re: Netflix Loses Starz Deal, Stock Crushed In After Hours Trading

This does seem like an obvious power play from Starz with the timing of the announcement

I'm curious how much of Netflix's profit comes from online streaming services - and how much of that was from content from Starz. From the Netflix response:

LINK

quote:

---

Because we’ve licensed so much other great content, Starz content is now down to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers’ viewing. As we add more content in Q4, we expect Starz content to naturally drift down to 5-6% of domestic viewing in Q1. We are confident we can take the money we had earmarked for Starz renewal next year and spend it with other content providers to maintain, or even improve, the Netflix experience.

---

Losing that content seems like a bad thing for the consumer of course - but it would seem like a no brainer for Netflix to offer a tiered subscription plan which also included Starz programming (for the right price)

Some will disagree with me - but with rare exceptions there isn't all that much I wanted to watch on the Starz networks anyway. If I was really interested in one particular show like Spartacus (with no regard for price) I would buy the DVD instead of using Netflix or subscribing to Starz. When I just had marginal interest in the product to start with? I'll rent it or stream it if it is on Netflix - but just watch something else if it is not

quote:

---

NetFlix needs to tell those customers not to let the door hit them on the way out. Their future is headed towards $30 per month. A tiered plan makes the most sense as it will make the transition to $30 easier

---

I agree with you when you say a tiered plan makes sense - but think the $30/month idea is unlikely to fly on a large scale

There are people who watch a shite ton of movies - those people IMO will probably just go back to downloading things illegally if the price rises too much

The genius of a Netflix IMO was it was not only convenient and got rid of the late fees (theft IMO) by Blockbuster etc - and it also allowed networks and movie companies to make at least some money on those viewers who would have otherwise paid them nothing.

And when the price of the service is low enough the "Joe Blow" movie subscriber will be happy to keep subscribing even if they only watch a few movies a month just because it is convenient. If the monthly subscription price has to rise significantly for them to watch a few new releases a month then those people are just going to go to Redbox or stop watching movies and just whatever television they already get.

That really doesn't make sense to anyone. The networks wouldn't make any more money from Redbox type ventures than they would from Netflix - and certainly Netflix would rather they were the middleman instead of Redbox. And the networks should be really leery of pushing people towards acceptance of piracy - which is the functional result of raising prices too much

quote:

---

Netflix would be dead in 3 months if they went up to $30.

---

If they didn't add any video sure. $30ish per month would get them Starz, HBO, Cinemax and Showtime plus back catalogs.

quote:

---

but think the $30/month idea is unlikely to fly on a large scale

---

Nearly 90% of the US pays for cable or satellite. LINK Of the cable subscribers, over 75% are getting more than basic cable. LINK So think $30 for basic $50 for digital/expanded. So the majority of the country is at least paying $50 per month for expanded basic cable TV. Combine an HD antenna, HuluPlus and a $30 NetFlix and you just duplicated 90% of what's in expanded basic and the premium movie channels, a $100+ package for only $40. How is cutting the price of the old standard in half going to drive people to piracy?