The one material difference worth noting is original content production is cash-intensive and that means for us that cash is front loaded relative to the P&L. The expansion of original content will consume cash. Since we are otherwise using domestic profits to fund international markets, we will raise capital as needed to fund the growth of original content.
We’ve had a great start with our initial set of original series. Any linear network would be proud to show them. Our success is due in part to great creative execution by our team as well as the power of our large on-demand platform.
We’ll steadily grow our original content spending, and pace ourselves so that we have a high percentage of hits and stay efficient in terms of what we spend relative to licensed content.
International
The market structure for licensing movies and TV series is generally national, or, in some cases, a multinational region like the Nordics. We work within that distribution architecture, licensing our content for each market at prevailing prices.
Each market has a mix of local and global content tastes. We assess them from a variety of information sources before we enter a market, and then after launch we learn more about what is most popular and what is not. As we smartly add and renew deals, the content mix improves.
When we enter a market, we have to win the bidding for a substantial offering of content, and then market ourselves effectively to start the membership growth. It is an expensive process, but we believe any future competitor will have the same or larger challenges.
Our advantages internationally are that our global technology investment is creating a superior app and service, our process knowledge, our data from related markets, and our globally-known brand. We strive to meet local tastes, but our disadvantage is not knowing each specific culture as well as local competitors.
Our strategy is to expand as quickly as possible while staying profitable on a global basis, as long as there are compelling markets to expand into, and we are continuing to see growth in our current markets.
Economic power comes from market-specific scale. We would be stronger being the leader in a few markets than one of the herd in many markets. Of course, our ambition is to be the leader in many markets, but that will take us some time.
Competition
We compete very broadly for a share of members’ time and spending, against linear networks, pay-per-view content, DVD watching, other Internet networks, video games, web browsing, magazine reading, video piracy, and much more. Over the coming years, most of these forms of entertainment will improve.
Linear networks have mostly exclusive content against each other, and this is increasingly true for Internet networks. Piracy and pay-per-view are the only two competitors that offer a nearly full set of TV show and movie content.
We call competitors for entertainment time and spending “competitors-for-time”. We call the narrower set of firms that do bid against us for content “competitors-for-content”.
The network that we think is likely to be our biggest long-term competitor-for-content is HBO. In the USA for example, HBO recently won long-term exclusive domestic movie output deals with Universal and Fox. HBO bids against us on many original content projects though is not currently a bidder against us for prior-season television from other networks. HBO has global reach and a strengthening technology capacity.
In addition to HBO, there are Amazon Prime Instant Video in the USA and UK, Hulu in the USA, Now TV in the UK, Viaplay in the Nordics, Clarovideo in Latin America, and many cable and broadcast networks in various territories. Amazon and Hulu are spending heavily and commissioning their own original programming, presumably because they see the same exciting big picture for Internet TV that we do. Many consumers will subscribe to multiple services if they each have unique compelling content. Success relative to these competitors-for-content would mean us having substantially larger revenue and therefore sustainably increasing content, tech and marketing spending, leading to further growth, and a virtuous cycle.
In the USA, MVPDs have remained stable at about 100M subscribers while Netflix has grown to over 36M members. The stability of the MVPD subscriber base, despite Netflix’s large membership, suggests that most members consider Netflix complementary to, rather than a substitute for, MVPD video.
ISP relationships
We have productive relationships with most ISPs, given our joint interest in making broadband work well for people.
The more successful Netflix becomes, the more important we are to the ISPs’ subscribers. Our Open Connect program allows ISPs to directly interconnect with the Netflix network for free, which results in higher video quality
The one material difference worth noting is original content production is cash-intensive and that means for us that cash is front loaded relative to the P&L. The expansion of original content will consume cash. Since we are otherwise using domestic profits to fund international markets, we will raise capital as needed to fund the growth of original content.
We’ve had a great start with our initial set of original series. Any linear network would be proud to show them. Our success is due in part to great creative execution by our team as well as the power of our large on-demand platform.
We’ll steadily grow our original content spending, and pace ourselves so that we have a high percentage of hits and stay efficient in terms of what we spend relative to licensed content.
International
The market structure for licensing movies and TV series is generally national, or, in some cases, a multinational region like the Nordics. We work within that distribution architecture, licensing our content for each market at prevailing prices.
Each market has a mix of local and global content tastes. We assess them from a variety of information sources before we enter a market, and then after launch we learn more about what is most popular and what is not. As we smartly add and renew deals, the content mix improves.
When we enter a market, we have to win the bidding for a substantial offering of content, and then market ourselves effectively to start the membership growth. It is an expensive process, but we believe any future competitor will have the same or larger challenges.
Our advantages internationally are that our global technology investment is creating a superior app and service, our process knowledge, our data from related markets, and our globally-known brand. We strive to meet local tastes, but our disadvantage is not knowing each specific culture as well as local competitors.
Our strategy is to expand as quickly as possible while staying profitable on a global basis, as long as there are compelling markets to expand into, and we are continuing to see growth in our current markets.
Economic power comes from market-specific scale. We would be stronger being the leader in a few markets than one of the herd in many markets. Of course, our ambition is to be the leader in many markets, but that will take us some time.
Competition
We compete very broadly for a share of members’ time and spending, against linear networks, pay-per-view content, DVD watching, other Internet networks, video games, web browsing, magazine reading, video piracy, and much more. Over the coming years, most of these forms of entertainment will improve.
Linear networks have mostly exclusive content against each other, and this is increasingly true for Internet networks. Piracy and pay-per-view are the only two competitors that offer a nearly full set of TV show and movie content.
We call competitors for entertainment time and spending “competitors-for-time”. We call the narrower set of firms that do bid against us for content “competitors-for-content”.
The network that we think is likely to be our biggest long-term competitor-for-content is HBO. In the USA for example, HBO recently won long-term exclusive domestic movie output deals with Universal and Fox. HBO bids against us on many original content projects though is not currently a bidder against us for prior-season television from other networks. HBO has global reach and a strengthening technology capacity.
In addition to HBO, there are Amazon Prime Instant Video in the USA and UK, Hulu in the USA, Now TV in the UK, Viaplay in the Nordics, Clarovideo in Latin America, and many cable and broadcast networks in various territories. Amazon and Hulu are spending heavily and commissioning their own original programming, presumably because they see the same exciting big picture for Internet TV that we do. Many consumers will subscribe to multiple services if they each have unique compelling content. Success relative to these competitors-for-content would mean us having substantially larger revenue and therefore sustainably increasing content, tech and marketing spending, leading to further growth, and a virtuous cycle.
In the USA, MVPDs have remained stable at about 100M subscribers while Netflix has grown to over 36M members. The stability of the MVPD subscriber base, despite Netflix’s large membership, suggests that most members consider Netflix complementary to, rather than a substitute for, MVPD video.
ISP relationships
We have productive relationships with most ISPs, given our joint interest in making broadband work well for people.
The more successful Netflix becomes, the more important we are to the ISPs’ subscribers. Our Open Connect program allows ISPs to directly interconnect with the Netflix network for free, which results in higher video quality
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
