Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View resevil239's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Netflix Looking To 'Bloodlines' To Be Its Next 'House Of Cards' [View article]
    there is no streaming saturation....most likely, when traditional cable hits its low (its already dropping and this is only likely to increase), most consumers will probably have subscriptions to several services. the fact that HBO will soon be offering itself as a standalone streaming service should be seen less as a competing service and more as a complementary one. Sure there will be a little competition, but not much.

    Netflix gets valued highly because A) they are a $5 billion dollar company (and I can all but guarantee you that most of that revenue is not from DVDs) and B) they are THE name in streaming media. The point of all this content investment is to make themselves less reliant on content deals and thus farther differentiate themselves once more and more traditional cable channels and services start releasing their own streaming service (I believe NBC, or maybe it was CBS, announced a similar service of their own as well).

    And the lack of ads is a significant thing that differentiates them from hulu. Hulu has ads and doesn't even make 1/4th of what netflix makes. They make plenty of money off streaming, and it is increasing with every new country and subscriber they get. They might not be profiting hand over fist, but its only because they are re-investing seemingly as much as they can to grow and obtain more original content.

    If anything, they need to push harder on original content when they can, in the sense of having full rights so they can make money off syndication and DVD sales (though this obviously couldn't work in every case. The upcoming Marvel shows they acquired for instance. I doubt Disney would let marvel sell all the distribution rights for anything)
    Nov 14, 2014. 07:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: 8 Massive Warning Signs [View article]
    no I'm not because those services (or at least HBO go, IDK much about showtime's anytime service)) are still pretty limited in terms of content (and they are owned by a major media company, meaning I'm sure its harder for them to get content from other competitors than it would be for an independent company like netflix) and more importantly, are tied to over priced Cable subscriptions. I personally see HBO go as more of a complementary system to netflix than a competitor outright. That could change if they go through with potential plans to offer HBOgo to people with only broadband/dsl subscriptions as well, but they still have only their content and a relatively small selection of ever rotating content. Hardly a rental replacement and certainly not a cable killer (hell, HBO's biggest issue is that its dependent on the cable companies)
    Jul 23, 2013. 12:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: 8 Massive Warning Signs [View article]
    uggh...This is a good article but honestly the competition section made me roll my eyes. Haven't enough people discussed that there is no REAL competition for netflix at the moment? Their biggest threat is only if the redbox/verison partnership (which wasn't even mentioned) can grow a decent library. Lets analyze the "competition" shall we?

    1. amazon-> okay, prime is decent but from my experience its library isn't really good enough to be a real netflix substitute. The streaming is more like a side benefit as imo it seems most subscribers are there for the free 2-day shipping. Plus prime just doesn't have the market penetration or recognition that netflix has, nor does amazon really seem to be terribly concerned with marketing it as a full on netflix competitor.

    2. Hulu->please. Its TV only (and very limited TV at that), has ads even for subscribers, AND its movie library is extremely small.

    3. Apple->really? how do they even quailify as a competitor?? Its VOD which is always overpriced as hell (not unlike rentals in general. Anyone visited the few remaining blockbusters? $3-5 for one movie for 24hrs???) and certainly not ala carte. Not a real competitor and thus far apple hasn't shown much interest in becoming one. least not that they've yet shown. One to watch, but not currently worth discussing.

    4. Google->again, really? I wasn't even aware they had anything till I saw mention in another article on here. Far as I can tell its still just overpriced VOD. If you keep counting video on demand companies, than there are a TON of netflix competitors, but due to ridiculous pricing, they are not even remotely comparable.

    5. Redbox/Verison->this is the only real, true competitor. The only one with a service that is essentially the same. I was concerned when they first announced it since you also get a few redbox rentals a month, but so far it seems to be very slow to gain any momentum and at last look, the library is total crap.

    In short, there are no real competitors right now. End of story. Some that could grow, some that have potential to become a big threat (hell, if apple really wanted to, they could make a full on equivalent service and easily have the capital (and probably licensing connection) to crush netflix), but right now they aren't even worth discussing, unless its about what they could each potentially do to change. As for the cable companies, much like blockbuster was a few years ago, and the movie and music industries a decade ago when pirating started to be perceived as a problem (the whole lost sale thing is total garbage, but that's a whole nother article) and they became afraid of any digital sales, these cable giants are being VERY slow to react and netflix will probably grow by leaps and bounds before they can do anything about it. The only company to try is WB, who has (rather stupidly I might add) made their own service BUT charge the same amount as netflix AND only put REALLY old shows (for the most part) in there that are arguably quite a niche market...for the same price as netflix...with WAY less content...and mostly only old TV shows that (at last look) are from the 70's and older...making it very niche...anyone else see the problem here?
    Jul 22, 2013. 02:37 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: Red Is The New Black? [View article]
    Is this really another article about how netflix is overvalued? Well at least you had some analysis on how they could actually be worth the current value (I didn't get to read it just yet, fyi). I'm not even very informed on stocks in general, but I know its insanely overvalued just by looking at the PE ration. Personally, I think most people are buying up shares because of the potential of the company. Personally, I want to eventually go long (VERY long) on netflix once I graduate college and start making real money.

    I want to be a REAL investor, in the sense that I care more about longterm growth and sustainability and want to actually own a portion of the company, rather than looking at it as a way to make some more money.

    That said, right now I'm hoping it dives again because I'd love to cash in on a really low price (really wishing I had the money back when it was only about $50 a share), and ride the next inevitable wave back up (since this is at least the second time the stock went low, only to come back up). This company is great and I'm hoping for big things from them! People keep talking about a cable company owned "netflix killer", but frankly I think cable companies should be even more worried about netflix becoming a cable killer. they have started a trend that can't be stopped. The days of cable have been numbered.
    Jul 22, 2013. 02:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Spending May Threaten Quality Television [View article]
    I think you misunderstood, I wouldn't pay $100 for netflix NOW, so much as in the future if they managed to get large enough to where having netflix would pretty much make any form of renting obsolete. Personally I collect blurays so I only view streaming as a reasonably priced rental option ($3-10 for on demand and regular brick and mortar rentals is ridiculous). and even then that was quite an exaggeration.

    Eventually netflix will HAVE to raise prices and will probably keep a limited X number of hours and ad supported $8 streaming option, with limits increasing as you get to higher tiers, then a top tier probably as much as cable is now where its totally unlimited and no ads. I'd imagine add-free would be much cheaper. this is talking WAY down the road, when they need to increase because they own or licensed so much content. As in a library at least 2-3 times the size it is now, where you can find almost any major film or movie you'd want (though they will likely keep rotating availability like they do now)

    Even if netflix never gets big enough to become a cable replacement, I firmly believe that either another will, or we will all be replacing our cable subscriptions with X number of $8-10 dollar subscriptions per provider (ex, maybe WB has one service where all their stuff "airs", AMC or a parent company has another, ect).

    Personally, I am a college student who has already decided that he is extremely unlikely to ever pay for cable. I'll stick with netflix for most stuff, and sites that host streams of shows and movies for free (or similar means) for everything else. I view cable as a waste of money because I'd just DVR everything anyways, I refuse to sit through ads unless I absolutely have to, and I feel that cable is the biggest rip-off ever when you can't pick just individual channels so you end up wanting to watch say 5 or 6 shows at a time (and thats throughout the whole year) and have to pay for a ton of them.

    On top of all of that, many of the cable companies are also the internet providers, and lots of them over charge for crap speeds (or worse, ones like ATT U-verse put data caps that are terribly low if most of your entertainment viewings come from streaming) when people in europe are getting cable internet and phone for less than half what we pay WITH faster speeds!

    These companies are operating on outdated models with outdated tech and unless they dramatically change (and not just offer half ass netflix "competitors" like WB archives) they are going to die out, probably sooner rather than later. I'm sure I'm not alone amongst my age group in already having decided I will not subscribe to cable, and has more and more other options become available, that is a trend that is only likely to continue
    Jul 9, 2013. 08:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Spending May Threaten Quality Television [View article]
    True, but what are they doing NOW to change? Look at what happened to blockbuster. They were once a giant and now they are hanging on by a thread because they were to slow to react. The music industry was slow to adopt digital purchases. Large companies and industry's have proven to generally be very slow to react to new tech and new methods of buisness. Sure they COULD take netflix down, but the real question is will they before its too late? I doubt it.

    The beauty of netflix is they aren't owned by any major content creator and thus can be more flexible with who they get content from, any individual cable company would be limited to only those others they can negotiate with and will likely barred from getting content from competitors.

    Netflix (or more specifically reed hastings) knows they can't grow much with just getting content deals. Eventually they will reach nearly every market they can and will stagnate. so the solution is to create original content and make it good content at that. Then they have their own exclusives, they can then sell those on dvd/bluray for an extra source of income.

    Eventually they will have a whole library like any other major content company (HBO is a good example), as well as a massive, world wide install base. Of course there will likely be rough patches here and there, particularly when they are eventually forced to up pricing (probably via tiered subscriptions limited by # of views and/or ads for cheaper subscriptions). I wouldn't mind paying as much as $100 for netflix if it meant being able to watch nearly everything I wanted with no ads, and I can reasonably see tiers going from $8-50 or 60 and netflix is certainly on the right path to be able to do that.
    Jul 9, 2013. 06:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Spending May Threaten Quality Television [View article]
    Personally I don't really think this is cause for concern in terms of the quality of a show. If a show isn't particularly great, netflix isn't going to buy it. They still need to make a decent show, and once a show is established, the only way the quality would dissipate is if the show's writing goes down hill, and that has little relevance to the budget. Besides, most shows on TV now aren't that great anyways when you consider the amount of great shows compared to the many that are put out.

    The same thing could be said of movie companies and straight to DVD garbage they some will shovel out. The overall quality of films still is maintained because there are more profits to be had from quality and on top of that the very nature of the industry requires that a certain level of quality be maintained to make a decent profit. Even if they can sell ok series to netflix, this is one deal and I doubt netflix (or its competitors) are going to keep buying up mediocre series. There is no way for them to start making lower quality shows to make a profit.

    Netflix buying such shows is a decent idea though from their perspective. Potentially, they could buy a series outright and make new seasons. Ideally they could start buying up some shows that are lower quality BUT have potential and thus they can make newer exclusive episodes (and down the road perhaps movies as well) and grow a series larger than the original company did.

    What is for sure though is that one way or another the cable companies are not going to be able to operate the way they have in the past. soon gone will be the days of people paying obscene prices for cable (despite other nations getting the equivalent content and faster internet for a fraction of what we pay) and we will likely be paying mostly just for netflix ala carte type things, or paying about $10/month per content provider (think HBO without the cable requirement).

    Netflix might not have the leverage they need now, but if they play their cards right and other companies are as slow and stubborn to respond and change as they have been, they could very well become an entertainment titan over the next few decades. The only cable company to even try to compete is WB and their archive offerings are pretty much crap from what I've seen. MAYBE a few classic shows and thats it.
    Jul 9, 2013. 06:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Spending May Threaten Quality Television [View article]
    Thats the top 13 shows?? wow, veiwers in this country have horrible taste...of those only 1 is a "real" show (IE has a continuing story), and only 3 others are actually worthwhile (NCIS, which I'm not a fan of but its ok, Two and a half men, and The big bang theory). The rest is football (not a series and shouldn't be counted), reality/competition shows (the fact that these make up more than half the list shows who dumb many people in this nation are imo, or at least that people prefer repetitive, simple minded entertainment), plus whatever the voice and POI are.
    Jul 9, 2013. 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Should Netflix Dump Its DVD Business? [View article]
    Selling the DVD side would be stupid. Not only would it anger many customers (probably more permanently than the Qwikster thing did), but you don't need to do any math or even complex thinking to realize that they'd simply be trading continuous income for a one time payment. Long term they would loose money via opportunity costs. Even if Tax costs got higher than the after tax revenues, thats money they wouldn't have anyways without the DVD side. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to sell it.

    They are focusing on the streaming side because 1) streaming content is the future of at home media consumption (Cable/satellite's days are numbered imo) and 2) because there is little to no growth room on the DVD side. They have likely obtained all the customers they can due to how well known their brand is. Expanding DVD offerings to other countries is probably more costly than it is worth (though it could just be that they believe the money better spent improving and maintaining the streaming side) and that would be their only option (aside from pumping money into marketing and trying to get the few US customers who don't know about them already). Why worry about the DVD segment if it is stable and providing dependable revenue when there is so much more emerging competition on the streaming side?
    May 6, 2013. 03:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Basic Business Sense Netflix Bears Refuse To Grasp [View article]
    Finally! A writer on this site who doesn't exaggerate the netflix competition! This time warner thing seems destined to fail, and unless amazon suddenly decides to get more aggressive with prime the only real competition is (potentially) redbox, assuming they look to beef up their streaming to netflix levels.

    Netflix is the way most consumers want their content: what ever when ever, at no additional cost, and add-free. Even if they eventually fail to a larger company, they will definitely not be pushed out anytime soon.
    Apr 8, 2013. 07:21 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Warner Bros. (TWX) launches a $10/month streaming service for old movies and TV shows. Called Warner Archive Instant, the service features titles such as Gilligan's Island, the original Superman show, and (as VentureBeat puts it) "loads of other stuff you’re likely only to find in the $1 bin of DVDs at Walmart." At first glance, the service doesn't appear competitive either on a pricing or content basis with Netflix (NFLX -1.5%), whose shares are underperforming today. [View news story]
    Also, netflix has already produced several shows and is the US distributor for one Norwegian one. House of Cards is the first they made that they released, they have another one coming up in april, a 4th season of Arrested Development, and a long list of other shows they have produced/are producing coming. They have also recently announced a Bluray/DVD release of HoC in the summer, thus additionally monetizing these even more than adding value to their streaming library. Just search for netflix in wikipedia, then look in the table of contents for original programming (or similar) and follow the link. There is a relatively long list of shows coming from now till next year. In fact another was recently announced. Not bad for a small cali company started just over 15yrs ago selling dvds and non-subscription rentals originally is it? Hastings has done one hell of an impressive job taking this company from mail rentals/dvd sales all the way to a global streaming company and content producer. And good content at that!
    Apr 3, 2013. 11:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Warner Bros. (TWX) launches a $10/month streaming service for old movies and TV shows. Called Warner Archive Instant, the service features titles such as Gilligan's Island, the original Superman show, and (as VentureBeat puts it) "loads of other stuff you’re likely only to find in the $1 bin of DVDs at Walmart." At first glance, the service doesn't appear competitive either on a pricing or content basis with Netflix (NFLX -1.5%), whose shares are underperforming today. [View news story]
    Also HBO is already realizing that streaming to customers is a better idea than sticking with the current cable bundled deal. Rumor has it that they are going to start (or at least consider) offering HBOgo subscriptions to anyone with a broadband connection (so as to avoid angering current Cable partners, since most of them also own the cable companies).
    Apr 3, 2013. 11:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Warner Bros. (TWX) launches a $10/month streaming service for old movies and TV shows. Called Warner Archive Instant, the service features titles such as Gilligan's Island, the original Superman show, and (as VentureBeat puts it) "loads of other stuff you’re likely only to find in the $1 bin of DVDs at Walmart." At first glance, the service doesn't appear competitive either on a pricing or content basis with Netflix (NFLX -1.5%), whose shares are underperforming today. [View news story]
    I agree with you that the big companies would likely kill netflix if they all entered. However thus far, most of them seem to be resisting the changes and trying to stick to traditional cable (not unlike the record companies when Itunes first started to sell music). I also think it would be best for consumers if that didn't happen. IDK about you, but I figure the less media companies that enter the streaming market, the less subscriptions I'll end up having to pay for to get the content I want (I'm 21 now, and already know I will pay for more expensive, faster internet and stay far away from cable subscriptions)
    Unfortunately what I hope happens, or what is best for consumers has relatively little relevance on what actually happens. Its an interesting market to look at. Its pretty obvious that whether its add based (like Hulu plus) or not, the future of rentals/home entertainment is streaming, but whats not clear is what company will be king, or if they will all end up just sharing the market. Netflix is so far the only well established company. Sure theres hulu, but they only have TV and even then are somewhat lacking, depending on your taste (plus adds. Who wants to pay and still get adds?). Amazon has decent content, but their internet UI is terrible and they don't seem to be pushing the streaming side of prime quite so much, nor do they have the brand recognition of netflix. Redbox is just getting started. And thats it. Everything else is on-demand. And this Warner thing Is dumb at this point. Do they really thing streaming content will hurt dvd/bluray sales that much that they won't put more than older shows on? If they were smart they'd start putting out all of their content up till, say 5-10 years ago, then just cycle everything in and out of availability, adding recent releases every so often.

    but many of these media companies have this stupid idea stuck in there heads that a movie on streaming means the loss of a DVD sale. Idiots, anyone who really likes a film will buy it, esp if you are smart and cycle content so that it isn't always available. That way consumers wanting to use streaming services to replace more expensive rentals can still see it, but you don't have people using it as though its their own movie library.

    of course this is the same industry that tends to analyze why a film did poorly based on what they think consumers want, what time of the year it was released, or other rather arbitrary factors, rather than the actual quality of the content (or maybe thats just analysis articles, idk. but figuring out why, say, John Carter or Battleship or a similar ridiculous looking film did poorly is about as easy as looking at the trailer, or hell probably reading the script: they are usually ludicrous and/or poorly made. How battleship ever got greenlit is beyond me).

    Either way, I'd say at the moment, this WB thing is hardly a threat for Netflix. If I was reed hastings, I'd be watching what they add cautiously, keeping an eye on them and their content library, but I would pay far more attention to redbox. Film buffs like myself are likely to stick with netflix for the advantage of older or lesser known films, but for more casual audiences the redbox deal sounds like a better buy, even with a poor streaming catalog.
    Apr 3, 2013. 11:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Netflix Will Sink This Year [View article]
    I appreciate the advise, but I'm not yet looking to invest. I'd rather save what I can for moving expenses after graduation. Once I have a full time job however, I will as well as putting as much as I can reasonably afford into an IRA.
    Dec 31, 2012. 03:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Netflix Will Sink This Year [View article]
    I have comcast because I rent a room out in a house and thats what the owner has. It is still terrible imo. Sometimes very slow, and going out on us all too frequently. Perhaps it depends on the area/state though. maybe FL is just a really bad state to be a comcast subscriber in.
    Dec 31, 2012. 03:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment