The Michael Geist Article The CMPA, ACTRA, and WGC Don't Want You to Read!

[InMontreal]

Fans of the show will always blame the network when the show is cancelled. The time slot change was promoted for weeks and it was not only highly advertised on Global

Regardless of promotion, monday 9pm slot was easily won with a CTV simsub of "The Following" and City simsub of 2 Broke Girls, both shows made the Top 30 during april.

[Mayhem]

Exactly, look at their pricing models. It should be pretty obvious that putting shows on iTunes is far more lucrative to a broadcaster than Netflix.

Not really. iTunes is a pay as you go model and depends on if that user buys that episode or season. If not a lot of users buy that episode or season then they don't end up making much money, unless they raise the prices, plus don't forget that Apple also has a high markup (don't act surprised).

Netflix, like every other subscription service, distributes its costs across its subscriber base in its price. That $7.99 pays for the license fees & royalties, storage space with Amazon S3, data connections, power, employee costs, plus profits and so on and so forth. Just like dividing up a restaurant bill among all the people at your table.


In short, Netflix is a safe and return of income is guaranteed, even if no one watches a episode; where iTunes has a high chance large returns, but can't guarantee any income.

I don't agree with the "This rule is unfair for them but they are vertically integrated so who cares" opinion you seem to have.

Being vertically integrated (VI) already has its benefits to the company. They can inflate market prices, intimidate competitors, and have no incentive to innovate because why adapt if your customers have no where else to go. I know you pride yourself on the defenders of these companies, but can you at least for once see this from a consumers point-of-view? Haven't you always wounder if your paying more than you should be for your satellite subscription or your ISP subscription? Bell's basic satellite package is $37.95 a/month and Rogers basic package is $38.86 a/month, does that look like they're really competing between each other for your service?

[PokerFace]

Innovation doesn't come cheap, so the more market control a company has, the easier it is to justify spending millions of dollars to innovate ... as long as there's at least one major competitor.

Netflix is far from a safe bet. If nobody watches the content, that just means that the subscribers are not interested in it. Thus, Netflix will be forced to acquire more (often costly) content to keep subscribers happy. The unpopular content eventually gets removed and is eventually replaced with fresher content ... over and over again.

Apple doesn't have to work as hard as Netflix does to find popular content ... simply because the fresh new content that Apple sells is replenished each week and readily available from the broadcasters/studios. Fresh new content is what's popular and that's why we are often asked to pay more for it. Broadcasters/Studios are comfortable with that arrangement.

Netflix had an easier time at the beginning of its existence negotiating lucrative streaming deals, but now that there is more competition and Netflix is very popular with cord cutters, broadcasters/studios want Netflix to pay through the nose.

True a la carte pricing for premium services like TMN or HBO is often frowned upon. However, if you're willing to pay for a year's service in advance, you will get a better deal. HBO Nortic (like HBO GO, but for Nortic countries) lets you subscribe to it without any cable/satellite subscription necessary, so it's a true a la carte channel. However, the catch is that if you want to be able to cancel it (with at least a month's notice), you are charged $20/month. But if you are willing to pay for a full year in advance, you are only charged $12/month.

If Netflix Canada becomes a more dominant force and our cable/satellite companies begin to lose even more subscribers, I assume that HBO might one day give Canadians the option to subscribe to HBO GO without the need for a cable/satellite subscription ... but I also have to assume that our cable/satellite companies will then just offer HBO even more money to keep that from happening.

[TVViewer]

Regardless of promotion, monday 9pm slot was easily won with a CTV.

Global wasn't expecting to win the time slot, but the show simply didn't do well despite the massive promotion and the fact that it had Monday's #1 show, Bones as a lead-in. The show wasn't just losing most of its lead-in, it lost a lot of the audience it had before.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;62068]

Not really. iTunes is a pay as you go model and depends on if that user buys that episode or season. If not a lot of users buy that episode or season then they don't end up making much money, unless they raise the prices, plus don't forget that Apple also has a high markup (don't act surprised).

Netflix, like every other subscription service, distributes its costs across its subscriber base in its price. That $7.99 pays for the license fees & royalties, storage space with Amazon S3, data connections, power, employee costs, plus profits and so on and so forth. Just like dividing up a restaurant bill among all the people at your table.


In short, Netflix is a safe and return of income is guaranteed, even if no one watches a episode; where iTunes has a high chance large returns, but can't guarantee any income.

But does the “guaranteed” income from Netflix offset the lost revenue from people watching the series on Netflix and not on the broadcaster website, VOD service, mobile app? This is why the iTunes model makes sense for them and why Netflix does not. Sorry but i’m pretty sure these companies wouldn't be involved with iTunes if they didn't benefit financially from the agreement. You aren't going to convince me that you know better than they do on what's best for them financially.

Being vertically integrated (VI) already has its benefits to the company. They can inflate market prices, intimidate competitors, and have no incentive to innovate because why adapt if your customers have no where else to go. I know you pride yourself on the defenders of these companies, but can you at least for once see this from a consumers point-of-view? Haven't you always wounder if your paying more than you should be for your satellite subscription or your ISP subscription? Bell's basic satellite package is $37.95 a/month and Rogers basic package is $38.86 a/month, does that look like they're really competing between each other for your service?

So VI is to blame for the price of Rogers and Bell’s basic cable packages? That’s a pretty baseless theory as I don’t seem to remember amazing cable prices before VI. There is absolutely no evidence that VI has harmed consumers, in fact it’s actually been good for consumers since these companies saved and improved our local television stations, and it may not be important to you but that’s important to a lot of consumers. The rules in place not only ensure your fears don't happen but they in some cases go a step further to unfairly punish BDU's (and punish their customers ).

[InMontreal]

Thus, Netflix will be forced to acquire more (often costly) content to keep subscribers happy. The unpopular content eventually gets removed and is eventually replaced with fresher content ... over and over again.

In fact, Netflix do sign contracts, so the content stays there until its expiration date.
See : http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/N...-Expire-124246

Apple doesn't have to work as hard as Netflix does to find popular content ... simply because the fresh new content that Apple sells is replenished each week and readily available from the broadcasters/studios.

Canada is just a copycat of the US.

All 5 networks agreed to offer their TV shows on iTunes, popular or not, and Apple is well established since 1984 and have lots of money. Americans do pay to watch specific episodes on iTunes, but it would be DUMB to disallow Canadians from buying american shows on iTunes because the "exclusive canadian broadcaster" wouldn't sell the same shows to iTunes.

Fox, NBC and ABC partnered up and acquired Hulu as a one-stop OTT for their shows, but CBS didn't participate. Subscription money goes directly to them, their own rules (ex: 8-days delay for Fox content), so they don't need to deal with a third-party OTT provider like Netflix and see lower profits and lose control over their own dumb restrictions.

The difference here, Netflix is seen as a video club, and what you get nowadays at video store? DVDs of past TV shows seasons.
American producers see no problem with Netflix offering their movies and TV shows in a buffet.
Canadian broadcasters/BDUs sees Netflix as a big bad foreign enemy and want to launch their own OTT service, each in their own little cocoon.

- Bell wants to force canadians to subscribe to Bell for exclusive access to Bell Media channels content and movies (that's why they buy TMN/SÉ from Astral).
- Rogers want to offer City shows on their own OTT service but they know they can't attract enough subscribers without Global and CTV content, and they know that Bell will not bother paying Rogers to offer City shows on their OTT service (instead, Bell will prefer buying the shows from the studios and sell conventional broadcast rights to City).
- Quebecor offer TVA content exclusively, they also offer Radio-Canada's original content as an agreement, and they know they'll lose access to Astral content soon, which counts for 33% of french-language market.

But does the “guaranteed” income from Netflix offset the lost revenue from people watching the series on Netflix and not on the broadcaster website, VOD service, mobile app?

I watched a few episodes on Global's App on the iPhone, the week after Deception ended. I don't remember which shows but it was a 3 weeks old episode, but while watching it, I got 5 times, 2 times in a row promos for "Deception mondays at 9".

I also watched a few episodes on City's App. I get the same two car ads repeated over and over in alternance or 2 times in a row.

So, let's say that the advertisement revenues from Global, City and CTV's app are negligeable. With such a high level of repeating the same ads and promos, they should add a Youtube-like "You can skip this commercial in 5s" and it's no wonder canadians would prefer paying 2.50$ to watch the show legally or download it illegally or subscribe to Netflix than having to sit throught annoyingly repetitive non-skippable commercials.

On a side note, this spring, I made the effort of watching my fav shows live on TV. City Montreal is friggin obsessed with their ProActiv and No-No infomercials that I keep my remote nearby to hit the Mute button.

That’s a pretty baseless theory as I don’t seem to remember amazing cable prices before VI.

Huh? What? Where do you see amazing cable prices NOW ?

[PokerFace]

TVViewer didn't say that cable prices are amazing now, but only that the cable prices were not necessarily any more amazing before VI.

Perhaps thanks to Vertical integration, Rogers created FX Canada (filled with Cancon repeats) ... and can now remind everyone that Bell doesn't have it.

Both American and CANADIAN producers like/love the opportunity to sell their content to Netflix (although many US producers complain that Netflix often yanks the unpopular content BEFORE the contracts expire), it's just that a buffet-style (all-you-can-eat before the "food" EXPIRES) distribution format can often be harder for SOME broadcasters​ (both Canadian AND AMERICAN) to comfortably digest (please pass the TUMS) unless they start their own buffet-style "restaurants."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle11766948/
[Rogers vs Netflix]

“It’s my belief that all major [broadcasters] will roll out a Netflix competitor,” said David Purdy, vice-president of digital television products at Rogers. “It’s a common strategy to try and figure out how to roll out products that allow viewers to binge watch and to offer all-you-can-eat movie services.”

Rogers already offers its cable subscribers online access to much of its programming. But it wants to develop a separate product that would allow those who don’t subscribe to its cable package to pay for vast collections of movies and archived seasons of popular television shows. It could compete with Netflix to buy Canadian rights in some cases, or share rights when Netflix isn’t the exclusive carrier. Companies such as BCE Inc., Rogers and Videotron are particularly well suited to launch services because they also own television stations, making it easier for them to access exclusive content online.

----------------

And I wasn't saying that Netflix didn't sign contracts, but I was saying that Netflix can and has terminated content BEFORE contracts expire. Netflix often does this without warning and the fact that it often waits until the last minute to renew content (or not), makes having the expiry dates for streaming a necessary evil. In fact, if you go to a specific title's main page on the Netflix website, the expiry date will still be listed there (as Netflix stated in one of the article links) ... it's just that the information isn't as conveniently displayed, so fewer subscribers will be aware of all the expiring content. There's nothing to stop 3rd parties from getting that same information and publishing it (but it's more time-consuming to do that now, thanks to the anti-consumer Netflix behaviour), but Netflix simply wants to make it more difficult for its subscribers to focus on all the titles that will get yanked from its streaming catalogue (especially the ones that are removed BEFORE the expiry date that NETFLIX provides on its website). Netflix HATES all the publicity surrounding its "lost" streaming content because it reminds its subscribers that streaming isn't as dependable and convenient as Netflix makes it out to be, as well as hating all the speculation that the lost content signals future financial difficulty for Netflix.

Expiry dates are essential for planning what to watch first. It's such a popular feature, and such an annoying experience when content is removed BEFORE the published expiry dates, that Netflix wants to distance themselves from this public relations nightmare and make it tougher for its subscribers to be aware of specific content that gets yanked BEFORE its scheduled contract ends (hello, Bravo Canada ... why did you yank The Moment from your schedule after 1 or 2 episodes? Oh, perhaps because the ratings were awful).

When Netflix had trouble distributing its New Release DVDs, it simply hid the New Releases pages, so that fewer subscribers would be able to easily get in the Queue. This way, Netflix is artificially manipulating its demand for popular DVD content by keeping its subscribers out of the loop ... which is another reason why 3rd-party websites flourished because they made finding the new release DVDs even easier.

Instead of concentrating on watching what will soon disappear from the Netflix streaming catalogue, Netflix simply wants you to watch what you want, when you want to watch it. It doesn't care if you are in the middle of a TV series marathon and then suddenly lose the ability to watch the final two episodes because the series ended its streaming run on Netflix. Instead, Netflix is now much more like a TV broadcaster that removes unpopular content based on poor ratings ... something that the majority of people hate about the traditional broadcasters. Netflix simply claims that it is a "dynamic" service.

Netflix isn't as consumer-friendly as it wants you to believe. It can be just as sneaky and "evil" as those same broadcasters/studios that the public seems to hate more. Netflix wants the public to believe that all the content is available when you WANT it, and that it never expires ... but if it does disappear from its library of titles, fear not, because it will quite often return at some unknown time in the future ... unless it doesn't. It's the old "what you don't know won't hurt you" smokescreen. Zip.ca tries to do the same thing by hiding its new releases until the demand has diminished, or the supply has increased for specific titles (they only recently added back the availability bars to the ZipLists, after removing them many years ago, so that it reduced the odds that subscribers would stack the same low-supply titles at the top of their ZipLists, creating a lot more frustrated members and fewer Top 10 mailouts -- making Zip's Top 10 ZipList-mailout stats even worse).

From the Netflix spin-machine:

"Netflix is a dynamic service, we constantly update the TV shows and movies that are available to our members. We will add more than 500 titles May 1 (2013), but we also have titles expiring, this ebb and flow happens all the time." We are selective about what’s available to watch on Netflix. We often license TV shows and movies on an exclusive basis, so we can provide a unique experience. We’ll forego (fancy way for Netflix to say abandon, retire, relinquish, or give up the rights to), or choose not to renew, titles that aren’t watched enough. We always use our knowledge about what our members love to watch to decide what’s available on Netflix. Our goal is to be an expert programmer, offering a mix that delights our members, rather than trying to be a broad distributor."

----------------------

I agree that the repeating commercials on the Canadian streaming sites is annoying (although even Hulu has annoying repeats, EVEN when it gives me options to choose the commercials from a short list of 2 or 3), and is often the primary reason that I simply choose to stream the same content elsewhere, however, based on a limited experience with Shaw's Food Network.ca website, those commercials seem a bit more varied, and thus less annoying (even though I often ignore them and switch to another tab to read various online articles, or go to the kitchen for a quick snack, while I wait for the ads to end).

http://www.foodnetwork.ca/ontv/shows...titleid=293743
[Giving You the Business ... now streaming on the Canadian Food Network ... with fewer commercial repeats]

I never watched Food Network for longer than 10 minutes in the past, but I do like Giving You the Business enough to bother streaming it from its website (can't find it elsewhere). Thanks, Shaw Media.

On the other hand, Shaw's Showcase.ca website had so many USELESS repetitive commercials (that often caused the site to crash), at least in the recent past, that I gladly switched to other sites to stream the same content without commercial interruption.