Max: The Artist Formerly Known as HBO Max

[jmc]

I made mention of this in the Daredevil thread but if anyone thinks these big named studios aren't behind the eight ball when it comes to streaming is seriously deluding themselves. Like the music industry during the digital music revolution of the early 2000's, they are coming from behind trying to catch up to the streaming pioneers. They're going to need not just tens of millions of subscribers just to break even, they're going to need to be churning out new and diverse content on a regular basis. These are big gambles from both Disney and WB, they are foregoing guaranteed money on a regular basis for this.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson Talks ‘Friends’ Rights, HBO vs. Netflix, DirecTV’s New Bundles

During a Q&A at the UBS Global Media and Communications conference, Stephenson said the original programming offering for the unnamed service will largely revolve around HBO at the outset. Stephenson said the goal is for HBO to deliver a steadier stream of original series on a year-round basis.

But Stephenson cautioned that AT&T does not want HBO to “become another Netflix” with an $11 billion (and growing) annual tab for content. He called Netflix “an impressive warehouse” of shows but said the WarnerMedia offering would be a more curated effort that may eventually encompass programming from “third-party” producers.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

AT&T Targets Digital Subscription Service to Help Defray Merger Costs

The service may feature some content tied to TNT and TBS, but those channels will not be made available in their entirety on the platform.

Stankey indicated that WarnerMedia would likely seek to license content from outside companies to ensure that its streaming platform is well stocked with programming. That could mean licensing a package of movies or TV series from a rival studio that complement the programming genres featured in the second and third tiers.

 

[AResistor]

Although many are saying this, Disney +, and Netflix are in competition - I don't quite see it.

Warner - no idea, but I reckon it'll have the biggest challenge going up against Hulu and Netflix; simply because - what's it's original content? They say HBO will lead it, okay - what happens to HBO Now? Warners has DC, okay - what happens to DC Universe? Boomerang? As per library, what will attract the non-cord cutters who have access to Warner's channels? The other companies (except Hulu) can readily answer that. Etc. How will they single themselves out? Disney has it easy since they're not already branched out like Warners is.

Disney + - it's a strictly Disney streaming service, it provides targeted content that will keep its fans happy.

Netflix - has adult content that can't be shown on Disney, plus it widely distributes foreign shows which Disney likely won't. It's the most indie-minded and I see that keeping it apart. If anything, having more commercially-minded streaming companies will hopefully push Netflix more in the indie direction since that content is often leagues above its mainstream content in terms of quality.

Each have their own niche, hearing them as being in competition - to me - makes as much sense as hearing Warner, Disney, and A24 (I would have said Lionsgate in the past) are in competition. These production companies don't cancel each other nor will these streaming companies - they offer different content for largely different demographics (I'd say the closest Netflix comes to Disney is 'Stranger Things').

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Kevin Reilly Named Head Of Content & Strategy For WarnerMedia’s New Streaming Service

Kevin Reilly, President of TBS and TNT and Chief Creative Officer for Turner Entertainment, is expanding his role at WarnerMedia to also oversee creative for the company’s upcoming direct-to-consumer streaming platform.

The hire of Reilly, a top-level programming executive with background in original series, is a clear indication that originals will be an essential part of the new service’s portfolio.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Kevin Reilly Named Head Of Content & Strategy For WarnerMedia’s New Streaming Service

While Stankey had made it clear that the new OTT offering will be separate from HBO Now, there has been little information about its relationship with other existing WarnerMedia digital efforts, including the animation-focused Boomerang and recently launched DC Universe. An AT&T filing had indicated that the new service will be “consolidating resources from sub-scale D2C efforts,” reaffirming speculation that these existing digital platforms, including DC Universe, would be folded into the new platform.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

WarnerMedia Streaming Will Be “Two-Sided Model” Blending Subscriptions And Advertising, AT&T Boss Confirms

Stephenson didn’t offer a lot of clarity on that point, or on the specific mix of AVOD and SVOD ingredients, but said the company’s deep library affords it some flexibility. “We are strong believers in what John Stankey likes to call ‘two-sided business models,'” Stephenson said. “Subscription, commercial-free elements like HBO and like Netflix, there’s a demand and customers have become accustomed to advertising-free subscription services. And we think HBO and a lot of the Warner Bros. content, that’s really premium content, will fit into that mold.”

At the same time, he added, “There are other elements where advertising-supported models are going to be important to keep prices down, to keep costs for the consumer down and to actually fund additional content acquisition and purchasing. Xandr is a big part of making that model work.”

 

[Blitzkrieg]

From the same article :-

“In terms of the decision-making as to what to do with premium content as content deals come up, there’s not going to be a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to this,” Stephenson said. “I don’t think all content is equal.”

With Friends, he said, “That was one where we said exclusivity is probably not that critical on that type of content. But it’s critical to have on our platform. So we did license it to Netflix on a non-exclusive basis.” The 90-plus-year heritage of Warner Bros. “is a really important thing,” Stephenson emphasized. “When you look out at the landscape in terms of what is being consumed on a lot of the other aggregators of streaming products, you’d be surprised how much of that is Warner Bros. intellectual property. So we’re going to be making some decisions over the next two to three years in terms of which properties to bring in and which to license on a non-exclusive basis.”

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[terry78]

As it should.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

WarnerMedia Eyes Bob Greenblatt for Major New Role

With AT&T having cleared the last major hurdle in its acquisition of Time Warner, sources believe former NBC Entertainment chairman Robert Greenblatt may be poised to take a major role at Warner Media, possibly as part of a broader shakeup at the company.

The move would be a sizable one for Greenblatt, who spent the past seven years at NBC. In that time, he turned about the broadcast network, shepherding it to a near-uncontested No. 1 in ratings among the key 18-49 demographic, thanks to a mix of high and low-brow franchises including The Voice, This Is Us, The Good Place.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

WarnerMedia Shakeup: Bob Greenblatt In, Jeff Zucker and Kevin Tsujihara Gain Turf

Former NBC Entertainment and Showtime chief Bob Greenblatt has signed on as chairman of WarnerMedia Entertainment and Direct to Consumer. He’ll oversee HBO and TNT, TBS and TruTV as well as content for the streaming service planned to launch at year’s end. CNN chief Jeff Zucker, Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara and Turner International leader Gerhard Zeiler are also gaining more turf in the shakeup.

Zucker is expanding his purview to include all sports under the WarnerMedia umbrella. Cartoon Network and Turner Classic Movies — two of the linear cablers that had been part of Turner — will be absorbed by Warner Bros. along with all animation production operations and consumer products.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know about that. It'll take years, but wouldn't surprise me if the Disney service for one is at least comparative to Netflix in subscriptions in about a decade. Less content overall, but a higher quality output. Hard to say about the WB one (but you'd have to imagine that'll be at least moderately big too), but Disney's probably going to be the Samsung to Netflix's Apple here, to use the smartphone analogy again.

Being first in to a business model doesn't necessarily dictate you're on top forever, and Disney obviously has more resources to throw into this thing than Netflix. The latter's lead will hold for a while (it's going to take time for Disney to build up content and a subscriber base), but you could bet people at Netflix have been pretty nervous over the last 12 months or so.

WarnerArchive has one of the most extensive movie libraries in the world, including not only WB's back catalog but also MGM and others they've purchased over the years. One of the reasons they shut down FilmStruck when AT&T took over is they wanted to roll up half of FilmStruck's content (the other half being Criterion) into this new streaming service. Of course for movie lovers it means waiting years to get the same content just divided now over two more expensive streaming services...

Sigh.

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, but dividing stuff up like that is rational, it was weirder that the companies let it fly for so long on someone elses' service anyway.

So long as they keep subscription fees relatively cheap, it doesn't feel unwarranted or whatever. They own this stuff, someone else has pioneered a new business model, they're going to want to take their ball and go home and start doing it all in-house. Good for them.

 

[Sithborg]

Honestly, for older content, I think it makes sense to not have exclusivity.

I am really curious how the CW deal with Netflix is going go.

 

[Micromind]

Is there any thing preventing them from having same content on CW and their own streaming service ? They can have both, let CW air their DC shows and make them available on their streaming service. One does not rule out the other if they can reach some deal.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is there any thing preventing them from having same content on CW and their own streaming service ? They can have both, let CW air their DC shows and make them available on their streaming service. One does not rule out the other if they can reach some deal.

Why would Netflix go for that? Especially when you consider how the Marvel shows situation went.

 

[jmc]

Yeah, but dividing stuff up like that is rational, it was weirder that the companies let it fly for so long on someone elses' service anyway.

So long as they keep subscription fees relatively cheap, it doesn't feel unwarranted or whatever. They own this stuff, someone else has pioneered a new business model, they're going to want to take their ball and go home and start doing it all in-house. Good for them.

Problem is they are too late to the game. The let it fly for so long because they were getting a truck load of money from the likes of Netflix. See, what Netflix and Amazon did was morph from be a content provider, into a content maker, using the catalogues of other studios as a means to generate subscribers whilst overtime developing their own stuff, to the point now where Netflix decided it no longer needed stuff like the MCU as a selling point because it had develop so much content of its own. Warners and other studios are at least 5 years behind Netflix and Amazon, and don't have nearly the amount of new content the others are producing.

 

[Sithborg]

Or, they jumped into overdrive with content creation because they saw the other groups eyeing their profits. You would have to be an idiot not to realize what was going to happen once Netflix, Hulu, and Prime really started taking off.

 

[jmc]

And that's why Warners are going to be too late. IMO this resembles what happen with music in the early 2000's. The record companies didn't see what the future was going to be, and so by the time Itunes came along it was too late.

 

[Aximili86]

Problem is they are too late to the game. The let it fly for so long because they were getting a truck load of money from the likes of Netflix. See, what Netflix and Amazon did was morph from be a content provider, into a content maker, using the catalogues of other studios as a means to generate subscribers whilst overtime developing their own stuff, to the point now where Netflix decided it no longer needed stuff like the MCU as a selling point because it had develop so much content of its own. Warners and other studios are at least 5 years behind Netflix and Amazon, and don't have nearly the amount of new content the others are producing.

Dude, the time thing doesn't matter when you've got Disney or WB pocketbooks. They'll be competitive, it'll just take a few years to scrounge the market share from Netflix.

Apple had a stranglehold on smartphones for what, half a decade or so. They got overtaken, because Samsung had deep enough pockets to go toe-to-toe with them if they could pull off making an attractive alternative product. They did, now the market's pretty much 50/50.

It'll be a similar thing here, all said and done. Having a decade head start is a big advantage for Netflix, no doubt, but it's not something that can't be overcome, especially by competitors like Disney & WB. Betting against them seems unwise. I'd venture they all have around a third of the streaming market each 10 years from now, dust settled.

 

[Micromind]

Why would Netflix go for that? Especially when you consider how the Marvel shows situation went.

Marvel shows situation with Netflix happened because of High license fees Marvel charged Netflix to develop content for their streaming service, here the content like Arrow, Supergirl, Flash are already in a developed state as the shows are already aired on CW (which is partially owned by WB.), Netflix has just to get the rights to stream those on their platform, which is different from developing shows from scratch like Agent Carter or Defenders.

 

[jmc]

Dude, the time thing doesn't matter when you've got Disney or WB pocketbooks. They'll be competitive, it'll just take a few years to scrounge the market share from Netflix.

Apple had a stranglehold on smartphones for what, half a decade or so. They got overtaken, because Samsung had deep enough pockets to go toe-to-toe with them if they could pull off making an attractive alternative product. They did, now the market's pretty much 50/50.

It'll be a similar thing here, all said and done. Having a decade head start is a big advantage for Netflix, no doubt, but it's not something that can't be overcome, especially by competitors like Disney & WB. Betting against them seems unwise. I'd venture they all have around a third of the streaming market each 10 years from now, dust settled.

I'm somewhat betting against them because they are 10 years behind in not just infrastructure, but also in original content and subscribers. Throwing all the money you have at this type of venture doesn't mean a thing if you don't have a service that people actually want and I've not seen anything about these new streaming services that are likely to entice people to actually subscribe to them. If the lone draw is Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, DC or the long list of existing films they've already made I'm not sure exactly what the draw is, because many people would own this content already. When you see how many subscribers these companies will need just to break even with these services you realise very quickly how much of an uphill battle this is going to be, even for companies like WB and Disney. If you think money will be enough to make these things work you're sadly mistaken. It's not about money, it's about innovation. Those who innovate often catch the old guard napping, and by the time they wake up it's too late for them. Disney especially haven't been innovative since the early 90's. The music industry had every chance to capitalise on digital downloads but did nothing about it until it was too late because these companies don't like change.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Is there any thing preventing them from having same content on CW and their own streaming service?

WarnerMedia Faces Big Executive Decisions as It Attempts to Woo J.J. Abrams

HBO will function as the service’s core component, surrounded by content from The CW, Adult Swim, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. and other brands.

 

[Yowza]

i said this on the Dune thread but I think adding a digital purchasing service (and maybe even linking to certain storage locker sites they're partnered with) could keep streaming service prices down to an extent if people want to purchase a digital copy of say their favorite show or something that has a bunch appealing extras to it (scripts, deleted scenes, interviews, ect.). A digital storefront to accompany the selection why not?

I like subscribing to 1 svod service for original content (rotating to a different 1 every other month or so) and just prefer renting or purchasing stuff from fandango or vudu for this very reason at the moment. That way I am choosing the content I want to funnel my money towards as opposed to a ton of sites with directed content with ever decreasing filters to not be able to sift through non-exclusive old content that is chosen to be presented at a given time.