money.