Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The "bleeding" is being attended to: higher monthly rates, addition of AVOD plans, less content spend, more licensing out of content.

They are not going to quit until they see black and it looks like it will be about 16 months to make that happen. You don't turn your back on a $30 billion a year revenue stream. And what will you do with 200 million email addresses and demographic stats to go with them.



That changed with DVD. Once again the lure of billions of dollars - about 35 to 40 billion world wide a year made the studios welcome consumer ownership of their content with open arms and open wallets.

It remains to be seen if the studio's gambit on becoming streaming providers will actually payoff or whether these are just desperate attempts to try anything to right a floundering ship. Do we really expect the studios that took this plunge to tell their stock holders anything other than to promise them a rosy return upon their investment ever just down the road? A forecast is nothing more than that until it is actually realized.

During the height of physical media the studios liked the money that they were making; of course they did, but they still hated giving up their precious control over their movies in order to get it. Now, they are hoping that streaming will give them comparable, and even better, profits while also restoring their reluctantly released control.

Essentially, they want their cake and the ability to eat it, too. At present they are just eating crow. Their own streaming services have not proven to be the golden goose that they were dreaming about.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It remains to be seen if the studio's gambit on becoming streaming providers will actually payoff or whether these are just desperate attempts to try anything to right a floundering ship. Do we really expect the studios that took this plunge to tell their stock holders anything other than to promise them a rosy return upon their investment ever just down the road? A forecast is nothing more than that until it is actually realized.

Rome wasn't built in a day. I believe they underestimated their quarterly losses because they were laser focused on gaining subscribers. That's what Wall Street was using as a yard stick. Then the yard stick changed - where are the profits?

I know you are singling out Disney. Netflix is already showing respectable profits and MAX is on the line between profit and loss. For the 100th time, Disney has stated Disney+ will be profitable by EOY 2024. They made that prediction in November of 2020. We will just have to wait and see if it comes true. Their financial problems far exceed issues with Disney+

During the height of physical media the studios liked they money that they were making; of course they did, but they still hated giving up their precious control over their movies in order to get it. Now, they are hoping that streaming will give them comparable, and even better, profits while also restoring their reluctantly released control.

You can't embrace something and crow about it like they did every year at CES but hate it at the same time. That doesn't work. Find me any articles between 2003 and 2006 that support your statement. The one thing they did hate was Redbox. Taking their product and making money off it without cutting them in on the revenue. Do you remember when they had to send out people to Best Buy to buy the latest movies because the studios refused to sell to them? THAT'S what they hate more than anything.

Streaming will be 10X bigger than physical media was at its height. Consumers adjust very quickly to market conditions. Far quicker than mega corporations. They don't care about ownership. They don't even care if the content is changed (censored). All they want is something to entertain them. Something to talk about on their social media outlets. New content arrives monthly. Older content leaves monthly. Such is the design of licensing agreements.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

But it's the best thing to happen for consumers.

That would be the general movement to transcode film content into digital formats. For the longest time only a percentage of film content in studios archives was repurposed. But it was this gradual evolution of allowing users to play better and better physical content that was the best thing that happened to consumers. Streaming was just a later alternative method of supplying digital content using the internet to consumers.

The biggest benefit to this is saving decaying works that studios failed to convert earlier to new formats that allowed consumers to see long lost content no longer provided to consumers. That and to insure the same content doesn't accidentally get destroyed by fire or content owner handling errors.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Teeny tiny segment of the market.

Only because film is obsolete and we use digital cameras now. But if you meant it as film in the sense of revenue then who can joke about theater revenue which is the main financial source of this industry.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It is a self-inflicted wound.

The studios chose the money pit that they are digging with their own hands when they decided to each offer their own competing streaming service. They should have just stuck to licensing their stuff out to cable TV and the likes of Netflix thereby avoiding all of the huge costs associated with offering their own SVOD service.

Still, SVOD to me is just the logical evolution of cable TV. The studios never gave a damn about artistic integrity when their movies aired on cable TV, either, so I don't know why streaming would be any different. The studios want complete control over how we watch their movies. They never liked the idea of consumer's owning their own copies.

Streaming happens to be the #1 source of being entertained by these lengthy non-Hollywood TV series that are produced around the world now. It's interesting how streaming has made possible producing live acting productions derived from various genres of books, comics/anime/manga, compared to the usual western condensed content like so many series on OTA.Cable broadcast. Yes it allows much longer works to brought to the consumers screens.

[Trekkie313]

Streaming is good for TV shows, documentaries and whatnot. But licensing rights and platform diversity is a nightmare for the consumer. The cost of entry is high just to be able to watch some content over another unless you wish to pay per episode or buy seasons.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I know you are singling out Disney.

No, I am not singling out Disney. None of the studio owned streaming services are profitable as far as I know. Not one. Maybe some of them will be someday, but I doubt very much that all of them will be and even if some do become profitable, will it be by very much? The streaming marketplace is getting awfully crowded; I don't think all of them will survive in their present form. Some kind of market correction seems inevitable.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You can't embrace something and crow about it like they did every year at CES but hate it at the same time. That doesn't work.

Love/hate relationships have always been a part of human nature. The studios certainly loved the profits that physical media brought them during its peak period, but we know throughout their history that the studios resented the loss of control that they experienced ever since the studio system and their monopoly of theater ownership was busted up. They have always sought to control access to their movies.

The studios had high hopes that Divx, or something like it, would take hold. It was just another failed attempt to exert control over how consumers could access their content even after they "bought" it.

The studios also were very effective at making it difficult to permanently record their movies off of cable TV. Except for Japan, recordable DVD players that you could connect to your cable TV service have been killed off. I still have one myself, but it is mostly useless now.

Streaming generates a lot of revenue, but that has not translated to a lot of profit even for the sole SVOD that is profitable: Netflix. One somewhat profitable streaming service does not a trend make. Let's see if other SVODs can replicate their limited success, yet alone exceed it. It remains to be seen if streaming will ever be as profitable as physical media was at its zenith.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Only because film is obsolete and we use digital cameras now. But if you meant it as film in the sense of revenue then who can joke about theater revenue which is the main financial source of this industry.

He was referring to film lovers - as in movie lovers - not celluloid.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

No, I am not singling out Disney.

Originally Posted by Vilya
It remains to be seen if the studio's gambit on becoming streaming providers will actually payoff or whether these are just desperate attempts to try anything to right a floundering ship.

Sure does sound like it. SHIP . . . not SHIPS.

None of the studio owned streaming services are profitable as far as I know. Not one. Maybe some of them will be someday, but I doubt very much that all of them will be and even if some do become profitable, will it be by very much? The streaming marketplace is getting awfully crowded; I don't think all of them will survive in their present form. Some kind of market correction seems inevitable.

Netflix is a studio BTW. Don't exclude them. We will never know about Amazon's Prime Video because they don't break out Prime Video as a separate line item on their balance sheet. So that leaves Comcast/NBC Universals Peacock and Paramount's Paramount+. The former has a revenue stream of $120 billion a year (market cap of $188.64B). The later is on shaky legs and has been before they birthed Paramount+. It's the only one that fits your scenario. Oh - I forgot Hulu - they are definitely profitable. One of the highest per sub revenue streams.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Streaming happens to be the #1 source of being entertained by these lengthy non-Hollywood TV series that are produced around the world now. It's interesting how streaming has made possible producing live acting productions derived from various genres of books, comics/anime/manga, compared to the usual western condensed content like so many series on OTA.Cable broadcast. Yes it allows much longer works to brought to the consumers screens.

Lengthy series? You mean those 8-10 episode seasons of shows that Netflix usually cancels after just one or two seasons? Even their occasional hit series rarely make it past four or five seasons. When Netflix has a show that runs 10+ seasons like can be found with several TV series you can tell me about their series being lengthy and having enduring appeal.

It's great that so many shows get a chance on streaming, but most of them fail quickly. It has been a standing joke that Netflix will approve almost any idea for a series that is brought to them; they throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Little does.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Sure does sound like it. SHIP . . . not SHIPS.

Netflix is a studio BTW. Don't exclude them. We will never know about Amazon's Prime Video because they don't break out Prime Video as a separate line item on their balance sheet. So that leaves Comcast/NBC Universals Peacock and Paramount's Paramount+. The former has a revenue stream of $120 billion a year (market cap of $188.64B). The later is on shaky legs and has been before they birthed Paramount+. It's the only one that fits your scenario. Oh - I forgot Hulu - they are definitely profitable. One of the highest per sub revenue streams.

How profitable is "definitely profitable?" What's their debt situation? We both know that you can't look at these things in a vacuum.

Comcast/NBC/Universal's revenue stream may be "$120 billion" per year, but is that derived just from their streaming service or does that include all of the many pies that they have their fingers in? I bet it's the latter. Is their streaming service, in and of itself, profitable?

Netflix and Hulu are primarily sources for episodic series, not so much movies, which is what we have been mostly discussing: the effects of streaming upon movies. I own more movies than Netflix has on offer at any given time and by a pretty good amount.

Hulu has also been an early adopter of ad supported discounted subscriptions: basically the same thing as what you experience with a cable subscription. Netflix has now followed their lead and is offering the same option after years of insisting that they would never include ads. Like I said: this is just Cable TV repurposed: to get what you want you need five or six services making the cost comparable to cable TV and to save money on all of that people embrace ads. What's old is new again.

Unlike streaming, cable TV has had decades of profitability and that's despite all of the regulatory hurdles that cable TV had to overcome from their outset. Streaming is so much like cable TV except when it comes to making a reliable, sizable, profit.

[bhampton]

Happy Holiday Weekend !

I hope it results in an extra day of rest and reflection for everyone. Bless the moments of clarity. Life can be so crazy it's good to recharge if at all possible. I don't have a lot of plans but will have some time for things I love and I'm grateful for it. I've somehow stumbled on the life of my dreams and I'm not sure where I went right.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

It doesn't seem like comedy is virtually dead to me. I've seen quite a few comedy releases theatrically so far this year.

Like?

[Steedeel]

Transparency is key, the streaming industry won’t more forward until we have it. Creatives know it, actors know it, studios know it but don’t want it.

[deatheats]

Originally Posted by Vilya

…They never liked the idea of consumer's owning their own copies.

This about sums it up. Even more so in the day of 4k scans and lossless audio. We now have a near perfect representation of the original film elements in a digital format we own at home. Some companies really want streaming to kill physical releases, but are realizing the economics don’t add up and need the physical sales component.

Thankfully there is a sizable enough collector’s market, one which has recently seen an abundance of both domestic & global cinema releases and special editions. Enough to keep many of us entertained for a lifetime. It’s real hard to put that genie back in it’s bottle.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Like?

Here are some I've seen this year:

Barbie
No Hard Feelings
Back to the Strip
Strays
Jules
Theater Camp
Cocaine Bear
Champions
The Blackening
Joy Ride
About My Father
Bottoms
Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre
Mafia Mamma
The Machine
Renfield
Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret
What's Love Got to Do with It?
Fool's Paradise
You Hurt My Feelings
Asteroid City
Haunted Mansion

The list ended up being longer than I originally thought. Again, these are all films I've seen in the theater this year.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

How profitable is "definitely profitable?" What's their debt situation? We both know that you can't look at these things in a vacuum.

AFAIK, Hulu has no debt. It is funded by Comcast and Disney.

Comcast/NBC/Universal's revenue stream may be "$120 billion" per year, but is that derived just from their streaming service or does that include all of the many pies that they have their fingers in? I bet it's the latter. Is their streaming service, in and of itself, profitable?

That $120B is ALL of Comcast's revenue. So if they lose billions - they can afford it. That was the point I was making.

Netflix and Hulu are primarily sources for episodic series, not so much movies, which is what we have been mostly discussing: the effects of streaming upon movies. I own more movies than Netflix has on offer at any given time and by a pretty good amount.

Not true for Netflix at all.

Lists of Netflix original films

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...original_films

Hulu has also been an early adopter of ad supported discounted subscriptions: basically the same thing as what you experience with a cable subscription. Netflix has now followed their lead and is offering the same option after years of insisting that they would never include ads. Like I said: this is just Cable TV repurposed: to get what you want you need five or six services making the cost comparable to cable TV and to save money on all of that people embrace ads. What's old is new again.

It's what the cable companies refused to give consumers: Content Ala Cart. You pay for what you want. BTW - ever hear the expression: "Never Say Never."

Unlike streaming, cable TV has had decades of profitability and that's despite all of the regulatory hurdles that cable TV had to overcome from their outset. Streaming is so much like cable TV except when it comes to making a reliable, sizable, profit.

Streaming started in 2007 with Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. It wasn't until 2019 that the industry exploded - that's 4 years ago.

I don't know why so many of you have these lofty expectations of profitability for these services in such a short period of time.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Why would a company take on loss like this? I guess the end game is to have full control of the content but if you put up barriers to content it's not going to be very popular.

I don't agree if I understand correctly. It is not about control over you and me. let's look at music for a second. Apple launched iTunes/iPod and got full control if you were a record label you had to accept their terms, it became the biggest part of music and they could determi9ne their own terms. I think the movie industry is worried with leaving it up to a big rental/est giant. Creating Disney+ means that Disney can negotiate better with third parties. (gibe me X for the content or I can just put it on Disney+)

Seems like some of the people in charge don't have any idea what they are doing.

agree, but I don't think it is easy to know. many people assume more members is better. if I put it in a stupid way if 1 member, 10 members, 1000 members, 1M members watch the same thing you don't need more copies.... you see it in the stock price when membership grows fast stock price goes up when same or lower the stock price drops. But from a business point that does not make sense let me put it this way, there are many films in my collection, for myself, every year I also buy a small handful for my immediate family that I think they will like, if I were to buy for the whole neighborhood I would also need to buy a bunch of Bollywood films for my neighbor, you need more content and more churn of content to keep members content. If 1 person is streaming right now or 10 or 1M you need need more BW..... most people assume more people=more revenue but they forget it also means more cost and it is not linear as you get bigger the costs also grow faster.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

That $120B is ALL of Comcast's revenue. So if they lose billions - they can afford it. That was the point I was making.

Does Comcast and its stockholders share your cavalier attitude? Everyone's okay with possibly losing "billions" because they can afford it? Are Disney's shareholders likewise taking their streaming losses in stride? If so, I'm glad that they handle loss so well.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It's what the cable companies refused to give consumers: Content Ala Cart. You pay for what you want. BTW - ever hear the expression: "Never Say Never."

Streaming services are hardly "a la carte" any more than cable TV is; you have to pay for access to lots of content that you have no interest in no matter what tier of service that you choose.

It's not like I can just subscribe to Netflix's fantasy series and forego all the rest anymore than I can with Cable TV. You get all of what a service tier offers or you get none of it.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Not true for Netflix at all.

Lists of Netflix original films

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...original_films

Where is their list of original series for comparison?

If I recall correctly, it is their episodic series that are mostly responsible for attracting, and retaining, new subscribers- at least until they finish the series. It's pretty easy to blow through a couple of their movies and then bail on their service.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I don't know why so many of you have these lofty expectations of profitability for these services in such a short period of time.

That's just it. Many of us have no expectations for them to be significantly profitable at all, either in the short or the long term, as the SVOD market currently stands.

The "lofty" expectations come from the respective CEO's trying to sell a bill of goods to their stockholders and to Wall Street.

Will SVODs ever achieve the profitability levels attained by cable TV? I am not convinced by what I am seeing so far. Streaming is less different than cable TV all the time except for this one teensy fact: cable TV has turned a healthy profit for decades and they achieved profitability rapidly once crippling government regulations were lifted in the early 1970s.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We will see forced one year contracts within the next couple of years.

I don't think that would happen.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news...ncel-recurring


but they could (like some offer) a discount for long term subscriptions.