Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 131 of 131

Thread: Netflix Launch

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [quote=Mayhem;45384]

    Bell and Shaw have more advantage over Rogers. Both Bell Media and Shaw Media have abundent group of specialty channels with priority placement which help amortize costs of new programming.
    Rogers is welcome to launch more specialty channels, they already got approved to launch a bunch.


    VFS was meant for local programming like 6pm news, but there is no chance that Rogers or anyone else who would run Citytv stations out west would restart the news programs.
    There is no requirement for them to use VFS to create more local programming. You can't deny that VFS will improve the financial situation of Citytv.

    Even the CRTC said during the hearings that it would it be foolish to bring back evening news outside of Toronto.
    I don't recall the CRTC saying that, I do remember how unhappy the CRTC was with Rogers proposal for spending less than everyone else though.

    The whole point of appealing the court appeal is so the can say to their shareholders they tried every route possible, its just another way of washing their hands of this without losing market value.
    Yeah, I know that's the reason, but It is hard to sympathize with them for complaining about how their stations are losing money when they are currently trying to appeal something that would improve their stations financial situation.


    True, but this way the don't have to pay for hosting or streaming the videos and still make a profit from it. VOD is great if you also own a cable BDU to go with it, but companies like Bell don't have that luxury for their satellite offerings, and this would be a great way to sell your product without going through your competitors BDU.
    But they also lose the advertising revenue that they would get by putting the show on their website.

    This may have been the case ten years ago, but with the arrival of services like Netflix and Apple's iTunes store their are other ways of selling now. But CTV, Global and Citytv don't really have that power these days?
    They do have the power, the proof is how they are still securing rights for all 4 screens (VOD/Online/TV/Mobile). Do you think Netflix is buying TV rights when they can't use them because they want to? No, they are buying TV rights because that's how the studios sell programming.


    Fox can always air episodes of Glee on their border affiliates that broadcast in Canada and still sell the the online rights to some to make money.
    Then why is Glee still on Global? Because FOX would lose hundreds of millions of dollars if they didn't sell TV broadcast rights of their programming, not to mention FOX doesn't even own most of their affiliates that broadcast into Canada. Again, they don't need to sell rights separetly when other parties like Netflix are willing to buy the TV rights.

    But Netflix or Apple isn't the problem, the problem lies with BDUs themselves. There was a time when they could charge whatever they wanted and people had no choice but to pay it if they wanted to watch movies or shows on specialty services. But with the threat of losing that monopoly they've start tolling the Internet with hopes of kill off services like Netflix, yet they don't realize that people would drop their BDU in order to curb costs than to cut back on their web usage and in the end it hurts conventional and specialty channels if more and more people begin to drop cable and satellite. If they want to turn this around they have to start making their BDU offerings more affordability to start bringing customers back, because if they don't, the whole VFS will be a worthless endeavour in the end if you don't have enough customer to support it
    The number of people who subscribe to cable and satellite in Canada is actually increasing, it's now at 93%, compared to 92% a few years ago.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    There is no requirement for them to use VFS to create more local programming. You can't deny that VFS will improve the financial situation of Citytv.
    I remember you mention it was awhile ago that VFS was only meant for local programming improvement and nothing else.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I don't recall the CRTC saying that, I do remember how unhappy the CRTC was with Rogers proposal for spending less than everyone else though.
    It was mention by one of the commissioners during the renewals over what Rogers plan for adding local programming on the Citytv stations out west. It sort of ties in with them unhappy with spending less on original local programming.

    1740 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: When I look at basically everything you have in conventional in the west, there is very little that has been local programming in recent years. The evening newscasts, such as they were -- it could be understandable that you would get out of news, but getting out of local entirely has reduced the local presence in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg.

    [.......]

    1750 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: If it helps at all, I am not -- at least I am not talking about doing news or something. Getting out of news in those markets is perfectly sensible, because there are too many other people. You would just beat your head against the wall.
    Although it was one commissioner, no other made any inquires into news programming on the western stations.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yeah, I know that's the reason, but It is hard to sympathize with them for complaining about how their stations are losing money when they are currently trying to appeal something that would improve their stations financial situation.
    It's not their stations their thinking of, it's being forced to support your competition what they don't like. Think of it this way; Rogers sending money to Bell via CTV is like you being forced to agree with everything InMontreal posts. You wouldn't be happy.




    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    But they also lose the advertising revenue that they would get by putting the show on their website.
    My argument was they would be reasonably paid for allowing services like Netflix or Apple to have the episodes after first run, I didn't say they should give it to them for free. Plus they don't have to pay for equipment or hosting charges.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They do have the power, the proof is how they are still securing rights for all 4 screens (VOD/Online/TV/Mobile). Do you think Netflix is buying TV rights when they can't use them because they want to? No, they are buying TV rights because that's how the studios sell programming.
    Contracts are written differently now, CTV has first run rights, which means CTV must air the episodes first before other services like Netflix or Apple can sell them. That's why its Netflix and Apple advertise available day after airing.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Then why is Glee still on Global? Because FOX would lose hundreds of millions of dollars if they didn't sell TV broadcast rights of their programming, not to mention FOX doesn't even own most of their affiliates that broadcast into Canada. Again, they don't need to sell rights separetly when other parties like Netflix are willing to buy the TV rights.
    FOX is a money hore (naturally), they know Global would never give up its broadcasting rights if FOX diversified its online content. But right now selling to services like Netflix and Apple has a guaranteed steady income for its online rights(not to mention demographic data they can mine from it), and especially the Apple market; Apple fanboys are crazy enough to wage war ageist the BDUs in the name of Apple, if it meet a loss of shows from the iTunes store.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The number of people who subscribe to cable and satellite in Canada is actually increasing, it's now at 93%, compared to 92% a few years ago.
    Don't know where you got your numbers from, but as of February 2011 only 10.2 million households combined have cable or satellited, slightly bigger than Internet subscribers (8.2 million), but still smaller for people who still own a landline phone (13 million rounded), but not even close for people who own a mobile phone (24 million).

    Now take into account 31% of of the 24 million mobile users are iPhone (excluding iPad and iTouch) customers which comes out to 7.2 million who have both access to the iTunes store and Netflix from their device, Close to the level of Internet subscribers at this point and that's not including users with iPad or iTouch.

    Your right, they may not be surpassing BDUs at this point, but 7.2 million users who have access to shows outsides traditional broadcasts is still pretty significant seeing I'm not including iPad/iTouch customers into the mix.

    Also for the record Netflix currently has 800,000 customers as of April, with those numbers to hit 900,000-1.05 million by the end of June.

    ---Sources---
    http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/02/ca...-leaders-2011/

    http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-...s-in-7-months/

    http://www.intomobile.com/2011/06/01...-share-canada/
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No, they aren't suggesting Netflix spend 30% of their revenue on Canadian programming, they are just suggesting that the CRTC impose some sort of requirements that Netflix contribute towards the production of Canadian programming, because right now Netflix has no requirements to do so. You pointed out that Netflix was already contributing to Canadian content by having some CBC shows available on its service, I was just pointing out that what Netflix is doing is nothing compared to spending 30% of your revenue on Canadian programming.



    They don't think its fair that there is a new player competing for broadcast rights that doesn't have any Canadian content requirements. A new competitor is one thing, a new competitor that doesn't have to play by the same rules is another.
    At best I see Netflix saying something like "hey, how about we shoot our one series we've commissioned in Canada to help pump money into the Canadian production industry?" but I doubt they're going to be willing to simply hand over some money to fund productions that largely end up on the broadcast and specialty networks.

    To me Netflix competes for broadcast rights like Blockbuster does, they are definitely more of a competitor to the local video store and PPV than they are to the broadcasters at this point. Sure they're competing for some broadcast material but not the major hits at this time, they're not willing to spend that kind of money for Canada yet, but they also need something to fill their Canadian service since a great majority of rights are held by the incumbents already.

    Keep in mind that they're not only licensing Canadian material for the Canadian service but also for their US service, again that is helping Canadian producers because selling rights puts money in their pockets. Our broadcasters fall under different rules because they operate using the airwaves the public really own, and part of that commitment is to produce domestic material or help fund it in exchange for using those airwaves. Same reason the BDUs pay into the fund, in exchange they have a largely protected market for their industries.

    The incumbents can compete with Netflix on their own level if they wish, they too could create their own streaming services that won't fall under the quota regulations nor be obligated to use X% of gross revenues to fund domestic production. The thing is, they don't want to do this, they'd much rather try and regulate this new competition out of the market entirely. But they won't have much success, especially since the conservatives in power have already stated they would prefer the free market be applied to telecom and broadcasting.

    Really, they need to adapt and overcome if they wish to survive in the long run beyond being little more than news outlets and places people turn to for live events because the future is looking more and more like an on-demand world, eventually broadcast schedules will largely go the way of the dinosaurs.

    As network speeds increase more and more services will arise. If Netflix is already seeing $80million annually from Canadians it won't take long before the US networks realize their own streaming services might be a good idea as well, remember they are turning to owning their shows for a reason, why bother selling to middlemen when they could sell ABC Online for $3/month to a few million subscribers in Canada, for example. At some point broadcast rights and online rights will get separated, you say it devalues the broadcast rights but I'm sure the studios see if differently as two separate markets to generate revenue. Sure the broadcasters at first will balk at this but they'll still buy because otherwise they're starved for content. So they'll either be forced to pay much more for both broadcast and streaming rights or pay a bit less for one or the other.

    That is why the studios were making sure the Canadians were aware of Netflix being in the buying audience this year, because I would make a bet that their future plans are to extract more money for streaming rights. More buyers means more demand which means higher prices can be asked and stock holders like that scenario.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462

    Netflix in 2013 and beyond ...

    Netflix Canada is still alive and kicking, but as the streaming competition increases throughout the world, Netflix will have to fight even harder to stay ahead of the curve.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesber...n-its-own-way/
    [Netflix: Unhappy In Its Own Way]

    June 20, 2013

    Netflix has made high-profile licensing moves, and the stock has risen from the digital ashes, like a streaming Phoenix, back to $227 from a recent low of $54 last September. But it still can’t seem to generate positive free cash flow. For Netflix, the reason is special. According to Morningstar, Netflix had accounting earnings of $17 million in 2012 and roughly $24 million over the trailing 12 months, while it actually lost around $67 million and $106 million respectively on a free cash flow basis. Free cash flow is the real money that’s left in the till at year-end, while net income is an accounting construct that doesn’t always comport. Net income is subject to fuzzy judgment on depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items that render it more art than science. Free cash flow doesn’t always tell the whole story either. Between the two, though, I’d follow the cash.

    With fierce competition from Amazon and others, Netflix can’t raise its prices, but can’t sustain them either. If it raises prices dramatically, its deep-pocketed foes will pounce. But eventually it will have to. And then subscription growth will slow.

    The problem is that Facebook and Amazon now break even on a cash flow basis. Not Netflix. Sure, Netflix had to reinvent itself after mailing DVD’s went the way of the telegram. And sure, Netflix is hoping still greater scale will allow it to once again mint lots of money. Netflix is betting that original content will do what it did for HBO during the years of The Sopranos: make it truly indispensable. The problem is that nearly everyone already has the darn thing. With around 30 million domestic streaming customers, Netflix has already signed approximately 1 in 4 American households. This is remarkable penetration. But its success has as much to do with the way Netflix underprices its merchandise as anything else.

    Consider an easy recipe for the fastest growing business in the world: a website that offers a twenty dollar bill in exchange for every ten dollar bill submitted. This would be the most popular website ever. I guarantee it. Revenues would be immense. But net cash flow would be decidedly negative. And the business’s burn rate would make a start-up biotech company look profitable. It would be the most unsustainable business ever created. Without new capital on a daily basis, it would soon die.

    Netflix provides a very valuable service in exchange for an artificially low price. That formula will, without fail, be popular. Less clear: how it actually makes money. More dangerous for Netflix shareholders is that broad success, at $227 a share, is once again priced in. The intrinsic value per share is half as much. The current market price is unsupportable by even the most rose-colored scenarios. Trefis assumes a very optimistic 47 million U.S. streaming subscriptions by 2019, yet this only supports a discounted cash flow valuation of $133 per share.
    ---------------------

    http://www.webpronews.com/netflix-is...canada-2013-06
    [Netflix Is Getting Some New Features In Canada]

    June 19, 2013

    Last week at E3, Netflix was showing off upcoming user profiles. Yahoo News spoke with a company exec, who demoed the feature, and indicated it would be available by the end of August in the U.S. A few days later, news came out that U.K. users will also be getting user profiles sometime this year, along with a “watchlist” feature, which is apparently just like the queue we have here in the U.S. (the feature has not been available in other countries).

    Now we learn, once again from Yahoo, that Canada is also set to get user profiles and the watchlist/queue feature. But that’s not all Canada is getting. Yahoo Canada’s Peter Nowak reports:

    A third feature currently being tested is multi-device connectivity, where a phone or tablet can be used as a remote control for Netflix on the TV. Shows and movies could be paused or viewers could search and browse on their mobile device while watching content. The company has also partnered with YouTube on the “Dial” protocol, which would be a function built in to new TVs that allows them to “listen” for a Netflix signal from a mobile device, then automatically stream. That would eliminate the need to install and launch apps on the television or connected device, such as a game console. The timeframe for the release of these features is unclear, but based on what we’ve heard about the new features coming to the U.S. and the U.K., it seems likely that it will be sometime this year, and possibly even this summer.
    --------------

    Netflix Quick Guide: How Does Netflix Decide What's On Netflix:

    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    Once again, the big boys want a level playing field when it comes to battling the big US companies like Netflix:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/tvs-new-equation-content-bonanza-meets-revenue-crisis/article12562391/?page=all

    [June 15, 2013: More content ... More competition]

    Excerpts from the above link:

    ... private conventional television broadcasters , profits (before interest and taxes) dropped from $151.6-million in 2011 to $22.9-million in 2012. At the same time, broadcasters (and everyone else) are having to sink money into online content even as they scramble to determine how to monetize it. Online ads, the networks will tell you, are not nearly as profitable as those on TV.

    “We have a real revenue crisis in our business,” Bell Media President Kevin Crull told an audience at Banff.

    . . .

    Michael Hennessy, president and CEO of the Canadian Media Production Association, noted that there’s been a 25-per-cent increase in domestic production, but a decline in the number of programs being made. The reason: Canadians are making bigger-budget and better-quality shows. Productions, dare we say, that don’t look Canadian. They are sent out into the global marketplace where Cancon means nothing and they must compete on their own merits. Canadian-content creators are waking up to the need to go big or stay home.

    “The real issue is: How do you, in that world where there’s more fragmentation, afford to make the quality programming that people actually want to watch? ... And what is the role of Canadian content in there?” asks Hennessy. “From a producer’s perspective, we understand it is a very simple equation. It’s totally different from the old days. You have to make stuff that people like to watch, period. If you’re not doing that, you’re not relevant any more.”

    Traditional broadcasters and distributors are trying to navigate through all the change, with fragmented viewing, advertising dollars lost to Facebook, people cutting the cord entirely, and digital natives interacting with technology seamlessly and fearlessly (and not always legally). And they have to do it, they are quick to point out, under regulatory controls that currently do not apply to over-the-top services such as Netflix.

    “I believe that Netflix is having a significantly greater impact on the industry, on consumption habits, on the cost of our content, on the advertising revenue that we’re generating, I think a significantly greater impact than is currently appreciated,” Bell’s Crull told the festival.

    Depending on your perspective, Netflix is either a new (if markedly less inflammatory) N-word, or it’s a land of opportunity, eager for great original content that can drive up subscriptions, and that has the big bucks to pay for content. But on that same panel, Rogers Media president of broadcasting Scott Moore warned the audience – made up largely of Canadian producers – that Netflix is not their white knight.

    “The people in this room should not want Netflix to succeed. Because Netflix is not a part of the Canadian broadcast ecosystem,” said Moore. “They have no Canadian-content requirements. They don’t have to spend money on Canadian producers. …They’re not out there actively promoting Canadian shows the way all of us are.”

    Moore pointed out that broadcasters’ conditions of license dictate that they have to spend a certain percentage of gross revenues on Canadian production. So when profits drop 85 per cent, there are implications for Canadian shows. That same CRTC report shows that despite the decline in revenues, private conventional stations invested 17.6 per cent more on Canadian programming in 2012 than the year before.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Once again, the big boys want a level playing field when it comes to battling the big US companies like Netflix
    "Level playing field" to them means they want to make money with very little effort at high costs to consumers who won't have a choice. The problem is they can easily compete with Netflix if Rogers, Bell and Shaw didn't try to bundle it with another service they own.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    As soon as Bellflix launches (whether it requires a cable/satellite subscription or not), look for Bell to lobby the government to make private VPNs illegal.

    And what happens if Netflix Canada starts to enforce its terms of service by blocking access to the foreign versions of Netflix?

    Many Canadians will cancel Netflix if they can only consistently gain access to the Canadian version of Netflix.

    Russia is expected to be next in line to ban various VPN services by blocking specific ports, so Canada might jump on the bandwagon in the not so distant future, to join the ban the VPN parade.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    Netflix adds another monthly plan to attract more subscribers:

    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    236
    I've forwarded your link to some goats that i know .

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    Look. Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. No, it's a Netflix drone:

    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,462
    As of September 2014, Netflix Canada had about 3,475,000 subscribers.

    Latin America had about 4,854,000 subscribers.

    UK and Ireland = 3,040,000 subscribers.

    Nordic Countries = 2 million subscribers

    For other individual countries see article link below.

    In addition to the 14.4 million (actually: 14,389,000) International subscribers, there were also 1,454,000 International subscribers using the free 1 month Netflix trial, pushing the total to 15,843,000 total International subscribers as of Sept. 2014.

    http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2014/...national-subs/
    [Netflix - International subscriber estimates]

    Netflix is expected to achieve 17 million paying subscribers to its international operations by the end of 2014, following its announcement of 14.4 million international subs in September.

    Launches in six European countries during September will help to boost the total.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •