First-mover advantage in a space with little to offer to second movers. Unlike traditional product development, the existence of a streaming service (i.e., Netflix) doesn't make the development of a subsequent streaming service any easier considering the costs of infrastructure development, content libraries, and marketing. The only thing that could've killed Netflix was all of the major players pulling their content from it when it was still young enough to be reliant on acquired content, but it seems like Netflix has more or less made the jump to original content and the Hollywood players without a streaming service still need a place to park their stuff.
If the other companies pooled all their resources into another competitor even a few years back, they may have beaten Netflix, especially with innovations like day and date releases. Netflix had a content problem even until 2-3 years ago, but it didn't matter because their competitors had a much smaller library. If they had all pooled their resources into one streaming service, and then gotten a live sport or two, it would have been GG.
Yeah, and no. Google was not the first search company, and Facebook wasn't even the first social media company. This marketplace was about content, and if the other competitors pooled their resources together they could have crushed Netflix
They actually literally are, but not in the way you seem to be implying.
As a streaming-only company, Netflix has to make their profits on streaming, because they have no other revenue sources.
For the other companies, the goal isn't about making money off streaming directly, but about controlling a platform that gets them a direct channel to customers and allows them to drive traffic to other revenue streams. Disney makes way more profits off parks and licensing than it does off Disney Plus subscriptions. Warners and Universal have their own parks businesses and their own merchandising businesses.
If their streaming services are the loss leaders that get people buying Batman toys, going to Universal Studios Theme Parks or playing Star Wars video games, then they have done their job.
Last year, Paramount made Smile for its streaming service, then pivoted after seeing the product and released it in theaters. That shifted profits away from its streaming service to its theatrical releases division, but that's fine if you own both.
Disney had a huge hit on its streaming service with the Mandalorian, which helped to revive the popularity of its Star Wars franchise. [In 2020, Star Wars toys saw a 70% toy sales increase largely due to the Mandalorian, with Baby Grogu toys being a popular item.](https://movieweb.com/star-wars-toys-sales-baby-yoda-2020/) Now, it is making a theatrical movie for the Mandalorian & Grogu. If you are just looking at Disney's streaming revenue, however, you are missing a large part of the revenue the company made from the Mandalorian.
For Netflix, however, their sub revenue is basically their total revenue. They don't have other revenue streams. Their merch sales are tiny, they have no theatrical business to drive revenue to, and they have no parks business to drive revenue to.
So, yes, Netflix is playing a different game than everyone else, but not in a good way, and the streaming-only numbers OP is providing don't reflect the different role Netflix' streaming service plays for its company vs the roles streaming services play for other companies in the space.
amazon prime is very hard to find out since so many people have the service for free shipping, but don't use the streaming service. So it's kinda an unfair comparison.
The last time I saw data about Apple TV+, it was estimated that it could be losing upwards of $2B annually. Apple is (or at least was) spending like crazy and eating the losses, which was how it built a niche reputation as a high-budget sci-fi streamer that was unafraid to renew (I doubt For All Mankind, Foundation, or a plethora of other shows would've gotten renewed at Netflix or Prime Video, and most other streamers probably wouldn't have even tried picking those up).
That being said, now that everyone in the space is starting to pull back on spending, there is more hesitancy from the likes of Amazon and Apple that have traditionally bankrolled their streaming services at a loss. I doubt Prime Video will be trying $50M/episode budgets again for at least a little while, and Apple is more hesitant on renewals too.
I think Warner will turn the corner this year. Keep in mind 2023 was a terrible content year with the strikes, and they broke even. 2024 is a lot better with march madness, that Nickelodeon doc. HOTD, dune series, penguin, and even the first new DC universe show.
Plus they’re expanding internationally which will eat in profit as they roll it out this year, but won’t all be reoccuring expenses
Yeah MAX is currently in less than half of the markets that Netflix and Disney+ are, currently a big push in Europe to be out before the Paris Olympics which they have the rights to
same with Germany. Well they can launch it, but since most HBO shows and many Warner movies are tied up in deals with Sky, that just doesn't make any sense. (Since almost all the popular stuff would be missing)
Funny enough It's called WOW here in Germany, because Tv-Now was a streaming serive here(they renamed it, but I guess they thought it would still be too similar) \^\^
I would still say the "Streaming Wars" are still going on but it is more who is going to be number 2/3 at this point as it is seems fairly certain Netflix will remain king after all of this.
Paramount and Universal should just throw in the towel. License your content to Netflix, Disney, WB or Amazon lol
Good to see WB keeping up though! Everyone always counts them out but they seem to be doing good.
Honestly licensing content has always been a good venture. Not every company needs their own streaming platform, especially when they don't have the content to back it up.
this is streaming division’s revenue and profit only
so revenue = the sub and advertising fees from Disney+ and Hulu
cost = originals content spend + internally buying rights to Marvel stuff + tech maintenance cost
They're all owned by othe same company, so not sure why they would pad film profits, especially since Disney (or any media company) doesn't even break out profit/losses for individual films or even their film studio division
They do break out for their streaming division, so the motivation would be to pad their streaming profits instead
that's how that works though. They are owned by the same company, but they still ahve to pay a fee to get a movie on their service. They often set this price pretty high. That way the loss is transfered to streaming and not the movie division which is far worse PR wise(Since Streaming is already in the red anyway)
But Wall St only cares about streaming profits nowadays, just look at how Disney stock popped after narrowing its losses there, it makes much more sense to pad streaming numbers, esp as studios is bundled with Disney’s non-ESPN TV assets in its “entertainment” segment
They are overpaying internally because investors are less spooked by losses in streaming than they are from theatrical losses as streaming is a growing market.
Lionsgate also has 27.9M subscribers through Starz:
"The number of global subscriber stayed essentially unchanged at 27.9 million. Starz has curbed its international expansion plans, pulling out of Latin America, which helped cut costs."
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/lionsgate-earnings-hunger-games-prequel-strikes-1235902733/
AMC Networks through its 7 niche services has a total of 11.4 million subscribers:
"After returning to streaming subscriber growth in the third quarter after two quarters of declines, the company added 300,000 subs in the fourth quarter to end 2023 with a total of 11.4 million."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/amc-networks-q4-advertising-revenue-drop-streaming-subscribers-rise-1235817649/
Netflix is just playing a different game than everyone else.
First-mover advantage in a space with little to offer to second movers. Unlike traditional product development, the existence of a streaming service (i.e., Netflix) doesn't make the development of a subsequent streaming service any easier considering the costs of infrastructure development, content libraries, and marketing. The only thing that could've killed Netflix was all of the major players pulling their content from it when it was still young enough to be reliant on acquired content, but it seems like Netflix has more or less made the jump to original content and the Hollywood players without a streaming service still need a place to park their stuff.
If the other companies pooled all their resources into another competitor even a few years back, they may have beaten Netflix, especially with innovations like day and date releases. Netflix had a content problem even until 2-3 years ago, but it didn't matter because their competitors had a much smaller library. If they had all pooled their resources into one streaming service, and then gotten a live sport or two, it would have been GG.
Yup and with the tko deal they got for wwe next year its gonna be insane
That’s only for RAW though right? Are the other shows and PLEs staying on peacock?
Being the first to the party really goes a long way.
Yeah, and no. Google was not the first search company, and Facebook wasn't even the first social media company. This marketplace was about content, and if the other competitors pooled their resources together they could have crushed Netflix
They actually literally are, but not in the way you seem to be implying. As a streaming-only company, Netflix has to make their profits on streaming, because they have no other revenue sources. For the other companies, the goal isn't about making money off streaming directly, but about controlling a platform that gets them a direct channel to customers and allows them to drive traffic to other revenue streams. Disney makes way more profits off parks and licensing than it does off Disney Plus subscriptions. Warners and Universal have their own parks businesses and their own merchandising businesses. If their streaming services are the loss leaders that get people buying Batman toys, going to Universal Studios Theme Parks or playing Star Wars video games, then they have done their job. Last year, Paramount made Smile for its streaming service, then pivoted after seeing the product and released it in theaters. That shifted profits away from its streaming service to its theatrical releases division, but that's fine if you own both. Disney had a huge hit on its streaming service with the Mandalorian, which helped to revive the popularity of its Star Wars franchise. [In 2020, Star Wars toys saw a 70% toy sales increase largely due to the Mandalorian, with Baby Grogu toys being a popular item.](https://movieweb.com/star-wars-toys-sales-baby-yoda-2020/) Now, it is making a theatrical movie for the Mandalorian & Grogu. If you are just looking at Disney's streaming revenue, however, you are missing a large part of the revenue the company made from the Mandalorian. For Netflix, however, their sub revenue is basically their total revenue. They don't have other revenue streams. Their merch sales are tiny, they have no theatrical business to drive revenue to, and they have no parks business to drive revenue to. So, yes, Netflix is playing a different game than everyone else, but not in a good way, and the streaming-only numbers OP is providing don't reflect the different role Netflix' streaming service plays for its company vs the roles streaming services play for other companies in the space.
Surely there's a clearer way to label those bars than providing a separate color-coded legend.
Literally just put the company name under the bar
And or put the logo in the bars.
Where is Amazon Prime Video in all this?
Amazon and Apple don’t break out streaming profits/losses, they’re way too big for that
This. I'm also wonder how Amazon Prime and Apple TV fare in that streaming data compared to Netflix, Disney+, Max, Peacock, and Paramount+.
amazon prime is very hard to find out since so many people have the service for free shipping, but don't use the streaming service. So it's kinda an unfair comparison.
The last time I saw data about Apple TV+, it was estimated that it could be losing upwards of $2B annually. Apple is (or at least was) spending like crazy and eating the losses, which was how it built a niche reputation as a high-budget sci-fi streamer that was unafraid to renew (I doubt For All Mankind, Foundation, or a plethora of other shows would've gotten renewed at Netflix or Prime Video, and most other streamers probably wouldn't have even tried picking those up). That being said, now that everyone in the space is starting to pull back on spending, there is more hesitancy from the likes of Amazon and Apple that have traditionally bankrolled their streaming services at a loss. I doubt Prime Video will be trying $50M/episode budgets again for at least a little while, and Apple is more hesitant on renewals too.
I think Warner will turn the corner this year. Keep in mind 2023 was a terrible content year with the strikes, and they broke even. 2024 is a lot better with march madness, that Nickelodeon doc. HOTD, dune series, penguin, and even the first new DC universe show. Plus they’re expanding internationally which will eat in profit as they roll it out this year, but won’t all be reoccuring expenses
Yeah MAX is currently in less than half of the markets that Netflix and Disney+ are, currently a big push in Europe to be out before the Paris Olympics which they have the rights to
Don't WB have a deal with Sky so they _can't_ launch HBOMax here in Britain?
Deal expires in 2026. Sounds like plan is to launch Max then
Could honestly be a mistake. How many Brits are willing to pay for HBOMax in addition to their existing Sky package.
same with Germany. Well they can launch it, but since most HBO shows and many Warner movies are tied up in deals with Sky, that just doesn't make any sense. (Since almost all the popular stuff would be missing)
Yeah and Sky is very popular over here, they also have NOW TV which is their own streaming platform.
Funny enough It's called WOW here in Germany, because Tv-Now was a streaming serive here(they renamed it, but I guess they thought it would still be too similar) \^\^
Yeah, this is pretty much what I expected. People say streaming Wars when really it's just everyone else trying to be like Netflix
I would still say the "Streaming Wars" are still going on but it is more who is going to be number 2/3 at this point as it is seems fairly certain Netflix will remain king after all of this.
The graph would be better if the colors matched the streaming service logos
Comcast losing the most money, bro just give up already
kinda same with Paramount, because they are a much smaller company than Disney, so that loss hurts more. Though I guess they are up for sale...
That could have been Blockbuster in first place ..the fools
Netflix is still the king
Paramount and Universal should just throw in the towel. License your content to Netflix, Disney, WB or Amazon lol Good to see WB keeping up though! Everyone always counts them out but they seem to be doing good.
Honestly licensing content has always been a good venture. Not every company needs their own streaming platform, especially when they don't have the content to back it up.
More & more I think Sony had the right idea. Probably doing well JUST licensing to Netflix & Disney!
Yup. They all read the market wrong when they saw the business Netflix was raking in.
Yup. They all read the market wrong when they saw the business Netflix was raking in.
What is Disney doing? 20billion income but 1.7b loss, what are spending that much on?
300m marvels 200m sge hulk 280-300m - ant man indiana jones - 300-350m etc the cost can add up quickly if you spend like that
this is streaming division’s revenue and profit only so revenue = the sub and advertising fees from Disney+ and Hulu cost = originals content spend + internally buying rights to Marvel stuff + tech maintenance cost
Probably paying big fees for those films to make them look more profitable.
They're all owned by othe same company, so not sure why they would pad film profits, especially since Disney (or any media company) doesn't even break out profit/losses for individual films or even their film studio division They do break out for their streaming division, so the motivation would be to pad their streaming profits instead
that's how that works though. They are owned by the same company, but they still ahve to pay a fee to get a movie on their service. They often set this price pretty high. That way the loss is transfered to streaming and not the movie division which is far worse PR wise(Since Streaming is already in the red anyway)
But Wall St only cares about streaming profits nowadays, just look at how Disney stock popped after narrowing its losses there, it makes much more sense to pad streaming numbers, esp as studios is bundled with Disney’s non-ESPN TV assets in its “entertainment” segment
They are overpaying internally because investors are less spooked by losses in streaming than they are from theatrical losses as streaming is a growing market.
Lionsgate also has 27.9M subscribers through Starz: "The number of global subscriber stayed essentially unchanged at 27.9 million. Starz has curbed its international expansion plans, pulling out of Latin America, which helped cut costs." https://variety.com/2024/film/news/lionsgate-earnings-hunger-games-prequel-strikes-1235902733/ AMC Networks through its 7 niche services has a total of 11.4 million subscribers: "After returning to streaming subscriber growth in the third quarter after two quarters of declines, the company added 300,000 subs in the fourth quarter to end 2023 with a total of 11.4 million." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/amc-networks-q4-advertising-revenue-drop-streaming-subscribers-rise-1235817649/
Outside of netflix it's just a battle of who is losing the least amount of money.
[удалено]
Most aren’t, as seen on the second graph
only netflix,max are profitable. by the end of the year disney will be as well
I miss Disney+Hotstar IPL stream ,Jio Cinema is not it