Amazon To License Original Content To Other Media Companies (techcrunch.com) 13
Amazon has launched a new unit, Amazon MGM Studios Distribution, that will allow the company to license Amazon Originals and other titles to third-party media companies, including streaming services and cable TV. TechCrunch reports: For the first time, titles such as âoeThe Marvelous Mrs. Maisel," "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm," "Coming 2 America," "Goliath," "Hunters," "The Tender Bar," "The Tomorrow War," "The Voyeurs" and "Without Remorse," among others, will be sold to other media outlets following their initial run on Prime Video. While the company has distributed shows before, this new venture will be on a much larger scale. Plus, Amazon Originals are mainly exclusive to Prime Video, making it an enticing sale for companies looking to have popular titles on their platforms.
The launch of Amazon MGM Studios Distribution will also allow the company to handle sales of MGM-owned franchises James Bond, Rocky and Creed, as well as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Fargo" and "Vikings." Last year, Amazon acquired MGM for $8.5 billion, giving the company access to more than 4,000 films and 17,000 TV series. [...] According to Chris Ottinger, who will lead Amazon MGM Studios Distribution, the unit will offer flexible bundles, reported Deadline, so sellers can create bundled content packages that work for them. This strategy will likely allow the company to stand out from competitors.
The launch of Amazon MGM Studios Distribution will also allow the company to handle sales of MGM-owned franchises James Bond, Rocky and Creed, as well as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Fargo" and "Vikings." Last year, Amazon acquired MGM for $8.5 billion, giving the company access to more than 4,000 films and 17,000 TV series. [...] According to Chris Ottinger, who will lead Amazon MGM Studios Distribution, the unit will offer flexible bundles, reported Deadline, so sellers can create bundled content packages that work for them. This strategy will likely allow the company to stand out from competitors.
75 years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
...SCOTUS decided that content should be separated from delivery [wikipedia.org]. Meaning that having to go to a studio-branded theater to see that studio's content was ruled to violate US antitrust law.
I don't see how this issue is any different today: content comes from studios (Amazon, Universal, Disney, Fox, CBS/Paramount, etc) and is delivered for presentation (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Roku). Hopefully this court will revisit the erroneous 2020 decision and extend the 1948 ruling to digital platforms..
Re:75 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the justice department in 2019 issued a sunsetting decree saying that that ruling no longer applies from 2021. That ruling by the way is the cornerstone of Antitrust legislation. By killing it, they killed a lot more than just the thing allowing movie studios from monopolizing cinemas. And now Microsoft is back up to its old antics of trying to force windows users to use Edge.
Keep in mind this was the same administration that also fought tooth and nail to kill network neutrality.
Because clearly antitrust doesnt apply anymore. Or something.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope the the marketplace decides against the bulkanization of the streaming world by studio.
It should consumers should not want it, for obvious reasons, and talent should not want it either as it limits their reach and ultimately their value.
However, there is simply no justification for saying Paramount or Disney can't or should not be able to decide to make their content exclusive to their own sites/apps. Its not like setting up your own online distribution is the sort of barrier to entry building a netw
Re: (Score:2)
And now Microsoft is back up to its old antics of trying to force windows users to use Edge.
Unrelated. Microsoft was doing these antics way before 2021 and before the SCOTUS ruling.
Re:75 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GP's wikipedia link implies that antitrust rulings typically have an end-date, and that the review was specifically of antitrust decrees that "did not have expiration dates".
It also states that "[t]he court granted the DOJ's motion to lift the decrees on August 7, 2020, starting a two-year sunset termination period of the decrees."
In short - the court had the final call on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:2)
I basically only subscribe to Amazon Prime for the video component. I don't order enough items from them to make the free shipping worthwhile on its own.
So, if I can wait a few years and have the shows in syndication, that is a big reason to ditch Prime.
The Start of What we Actually Want? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could this herald the start of what consumers actually want? Consumers don't want to have to subscribe to a dozen different platforms just to watch a few different shows - we want to subscribe to one (or maybe 2) platforms, and have them magically solve the problem for us. Netflix used to do this until a whole lot of studios decided to "take their ball in" and keep their stuff to themselves because "it'll be easy to make a streaming platform of our own!".
Thankfully, some (eg. Disney) are losing money hand over fist, some might be on the same path (eg. Paramount), some have almost no content (eg. Apple) and some are being a bit smarter about it (eg. Amazon). Why not let (say) Mrs. Maisel run for a couple of months and then let others have a crack at it? If you can no longer make money from it, maybe someone else can - and they'll pay you for the privilege of finding out.
Taking Mrs Maisel as an example, it's a few years old by now - I'll bet just about all the Amazon subscribers that are ever going to watch it already have. However, precisely zero of the Netflix customers have watched it - because it's not on Netflix. This might mean it can be on there, so now Netflix customers get to see it - and if there's ever another series (season), they can get it (say) a year earlier by subscribing to Amazon (so there's still a reason to subscribe to Amazon, even as a Neflix customer).
(Actually, Netflix is maybe a bad example because I'll bet that a lot of Amazon Prime customers also have Netflix already, but hopefully you get the idea of what I'm trying to say here).
This seems to me like a no-brainer. I wonder how long it'll take to percolate through to the likes of Disney who will probably staunchly hold on to their endless rehashes of Star Wars spin-offs forever because "letting others have it admits our platform is no good!".
Re: (Score:3)
Could this herald the start of what consumers actually want?
I'd love to see it, but I have my doubts it'll happen. Many (most?) of these streaming services don't really have enough content to justify their own existence - exclusive content is the only reason anyone subscribes. Delayed release on other services is basically syndication... that's never been a cash cow, except for companies that own a LOT of content (basically the old "big three" broadcasters).
Why my posts is tagged as spam??? (Score:1)
Interesting idea - if we raise enough cash... (Score:3)
Maybe we can prevent "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" from being inflicted on an unsuspecting populace.