
How Hollywood Is Racing to Catch Up with Netflix - yarapavan
https://variety.com/2018/digital/features/media-streaming-services-netflix-disney-comcast-att-1202910463
======
flyinglizard
Given that direct-to-customer is pretty much a done deal, my interest is what
will happen to the advertising space given that they will have much less
primetime exposure. Cord cutters with Netflix aren't going to be exposed to
ads. Yet as the world becomes more competitive, brands need advertising more
than ever. Is all of their budget going online? But even online they are
facing pressure - privacy, adblocking, Apple, etc.

Lets say I only view Netflix, I run an adblocker and use an iPhone. What are
the opportunities of a brand to reach me now? It's pretty much limited to
Facebook or Google at this point. Then consider that the person profile I just
described is probably a high earner with significant spending potential.

~~~
michaelt
Ads on YouTube, sponsored videos, shill review videos, product placement on
YouTube and Netflix, ads on billboards, ads on busses, ads on taxis, ads on
train station gates and platforms, ads in magazines and newspapers, direct
mail, ads on pub coasters, ads on bathroom doors, ads on parking tickets and
theatre tickets and event programmes, ads on receipts, ads in your amazon
orders...

Anyone who thinks we’re living in an ad-free age hasn’t been to a major city
recently :)

~~~
flyinglizard
YouTube is Google, Instagram is Facebook. So we're left with these two,
online. Magazines are dying.

Ads on billboards/buses/taxis are pretty much the same thing, but they are
limited to specific content (mostly still images, no video or sound).

TV was the king of advertising mediums. It was the place where a brand can get
captive attention, with sound and a 30 seconds clip. You can't skip and most
likely won't go anywhere. The only downside is that it's an open loop
mechanism - you don't get very good feedback on the effectiveness of your ad,
and that the call for action is weak (you can't click into the brand page).

~~~
barking
Sports broadcasts still bring in live tv viewers in large numbers They have
ads on the pitch side, player kits, ads on screen during play, ads during
breaks, stadium naming rights, stats _brought to you_ by some company or
other, the league itself has naming rights and the broadcast has naming
rights.

~~~
stormbrew
That's a very large, but very very specific, demographic. A lot of people just
plain aren't reached by live sports broadcasts at all.

~~~
barking
True but sometimes it can be very large indeed.

Nearly half the population of the UK watched the England vs Croatia world cup
semi final.

------
Lramseyer
I personally think there are 2 really difficult pills that the incumbent media
giants need to swallow:

1\. The younger generation (myself) does not like commercials, and are willing
to pay a subscription fee to remove them (ie Pandora one, Hulu+, Spotify
Premium.) Either the commercials pay for the content, or or the consumer pays,
not both!

2\. The less popular networks/channels will have to either have
revenue/funding cut substantially, go elsewhere (to Youtube for Facebook,) or
out of business. Most of us simply don't care and don't want to pay for it.
This bundling of unpopular networks with really popular ones is costing the
cable companies too much money that they're trying to pass onto the consumer.
Customers are sick of paying for it.

Streaming services are delivering content, while removing the waste of time
and attention spent watching commercials, and the waste of money spent on
programming that the majority of the viewer base could care less about. It's
not rocket science, it's just trimming the fat from the old way of doing
things.

~~~
YokoZar
Netflix originals are a form of bundling too. There are many in completely
different genres now, with very different budgets. It's unlikely a particular
netflix viewer will want to watch most of them, nevermind the back catalog.

And yet, a netflix subscription is 1/4 the price of a typical cable package,
with no ads, on-demand for everything, and a better discoverability process.
If that were the experience of cable, people wouldn't mind the "less popular"
things.

~~~
lighthazard
Think of Netflix more like a channel, in terms of TV. You get a series of
shows/movies on that channel, and the programming is expected - you aren't
going to expect to see HBO shows on there or Comedy Central shows, but when
it's there, it's one of those re-run things.

~~~
gerdesj
_Think of Netflix more like a channel_

What sort of channel? For example, would Netflix ever produce something like
"Blue Planet" (eponymous or 2). Probably it would eventually but I can't help
feel that there is a place for the likes of the BBC to keep the rest on their
toes. I pay a decent amount in TV license fees to fund the BBC (currently
about £150 per year). In return I expect that the BBC will respect the wishes
of the UK elected govt - sadly that involves respecting the wishes of my
country's elected govt. I'm also happy that anyone should be able to view the
BBC's output for a reasonable but ideally a minimal fee.

------
oneplane
They can't catch up because nobody is going to pay for 'another netflix'.

One of the things classic hollywood media was built on, was lock-in, control,
ads, locality. None of that applies to the Netflix space of things. You get no
control, you don't get to dictate when and why and how someone consumes
content, and you don't get to schedule yourself between everybody else. Unless
you have good, accessible, quality content, people are going to ignore you
(and they should). It's why piracy exists and will exist as long as people
attempt to force lock-in by making their media exclusive to one service or
area. People don't want it and will find ways around it, forever.

~~~
DenisM
I have more than one service, at the peak I had 5: Netflix, HBO Now, Amazon,
Hulu, and Acorn. Also maybe BritBox (not sure if I ever started paying for
it).

I subscribe / unsubscribe as interesting shows come out.

~~~
stephengillie
Youtube Premium, and paying some of those people again on Patreon. Also,
Crunchyroll.

------
gerdesj
Holy Wood has created some pretty far out stories in its time and in some
cases bent and twisted history to fit a story or advertising margin.

Back in mid May a lass from CA married a bloke from UK and became a Princess.
OK she actually became a Duchess (generally considered a pretty good result as
well around here) but around two billion people who watched the ceremony will
swear they saw a Prince and Princess get hitched on that day.

I think that reality in this case has trumped any story that Hollywood has
managed so far: "The Californian Princess" (RLY? she's from a Republic FFS)

Hollywood is racing to catch up with reality, let alone Netflix (who haven't
even learned how to shave yet)

------
Animats
_" Those movies — including “Captain Marvel,” “Dumbo,” “Toy Story 4,” “The
Lion King,” “Frozen 2” and a new “Star Wars” installment — will now be key
selling points for the new service Iger has referred to as “Disney Play.”_

Sounds like the successor to DisneyToons, the crap sequel division of Disney.
Should be called "Disney Replay".

Meanwhile, Amazon is coming out with new stories.

------
jokoon
Does anybody else fins that netflix is more about quantity than quality?

On top of that, and their movie catalog is a little slim.

~~~
donttrack
They gotta fill the whole spectrum of people, I suppose. As long as there is
something for me, I am satisfied and I do find a gem of documentary once in a
while or an old movie, I didn't watch for a long time.

