Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Businesses The Internet Movies Television The Almighty Buck Entertainment

Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee 160

Lucas123 writes "A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion. 'Movie producers have little to fear from online distribution in the long term,' the report states. 'It is the distribution part of the movie business that should be worried because online distribution will replace a sizable portion of their current industry.' According to the report's hypothetical model, the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee

Comments Filter:
  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Friday January 24, 2014 @01:33PM (#46058033) Homepage

    Out of curiosity, I looked into how much revenue a top rated network sitcom earns for a single broadcast. That amount was equal to how much revenue would have been generated by 1/10th of their viewing audience paying for the SD version of the episode on Amazon or iTunes.

  • by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Friday January 24, 2014 @01:38PM (#46058113)

    I would gladly pay $15 per month to access all movie content. I don't think I know a single person that wouldn't pay that. It's considerably more than I pay to production houses right now. My only movie expense currently is Netflix. $8/mo and production companies have to split that with Netflix.

  • Not going to happen (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Friday January 24, 2014 @01:42PM (#46058151) Journal

    "Online subscribers" is defined by the article as everyone in the world with Broadband, and 45% of them are the 348 million broadband customers who would have to pay $15 annually to watch movies. Here's the problem. Of those 773 million people, 174 million are Chinese, which are 22% of the broadband users. I was just reading an article how China has not even been releasing Box Office revenue from foreign films showing at theaters. I don't think there's much chance of milking any considerable amount of money through video streaming out of that country at this point in time.

    I think any studies like this can only realistically look at US and similar western broadband markets as potential customers for video streaming service, as opposed to this study which includes every single broadband customer on the planet.

  • by The Mighty Buzzard ( 878441 ) on Friday January 24, 2014 @01:50PM (#46058263)

    Erm, bit of a problem there. First, DRM was never removed. Second, streaming is still only available at shit quality. Third, prices haven't dropped on any service that even looks like it might in the future become useful.

  • Re:Quality? (Score:5, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday January 24, 2014 @02:20PM (#46058627) Journal
    Uh, what? In recent years, we have The Avengers, Harry Potter, Ender's Game, and Les Miserables; those might not meet your criteria of 'perfect movie,' but they have a lot of good qualities and were enjoyable.

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.