Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Media Movies Television The Almighty Buck Technology

Disney Bans Netflix Ads As Streaming's Marketing Wars Intensify (wsj.com) 44

Disney is banning advertising from Netflix across its entertainment TV networks, according the The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter. It's "a sign that the marketing wars over streaming-video are escalating as media giants battle each other for subscribers," the report says. From the report: Disney, Comcast and AT&T are set to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising over the next year to attract consumers to their new streaming-video services as they look to compete with industry juggernaut Netflix. Netflix spent $1.8 billion on advertising last year and will be playing defense against Hollywood's new entrants. Disney, whose properties include ABC and Freeform, earlier this year put out an edict to staffers that it wouldn't accept ads from any rival streaming services, but later reversed course and found a compromise with nearly every company, the people familiar with the situation said. The exception was Netflix.

In making its decision, Disney evaluated whether it had a mutual business or advertising relationship with the companies, one of the people said. Netflix doesn't show ads in its programs. In a statement, Disney said the subscription streaming-video business has evolved, "with many more entrants looking to advertise in traditional television, and across our portfolio of networks." The company said it re-evaluated its initial blanket ban on streaming ads "to reflect the comprehensive business relationships we have with many of these companies."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Bans Netflix Ads As Streaming's Marketing Wars Intensify

Comments Filter:
  • Can they ban them from the cable co insertion?

  • Anti-competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LiquidAvatar ( 772805 ) on Friday October 04, 2019 @03:56PM (#59271170) Journal
    Can anyone explain to me why this move doesn't run afoul of anti-competitive behavior laws?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Narcocide ( 102829 )

      It absolutely does, but the name of the game these days seems to be "ask for forgiveness rather than permission."

      • How so? It's dickish for sure, but I doubt you'll find any law requiring a Network|Channel|Company to run ads that they don't want to.

        • Well, it would come under anti-competitive laws.

          And before the inevitable example comes up, if I choose to not run an ad on my network because it's full of lies, offensive, or whatever, that's different from not running an ad because it promotes a competing product or service.

        • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

          How so? It's dickish for sure, but I doubt you'll find any law requiring a Network|Channel|Company to run ads that they don't want to.

          I think it depends on the reason.

          They can't refuse to run a "black pride" ad because they don't want to support blacks (and not even because they feel it will offend their mostly white audience)... but they could refuse to run a black politician's election campaign ad if they have a "no political ad" policy (but they'd have to prove that the policy is enforced on everyone, not just non-writes). I'm surprised they can refuse to run a competitor's ad merely because they are a competitor.

        • It's not as much about just the one network in this case (Disney) but that they seem to have managed to collude with a market-controlling majority of all the other major competing carriers to also do the same thing. That is the part that crosses the line... if it can be proven this wasn't just "coincidence."

        • by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
          I was under the impression that leveraging your dominance in one sector (say operating systems or flow TV) to gain dominance in another (say browsers or streaming) was anti-competitive, and would get you into trouble. Question is how large the dominance is.
        • Probably would be considered "restraint of trade." ianal.
    • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

      Can anyone explain to me why this move doesn't run afoul of anti-competitive behavior laws?

      they've corrupted the system, and now we do what they say

    • Well, Disney will likely make it about the ability to advertise on Netflix isn't there while the other competitors' platforms have this capability. Had they stuck with the original plan of all competitors, this likely would have got the attention of the DOJ real quick due to Disney owning such large chunks of the media outlets now that they bought Fox. With it targeting just Netflix, it'll likely only raise eyebrows of a few politicians that need a sound bite. The real problem here is that all of these netw

    • It could. The legal system tends to be very slow-moving, especially if nobody has yet filed a claim. If it doesn't, then it's because the actual set of laws we have to govern anti-competitive behavior are likely pretty narrow.
  • Disney has bought up a huge chunk of the world's pop culture while our anti-trust regulators sleep.
    • Disney has bought up a huge chunk of the world's pop culture while our anti-trust regulators sleep.

      It's less sleeping, than standing in lines with their hands out.

      Disney Rep: "Oh, it looks like someone dropped a huge wad of bills on the ground..."

    • > while our anti-trust regulators sleep.

      JP Morgan's men wrote the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to benefit Standard Oil by "breaking" it into several parts that were harder to keep an eye on. The profits quadrupled over the next twenty years while the Act was heralded as a defeat to Standard Oil in public. Meanwhile potential competitors had even higher hurdles.

      You really need to question why your government-assigned history teacher never covered the truth of the "Trust-Busting" era. It's the same reason Dis

      • You would never hear that in a history class before college, and maybe not even then. Sad, because that certainly seems like the truth. Big business doesn't mind increased regulation because they can afford to do the paperwork while smaller shops and startups won't be able to get around all the red tape.

        Amazing how some thing never change.

      • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        government exists to transfer wealth from the workers to the oligarchs

        Only in governments set up by elitist pricks, for elitist pricks. EC, slavery, state legislatures choosing senators, only property owners being able to vote....elitist AF.

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        You really need to question why your government-assigned history teacher never covered the truth of the "Trust-Busting" era.

        Wow. How is it to live in such abject fear of nothing?

  • " It'll be great ", they said.

    " It'll bring down consumer costs ", they said.

  • The less Netflix has to spend on marketing, the more they can spend on quality writing and production value. Word of mouth is a very powerful marketing tool.

  • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Friday October 04, 2019 @04:56PM (#59271354) Journal
    The streaming industry is an interesting case of a market failure. Rather than competition offering more content at a lower cost, content is being consolidated into silos. To get the same content as a few years ago, consumers have to subscribe to many different suppliers, increasing the cost to the consumer.

    It reminds me of when Guitar Hero and Rock Band were popular. Suddenly AC/DC decides they are going to have their own add on. Then Metallica and Green Day get their own versions of the game. Now nobody plays Rock Band anymore...
    • by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
      I'm still waiting for the hybrid model: You subscribe to a streaming service that has a baseline content that comes with the subscription. And then you rent everything that you want to see that is not part of the baseline for a reasonable amount. In the context of TV shows, the first episode could be part of the baseline.
      • I'm still waiting for the hybrid model: You subscribe to a streaming service that has a baseline content that comes with the subscription. And then you rent everything that you want to see that is not part of the baseline for a reasonable amount.

        Amazon Prime Video is kinda like that.

    • You CAN cancel a subscription, you know?

      Only subscribe to ONE streaming service at a time.

      Binge on it. Enjoy watching the weekly shows all at once, admittedly once they've already streamed, been talked about, spoiled and the world has moved on. But if it's good, it's good, right?

      Just change your single streaming service every month and you'll be fine, if sometimes out of date at the 'water cooler conversation'.

  • by ethanms ( 319039 ) on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:14PM (#59271402)

    Like CBS, they won't see a dime of my stream dollars as they try to hold their favorite media hostage.

    I'm waiting for the home media shoe to drop -- when giants like Disney stop releasing media on DVD/Blu-ray and any future physical media. The future is licensed media only, pay us in perpetuity.

    • Stop saying that. Don't even suggest it. I'll truly cry when I can't get movies on DVD/Blu-ray and any future physical media. If that happens, I'll have to invest my time into figuring out how to download the streams for watching later. It's probably not that difficult but I really like having the physical copies of all the movies as a backup.

      • You won't have to do that. Their will be a myriad of tools available to do that. There already are, but they are not so easy to find.

  • by BLToday ( 1777712 ) on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:23PM (#59271426)

    I mean after all, it's not like there's other places for Netflix to advertise. /s

  • There's a streaming or movie service from just about everyone. I'm half expecting Costco to come out with one too. You know "Costco-style" streaming: big bulk, low prices, with monthly coupon for $1.50 hot dog and drink included.

    I was close to canceling Amazon Prime recently when my wife reminded me that I watched The Boys, read Kindle Prime books, and she streams the basic Prime music. Amazon is just a cesspool of Chinese fly-by-night brands and counterfeit goods. It's the streaming services that's keeping

    • When Hulu took a crap on Thursday Night Football on me, I was pleasantly surprised to discover Amazon Prime had the football stream. It definitely has it's uses though my wife is probably close to cancelling it. You can get two day shipping for free so many places now.

  • I'll check out Disney+, but my paid sub isn't going to last long if it includes ads.
  • Obviously Disney is scarred to death that their streaming service will be inferior to NetFlix, and they would prefer that no one know that alternatives exist. The best way to "corner the market" when you have an inferior product is to prevent anyone from knowing that superior alternatives exist.

  • How in the hell do they compete on content? Both are striving to make themselves unique necessities that don't overlap in terms of what they provide
  • I'm sure they can lower prices for a year or so and ensure this crappy new Disney service gets even less customers
  • This goes back to something I've been saying for years - the content creators should not be the content distributors.

  • After all, it's not like there's other places for Netflix to advertise. Whatsapp Status Videos [30secclips.com]
  • ‘The Crown’ Creator Peter Morgan Signs Mega Overall Deal With Netflix Netflix has signed a huge overall TV and film deal with The Crown creator Peter Morgan, in another sign that the streamers are prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars tying-up prominent British writing talent. We hear the pact is for at least four years. Three sources told Deadline that Netflix’s deal with Golden Globe and BAFTA-winner Morgan was done as the company readies itself for the November 17 release of T

"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani

Working...