• Reminder: We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

    There’s a link in the top navigation bar for Amazon.com. Purchases made via this link help support The Boneyard. (Dismiss this notice by clicking the x at the top right of the box)

Interesting potential direction for HBO

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
28,148
Likes
19,933
#3
Netflix is a studio and broadcaster that's equity is priced like its a software company. I don't like Netflix's strategy of controlling all their own content, because so much of it is crap. That said, I agree that HBO needs more content. The $11 a month charge is pretty steep for old movies and a handful of original programs. I don't have the right answer, but I think both HBO's and Netflix's strategies are losers. I think there is value to being a content aggregator.
 

HuskyHawk

Hoping to see something that looks like basketball
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
11,784
Likes
12,099
#4
Netflix is a studio and broadcaster that's equity is priced like its a software company. I don't like Netflix's strategy of controlling all their own content, because so much of it is crap. That said, I agree that HBO needs more content. The $11 a month charge is pretty steep for old movies and a handful of original programs. I don't have the right answer, but I think both HBO's and Netflix's strategies are losers. I think there is value to being a content aggregator.
Pure content aggregators are dead or soon will be. There's no value in it. The differentiation is entirely in having unique content.

Netflix though, has overdone it by producing massive volumes of crap. Their site is a disaster because you can't even find any third party content anymore, and 3/4 of their content is garbage. They need to focus more narrowly on producing quality shows and beefing up the 3rd party movies and shows, which are currently inadequate. It looks like a TV channel now.

It seems like HBO may be striking the right balance. What you need is a mix of content aggregation plus "must watch" exclusive content like GOT and Westworld. But if AT&T wants people to pay for it, they are going to have to beef up the aggregation end, it is too light right now. They have plenty of additional content that they can add.

Amazon is out there too. And has done a better job of producing content with impact.

It's an interesting competition. Good to have more players.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
28,148
Likes
19,933
#5
Pure content aggregators are dead or soon will be. There's no value in it. The differentiation is entirely in having unique content.

Netflix though, has overdone it by producing massive volumes of crap. Their site is a disaster because you can't even find any third party content anymore, and 3/4 of their content is garbage. They need to focus more narrowly on producing quality shows and beefing up the 3rd party movies and shows, which are currently inadequate. It looks like a TV channel now.

It seems like HBO may be striking the right balance. What you need is a mix of content aggregation plus "must watch" exclusive content like GOT and Westworld. But if AT&T wants people to pay for it, they are going to have to beef up the aggregation end, it is too light right now. They have plenty of additional content that they can add.

Amazon is out there too. And has done a better job of producing content with impact.

It's an interesting competition. Good to have more players.
I don't have the answer on this, but I know that no single content creator, whether HBO or Netflix or AMC or whoever, has enough content to justify an increasing subscription model without aggregating content from other parties.
 

Fishy

Puncher of Throats
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,366
Likes
44,133
#6
The onus will be on becoming bigger and more prolific in the years to come. Makes sense. Not sure I like it. Quality still needs to be there.

AT&T's Doomed Plans to Turn HBO Into Netflix - The Atlantic

"I want more hours of engagement ... You get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow’s world."

John Stankey is going to be fired and frogmarched out of his office at some point.
 

HuskyHawk

Hoping to see something that looks like basketball
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
11,784
Likes
12,099
#7
I don't have the answer on this, but I know that no single content creator, whether HBO or Netflix or AMC or whoever, has enough content to justify an increasing subscription model without aggregating content from other parties.
That's true. But it's clear that the aggregation only model used by Netflix and Amazon originally....and HBO before that, is a ticket to nowhere.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
28,148
Likes
19,933
#8
That's true. But it's clear that the aggregation only model used by Netflix and Amazon originally....and HBO before that, is a ticket to nowhere.
I think that the aggregation model would have to go low cost, high volume, and not try to compete with the content producers. It would probably have to be a new entrant into the market.

The problem that HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Netflix all have is high legacy subscription pricing, which is hard to sustain given how modest their content libraries are. AMC has the added issue of being dependent on cable fees.

It is so easy for content producers to go direct that the value of an aggregator "brand" is negligible. On the other hand, consumers don't want to pay 10 subscriptions, so a single login and place to stream a wide variety of content has some value. Maybe there are 2 or 3 of those, and content producers are paid based on views or something. Like I said, I don't have the answer, but I do know the entertainment industry will be very different in 10 years.
 

HuskyHawk

Hoping to see something that looks like basketball
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
11,784
Likes
12,099
#9
I think that the aggregation model would have to go low cost, high volume, and not try to compete with the content producers. It would probably have to be a new entrant into the market.

The problem that HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Netflix all have is high legacy subscription pricing, which is hard to sustain given how modest their content libraries are. AMC has the added issue of being dependent on cable fees.

It is so easy for content producers to go direct that the value of an aggregator "brand" is negligible. On the other hand, consumers don't want to pay 10 subscriptions, so a single login and place to stream a wide variety of content has some value. Maybe there are 2 or 3 of those, and content producers are paid based on views or something. Like I said, I don't have the answer, but I do know the entertainment industry will be very different in 10 years.
Well Amazon is doing that. I can add HBO, Starz, Acorn and others to Amazon Prime, and watch all of it through the Prime app.

AT&T though is trying to make HBO bigger than that, and once the Time Warner deal closes, they will probably have enough content, aggregated and their own, to put forth a compelling offering. They have some of the same problem Disney has with ESPN, where they make too much money on the cable side to go "all in". Thinking long term, they would shut down Cinemax and consolidate it with HBO, plus other content they get (Turner). This is old, but lays out the case. AT&T Is Buying Time Warner Because the Future is Google
 


Top