Seeking Alpha

In spite of Amazon Prime's (AMZN) content-licensing binge, Netflix (NFLX) still offers a much...

In spite of Amazon Prime's (AMZN) content-licensing binge, Netflix (NFLX) still offers a much wider selection of the most popular TV shows, says Piper. The firm estimates Netflix offers 33% of the top 75 TV shows from the last 4 years, and Amazon just 7%. Hulu Plus offers an even larger portion (44%), but they come with ads. The gap isn't so great for recent movies: Piper estimates Netflix offers 14% of the top 50 movies from the last 3 years, and Amazon 11%. Movie-only Redbox Instant (CSTR, VZ) is said to offer 10%, and Hulu Plus none of them. (NPD market share data)
Comments (18)
  • If they come with ads, they have no value imo and, therefore, need to be "free." I'm surprised people are still gullible enough to pay for junk loaded with ads.
    25 Jun 2013, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • Amazon is playing catch up. Did they take that into consideration?
    25 Jun 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • We use Hulu more than Netflix, their show variety trumps Netflix big time. We only keep Netflix for infrequent viewing as it is so cheap.

     

    Hulu's ads are not that bothersome. One minute split between two ads in between a show isn't bad at all.

     

    Even better Hulu often lets you watch a longer ad version prior to a show to get the benefit of no ads during the show.
    25 Jun 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • I would appreciate the ads, but they have the same ads every time.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • Tvaddic,

     

    I know what you mean, it's like I see Discover cards everywhere.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • I guess the "winning with originals" story is wearing thin, so boosters switch to a new narrative. NFLX's "buy content high, sell subscription low" business model--with $8/mon fees and multi-billion dollar programming commitments--doesn't work regardless of the first-run/re-run mix. And the real story emerging in this competitive landscape is the escalation of all content costs, whether licensing or originals, that will further pressure NFLX tiny margins.
    25 Jun 2013, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • Additional details about those competitors:

     

    Important portions of the Redbox streaming and Amazon streaming services require additional pay-per-view charges. Yuck!

     

    As for Hulu, not only are the ads a drawback, but they (and their network partners) collude to limit the episodes available of the more popular TV shows to a small number. There is no way to go on Hulu to "catch up" with a sequential TV series. Again, yuck!

     

    Netflix is the best!
    26 Jun 2013, 07:17 AM Reply Like
  • Sustainability of Netflix's model as is is risky. As long as things stay as is, they will continue to grow.

     

    Problem is major media companies will eventually do what is in their best interest long-term.

     

    And we are already seeing a battle in the cable and satellite infrastructure realm.
    26 Jun 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • I know that some on these comment pages argue that the cable and satellite model is still strong. But those who have broken free from the cord will never go back to paying the big bucks that the cable and satellite services have been getting. And that goes double for many younger folks who never had a cord arrangement.

     

    The greedy content owners and their cable and satellite associates may someday face three alternatives: Dealing with Netflix, dealing with something like Netflix, or seeing a lot more piracy. I hope they choose Netflix.

     

    Content is not king, the consumers are the kings!
    26 Jun 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris,

     

    I always appreciate your consumer-based viewpoints. I myself am conflicted as we currently use only Hulu/Netflix via DSL. However, we may choose to go back to cable or satellite eventually depending on the progression of more real-time options, especially for sports.

     

    I will be getting some information out soon regarding trends for all publicly listed cable companies, satellite companies, and streaming companies. Generally what is occurring from what I have been able to see is cable subscribers are declining slowly, and cable companies (Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, Charter, etc.) are also seeing growth in DSL, just like At&t and Verizon. Prices are definitely increasing so declines in subscribers are not necessarily transferring to declines in revenues.

     

    Satellite companies are mixed, Dish is declining (and in my opinion desperate to diversify via an acquisition based on mobile) and DIRECTV is fluctuating up and down.

     

    We know Netflix is growing streaming subscribers so I hope to piece together a nice structured trend in the near-term so we can all see what is going on.

     

    I do think over time, content will remain king, but will ultimately be driven by preferential demand, so sort of a balance I guess.

     

    Thanks,
    James
    26 Jun 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • James: Remember, Hulu forces you to watch TV shows regularly--or you will miss an important episode in a series. That ruined a series recently for my wife and I. I love the way Netflix tries to assemble as many episodes as possible for a show.

     

    And I will concede that the big asset that the cable and satellite monsters still have is their connection to sports broadcasts. However, if cord-cutting continues ever so slowly, I wonder if someday the sports establishment will reach out to Netflix due to fears that they might lose younger fans.
    26 Jun 2013, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Netflix as a long-term streaming platform supplanting all viewing preferences, is not impossible. However, from they way NBA and NFL media properties are evolving, I would anticipate direct streaming from these properties versus any future Netflix agreements.

     

    Netflix does offer some sports documentaries which are good, but they do not offer for instance, the 1985 Lakers v. Celtics championship series or older sports programming, which I brought to their attention a while back.

     

    This is why content programmers and owners hold a lot of cards. If they end up developing direct streaming platforms themselves, or if cable and satellite providers cave and offer more a la carte choices with varying monthly subscriptions, Netflix may be in trouble.

     

    They may still be able to exist as an older-content and cheaper streaming option, but growth is question, long-term of course.
    26 Jun 2013, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • James: All interesting points. I do hope that we will not have to subscribe to too many streaming services, of course.

     

    Concerning old sports: You might not get the exact game you were thinking about, but be sure to check the Netflix DVD library for a lot of past games.
    26 Jun 2013, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Convenience factor is valid.

     

    I will look into the past games Sakelaris, thanks for the reference.
    26 Jun 2013, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • ""I know that some on these comment pages argue that the cable and satellite model is still strong. But those who have broken free from the cord will never go back to paying the big bucks that the cable and satellite services have been getting. And that goes double for many younger folks who never had a cord arrangement. ""

     

    The only things making Netflix able to stream content to cord cutters are subscribers to cable/satellite services and advertisers that have fed money to cable companies so cable companies can buy from producers. They will pay the freight for the nearly $120 billion that content costs are estimated to cost this year--not Netflix. If cordcutters are going to rule the world they are going to have to settle for year+ old content and House of Cards, Orange is The New Black, LillyHammer, Hemlock Grove and one new season of Arrested Development. Until Netflix can foot the entire $120 billion they can continue to benefit from a secondary market funded by cable subscriptions and ads. Either that or Netflix can start charging $3428 per year per subscriber for the present 35 million subscribers
    26 Sep 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • I, for one, am willing to wait a few months, sometimes a year, to see content if it can be reasonably-priced and easy to legally access via my Netflix streaming or DVD subscriptions. Video content can more and more resemble books in this regard--many people wait for a paperback or library copy of a book to be available and then they read it at any hour they wish!

     

    And sometimes my wait is not so terribly long anyway. The latest Star Trek movie was in theaters in May. I received the Netflix rental DVD of it in early September.
    26 Sep 2013, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • you missed the point--without subscribers to cable and advertising there will be no new content for Netflix to buy as reruns. If all subscriptions to cable were stopped today and no company in America gave networks ad dollars, producers would have to rely on Netflix Amazon and Hulu to pay for the new stuff. They can't afford it. It's not a matter of waiting for a year or so , it's who is paying the artists the directors etc to make the programming. Netflix can afford around $2 billion per year and still break even--doesn't come close to covering everything people want to see. They can't afford to fund the flood of new stuff coming out daily. You need subscribers paying big bucks (not $7.99) and advertising to float the cash to cable to buy product made by studios and networks.Netflix left to its own devices can't afford it--they can do a handful of series per year
    27 Sep 2013, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • porthos,

     

    My opinion is that in 10 years, companies like ESPN, HBO, etc. will be spinoffs and provide streaming subscription services. Sports programming will also transition once long-term contracts (NFL) approach expiration near 2020.

     

    We will get there, but the biggest challenge facing media companies is taking current revenues to a subscription model without reducing revenues for an incremental transition period. If there is an opportunity to ween cable or satellite subscribers during a 3-5 year period, it may work out. How this plays out versus a large company like Disney or Fox versus Viacom or Discovery or Starz will be interesting.
    27 Sep 2013, 10:47 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)