COVID-19 Crippled Movie Theaters and That Could Force Streamers To Be More Transparent About Viewership Data (cnbc.com) 69
Sarah Whitten writes via CNBC: The coronavirus pandemic has fundamentally changed the entertainment industry. With movie theaters shuttered, studios have been forced to either delay their film releases or turn to on-demand and streaming options to present their content to audiences. While cinemas are preparing to reopen this month, eagerly awaiting new films in July, it's still unclear if there is enough demand to keep these businesses profitable. [...] Industry members worry that if films begin to shift towards on-demand and streaming that all of the metrics that were used to gauge success could disappear.
It's easy to figure out if a film is successful because studios give out all of the necessary information. You know the production budget, can ascertain that the marketing budget was about half of the production budget and then you see the box office receipts. If the box office numbers are larger than the production and marketing budgets, then the movie was a success. If that number is smaller, it was a flop. There's even data about how many screens a film was shown on in a given weekend and the average that film made per screen. These metrics not only help studios determine the profitability of a movie, but can also aid in its marketing. [...] In the world of streaming, and even on-demand and home video, that level of transparency is not present. There are very few sources that track the home entertainment market and even fewer companies that share their data on the subject.
Of course, the model for subscriptions services is very different from that of theatrical releases. Consumers pay up front a flat fee for a month's worth of content on a service like Netflix or Disney+, whereas theaters charge per view. So, it's difficult to assign a monetary amount to a movie released on a streaming service. The strongest measure of success for streaming services is total number of subscribers. This figure can be used to persuade content makers to work with one platform instead of another because of the potential reach they could have with an audience. It's not a guarantee that all of those subscribers will watch the content, but they will be exposed to it. [...] [However] it's very difficult to determine if someone signed up for a service just to watch one program. The report notes that Netflix counts a "view" as someone who chose to watch a program for at least two minutes, which is "pretty useless," according to Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter. "Who cares how many people watched a particular movie (other than them and the press)? It doesn't translate to revenue unless the movie is the reason to join the streaming service."
"Netflix gauges the success of shows by calculating how many viewers it was getting compared with the cost of the show," reports CNBC. "Without viewership data from any of Netflix's shows, it's difficult to determine how big of an audience a show on the platform needs to achieve in order to be considered viable by the company."
It's easy to figure out if a film is successful because studios give out all of the necessary information. You know the production budget, can ascertain that the marketing budget was about half of the production budget and then you see the box office receipts. If the box office numbers are larger than the production and marketing budgets, then the movie was a success. If that number is smaller, it was a flop. There's even data about how many screens a film was shown on in a given weekend and the average that film made per screen. These metrics not only help studios determine the profitability of a movie, but can also aid in its marketing. [...] In the world of streaming, and even on-demand and home video, that level of transparency is not present. There are very few sources that track the home entertainment market and even fewer companies that share their data on the subject.
Of course, the model for subscriptions services is very different from that of theatrical releases. Consumers pay up front a flat fee for a month's worth of content on a service like Netflix or Disney+, whereas theaters charge per view. So, it's difficult to assign a monetary amount to a movie released on a streaming service. The strongest measure of success for streaming services is total number of subscribers. This figure can be used to persuade content makers to work with one platform instead of another because of the potential reach they could have with an audience. It's not a guarantee that all of those subscribers will watch the content, but they will be exposed to it. [...] [However] it's very difficult to determine if someone signed up for a service just to watch one program. The report notes that Netflix counts a "view" as someone who chose to watch a program for at least two minutes, which is "pretty useless," according to Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter. "Who cares how many people watched a particular movie (other than them and the press)? It doesn't translate to revenue unless the movie is the reason to join the streaming service."
"Netflix gauges the success of shows by calculating how many viewers it was getting compared with the cost of the show," reports CNBC. "Without viewership data from any of Netflix's shows, it's difficult to determine how big of an audience a show on the platform needs to achieve in order to be considered viable by the company."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're thinking of HULU. There's no commercial breaks on Netflix.
Re:2 minutes (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it should not be counted unless the entire program was viewed and also got a "thumbs up" rating. Anything that gets a thumbs down -- whether watched or not, should be counted as -1 views for each thumbs-down.
Currently NetFlix counts a program as "viewed" if you just look at what language it is in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Netflix has buttloads of metrics like that, but they're all internal.
You're never going to know the sections of movies people repeat, or pause at for...reasons. But they do.
This 2 minute thing is for public consumption, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, they don't have to pick 2 minutes or 15 minutes. They can produce pretty graphs of a continuous curve of viewer falloff, based on seconds, or percent complete.
Re: 2 minutes (Score:1)
Context? (Score:2)
They can't raise it up to more than 2 minutes, because that's the average amount of time any program runs before it's interrupted by 15 minutes of commercials
Not really understanding what you are laying down here, because the subject is Netflix - sounds like you are talking about Hulu which is very much like that?
Netflix has zero commercials.
Re: (Score:3)
He was saying the 2 minute measurement is an industry standard, driven by the amount of time before a commercial break. The fact that they don't have commercials doesn't really figure into it. If they took a longer interval they would have lower numbers which then would look bad compared to other sources that continued to use 2 minutes.
For internal numbers, it probably doesn't matter what they use. But if they want to publish views then it's not fair for them to only count people that watched 51% of the s
Re: 2 minutes (Score:2)
The article is also wrong. Big releases go to on demand first, and those numbers are indeed tracked and reported if you care enough to look. Worst case, Congress or the FTC can add some disclosure requirements to cover the edge cases.
Once a movie goes to a package streaming service, cable tv, etc. it's treated similar to how movie rentals used to be; a guage of popularity not financial success.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Amazon Prime Video which is like going to a theater (which I did last about 25 years ago). No commercials but they have 30 minutes of advertizing before each program start.
"Force" is a strong term (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what's going to force Netflix or any other streaming service to do anything. Why should they participate in some ratings scheme? They know if a show or movie is worth it to them, and that information is worth money. Making it public is giving their content providers leverage to shop around and raise their prices.
There's a whole industry of thumb twiddlers who might be out of a job without box office numbers to treat like barometers of future audience appetite or other prognostications, but I'm sure they can go on to find gainful employment in other fields.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what's going to force Netflix or any other streaming service to do anything. Why should they participate in some ratings scheme
Easy: if film producers don't have access to basic metrics to know whether films are successful or not, they won't be able to guesstimate if any future production will be successful also, so they'll stop making films.
Distributors must collaborate with the content creators, because the two have a symbiotic relationship. If streamers don't play ball, they'll cause the ent
Re:"Force" is a strong term (Score:4, Interesting)
Content won't dry up, but the onus on who commissions the work would be turned on its head - if the platform knows whats popular and profitable, it will commission more of what makes its platform popular and profitable. Those commissions will go to production teams, who will produce the content - rather than some executive in the production companies getting to decide what gets commissioned instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Cant they just ask the streaming service to sign a contract, if we were to make a sequel to this, you will buy the rights at X price. If they sign it, sounds to me like it was successful enough. If they dont, well either you shop the property around to another streamer, or it wasnt good enough. As long as the studios made profit from selling the rights to a specific service that they deemed high enough, why would they not make another with a guaranteed purchase price
Needing basic metrics isnt necessary, it
Re: (Score:2)
> we were to make a sequel to this, you will buy the rights at X price. If they sign it, sounds to me like it was successful enough.
My 6yo and I can make a Batman movie tomorrow.
Someone can spend $400 million to make a spectacular Batman movie.
How much will you YOU bid for "a Batman movie"?
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix never gets first run movies unless they produced the film themselves, though. By the time Netflix streams most mainstream films, it's been a year since they were in the theaters and they've already been available via on-demand and DVD/Blu-Ray sales for a few months.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course they were a flop in which case the rights get sold to NetFlix within 30 days, about the same time they start airing on Toronto's CITYTV as the midnight movie with no commercials (because they couldn't sell any).
Re:"Force" is a strong term (Score:4, Informative)
Easy: if film producers don't have access to basic metrics to know whether films are successful or not, they won't be able to guesstimate if any future production will be successful also, so they'll stop making films.
I don't know in which universe you are living in, but in this universe film-makers as a group are never going to stop making films, even if the direct monetary reward for films drops to zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't there another way?
If I make a film that costs me (say) $50 to make, I hunt around for streaming services to play it. I see Netflix as the biggest, so I approach them. Together we cut a deal which is based on the number of people who watch my film in (say) the first 6 months, and maybe a percentage of the sign-up fees for new sign-ups in the first couple of weeks. After that, Netflix essentially rent the film from me for a fixed amount each month (presumably decreasing with each month that goes by), an
Re: "Force" is a strong term (Score:2)
A great example of someone who has extreme proficiency in one area and absolutely none in another.
"Cut a deal"
Do you understand the nuances, difficulties, and finagling that are done in getting said deal done?
First everything you've proposed is a compromise. Big studios don't compromise on principle.
Streaming services were a kick in the balls for their system. It's why Hulu and Disney+ exist and why you're going to see a fragmented streaming landscape.
None of what you proposed will ever happen. Netflix is t
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if someone won't compromise with Netflix "on principle", then someone won't be using Netflix. Where exactly are those movie studios going to be showing their films? Amazon make their own content too - so apparently unsuitable (although they do have some pay-per-view, which might suit the studios better). Disney only show their own stuff... who's left?
And yes, I know "cut a deal" could be months of negotiation. However, once done it sets the basis for subsequent films - just like any other deal you set
Re: (Score:2)
They were unlikely to force Netflix before but now they're facing some competition I'm not so sure.
There's also reverse competition though, with Netflix having unveiled a number of pretty big budget movies at this point. You can see Netflix getting to a point where movie studios would cut a very good deal with Netflix just to get a property in front of a larger audience so they could make money off secondary things like merch...
Honestly without movie theaters existing on the scale they do now, studios that
Re: (Score:2)
If enough people buy your product to make a profit it is successful ... ...except of course Hollywood accounting means most movies don't make money
Easier to Hide Failures? (Score:2)
Imagine if features like Charlie's Angels and Terminator Dark Fate had been released and largely (un)watched on streaming services instead, such that it was possible for the activist press to cover up their failures (which I'm sure they desperately wished they could've).
Note that the new Star Trek series appear to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Charlie's Angels and Terminator Dark Fate had been released and largely (un)watched on streaming services instead, such that it was possible for the activist press to cover up their failures (which I'm sure they desperately wished they could've).
Wait, what was wrong with Charlie's Angels? I thought Drew Barrymore was great
"Force" - not gonna happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can be forced: if they get boycotted and they're denied the rights to stream major releases, they'll listen. Netflix and Amazon have pretty good in-house productions, but they still depend on blockbusters made by outside sources. They can't afford said outside sources to shunt them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It has and will have absolutely zero effect on any subscription streaming platform. It may drive up prices for the initial BluRay and Pray-per-View release, but it will have absolutely zero effect on NetFlix or any other subscription streaming platform. NetFlix does not show movies until they are finished in the threatres, the Pray-per-View revenue is exhausted, and the first-run BluRay and DVD markets are exhausted.
If the theatres all go bust (lets hope) then there will just be more Pray-per-View, BluRay
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if the theaters go broke and close it will motivate someone to offer a streaming service that has *true* High Definition video and audio streaming and not this "compressed all to ratshit lo-fi crap we have today". If the Audio and Video quality equaled (or better yet exceeded) that available on the best mastered BluRay, then it *might* be worth Paying-per-View. But with the current abysmal quality (of which NetFlix is in fast decline -- and they are the best) it is not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have to get over the price of Blu-Ray movies, since they are now close to the price of two tickets to the theatre I would have bought.
And buy a player. Oh yeah, and a bigger screen for a fuller experience. And better, better popcorn, since theatre movies are just popcorn deliver mechanisms for me. Though the recliners coming to theatres are almost as good as mine at home, and at home the dog gets to see the flick also.
Actually, a pox on all of this, just fix the liability insurance problem, open up,
Easy to tell if successful ? (Score:3)
> It's easy to figure out if a film is successful because studios give out all of the necessary information.
BWAHAHA [youtube.com]
Because the movie industry would never resort to Hollywood accounting, [wikipedia.org] /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Stock market investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Stock market investors.
Stock market investor here. Don't give a crap about any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
True, movie investors are stock market investors that have play money up against the wall. Whatever bounces back is profit. And you get to say 'I was part of that pile of crap...'.
Movie investors are an interesting bunch, more diverse than capital investors, with very different motivations and different rewards. The stock market is a sure winner compared to flicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media clickbaiters. They appear to care a lot about these things. They also hate binge watching, you get more clicks with random speculation about plotlines (in spite of 0 actual information from writers or sources).
The rest of us may have observed that movie theaters were on the brink before COVID-19 and it may have stuck a fork in an obsolete business model. We're not really concerned about the impact to the parasite community much, parasites are pretty good at finding a way to stick around.
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of interesting to me; I laugh at the premise of the summary, but the movie industry is essentially a financing game with marketing thrown in. What happens when you take those two profit centers out of the equation?
Do we end up with more reality-TV bullshit? Do we end up with more content geared towards smaller audiences? Will we still have blockbusters? Does the movie go away entirely, completely supplanted by series productions that work better on a subscription model?
Don’t get me wron
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who, if anyone, gives a rat's dick about any of this?
The rat?
Really? (Score:2)
All the new movies I've seen that aren't worthy of straight to video are via the pay per view model. Nobody is going to release their big budget movie initially to stream on Netflix.
uh no, I'm not going to the theater (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
why would I? most of the movies suck and I'd much rather stream the movie. I worked at movie theaters when I was a teenager. They make their money on the food and I don't like their food. So literally there's no appeal for me.
Some day we'll be tilling our grand kids about how back in the day, you'd travel to a place and pay per head to get in to watch a movie in a room with dozens (or more) of other people that usually annoyed you the whole time.
As a bonus, they offered cheap snacks for at least 5 times what they cost at any store.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny that you believe your grandkids won't be charged "per head" to watch a movie in their own homes. That is definitely the way this industry is going (camera AI to tell who is watching and charging every person who spent more than x number of seconds looking at the screen / hololense / whatever)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they are looking at the screen. the theatre doesn't, they sell you a ticket even if you're legally blind. Even if you stay in the bathroom the whole time.
And 'buying' a movie showing online may be for 'whoever is in the room', but it's still a purchase. With sound and screen size less immersive by an order of magnitude, since your neighbors would never call the police if you had THX or Dolby sound, the police would come to figure out who was shooting whom...
Pay per head will be pay by screen...
Re: uh no, I'm not going to the theater (Score:2)
Technology is usually what gets me to the theatre. If its a really action packed movie then I want an enormous screen with surround sound so load i feel my chest cavity vibrate.
My tv at home is only 65in and even the 75in arent quite the same, and thats about the max the biggest room with a tv could support.
As far as the sound, just as soon as action scenes start kicking the subwoofer into high gear, the fucking peanut gallery at my house whines like a bunch of pansies to turn it down.
Thats really my only t
They could open today (Score:1)
Just say it's in "solidarity" - COVID19 quarantine measures do not apply in that case.
Avengers vs Netflix (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix might be bringing record number of users, and making a profit on the gross terms. However they are still cash flow negative (i.e.: need to invest a lot), and their entire earnings are shadowed by a a few theatrical releases. What I am trying to say is that they have a very long way to go.
Like it or not, the reason we could have events like Avengers Endgame is that Disney could spend more than $350 million on its budget https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4... [imdb.com] . As much as I enjoy streaming services, none of them has the free budget resources to take on something at that size. That is why we see one or two big things coming out of them every year, with lots of other content, I would generously call "low quality".
I am not saying this just to complain, I actually prefer watching movies with my home setup over the theaters. However we would be kidding ourselves if we assume streaming services are anywhere near replacing the old medium.
What I'd rather see, and actually care about. (Score:2)
Those few first release movies that were available for streaming on their supposed theatrical date for the cost of two movie tickets? That would be a way to save the movie industry. Theaters really haven't meant much to me for a good number of years now. I mean, I enjoy spectacle films on the big screen, but rarely do it anymore just because it's such a hassle.
So do the pay-per-view thing for first release movies on streaming services and that should be super easy to track. How many dollars did the film
Nielsen - The source of TRUTH (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not discrediting your statement. However from my understanding Nielsen needs panelist to volunteer. So you already have people who are big into watching TV as a hobby. So you are not getting the best random sample.
The problem is TV shows are trying to meet the most views. They do this by finding what the most people watch on average from Nielsen, then draft their shows to similar type of stuff.
Then something kinda out of left field comes in Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad... The break the mold on wha
Re: (Score:2)
> So you already have people who are big into watching TV as a hobby. So you are not getting the best random sample.
That is indeed correct. Nielsen cherry picks the data.
i.e. If you don't watch TV then they aren't interested in understanding WHY you don't watch TV.
The cable companies and streaming companies already have far better metrics then Nielsen could ever hope to dream of since the cable companies log pretty much everything on the back-end. How much time you spend on one screen, how many times yo
Re: (Score:2)
Nielsen is shit.
1. They cherry pick [wikipedia.org] data.
2. The data is inaccurate (incomplete.)
I had them phone me once:
Them: We are conducting a survey ...
Me: I don't watch TV.
Them: Goodbye.
They weren't even interested in understanding WHY I don't watch.
**Facepalm**
Why is this an issue?
If, let's say, 1 out 5 people like a new show but you ignore the 10 other people who don't even watch TV you are basically lying and misrepresenting the data.
The Cable companies already have FAR better data then the Nielsen could ever hop
Re: (Score:2)
Nielsen takes is responsibility for Truth very seriously. Nielsen takes its panelist privacy even more seriously. Yes, I work there,
LOL hahahahaha WTF they put in your kool-aid? This is either a case of utter gullibility or a brilliant troll.
$$ per view (Score:2)
I always presumed new movies on Netflix were paid a certain dollar amount per view for a period. So if they get the hot new movie, they paid whoever $1/viewing or something similar. That way Netflix could have 2-5 new movies per month, some of those will be watched by some of their population, and customers and studios would be happy. Then after a period of time, that amount would decrease or go to a flat rate to have it available.
Good Morning (Score:1)
It's about damn time (Score:3)
I hope movie theaters DO go out of business. Their entire business model is outdated shite and they treat their customers like garbage. Good riddance. Re-invent the whole "new movie distribution" business model and start over.
I'd stay home to watch (Score:1)
PPV on cable TV might not be an option (Score:2)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
> Traditional Pay TV subscriptions fell by a record 1.8M in Q1, the worst quarterly
> result on record, bringing the annual rate of decline to 7.6%, also a record
Cable TV is eventually just as doomed as movie theatres, but it still has several more years to go, before the last person to leave turns out the lights. So PPV on cable is probably a short-term fix. Another option is a studio offering Netflix a two-tier option...
1) Rights to show a certain movie; $X
2) Rights t
good (Score:1)