Tag Archives: revenue

Lessons to be learned

We all have our flings, a lot of ladies still have an ongoing fling with ‘Sex and the City’, Whilst the man cannot help themselves but to run to the nearest cinema when they see the calling card ‘007’ (also known as 003.5 when he was young). Loads of people (myself included) were nuts about Star Trek, many were Babylon 5 fans (me too) and a lot of us could not wait for what would come after Star Wars. Some franchises get to us and they capture us. The same for the Marvel characters. But over the years I learned that a binge fetish comes with an attached version of digital tummy bounce. Too much, even of a good thing is not always good. I know, I had my events, there was the evening with two T-bone steaks (1.2 Kg beef in total), there was the 6 mango pancakes occasion when having Yum Cha in Chinatown, there was the case of me and the 11 turkey tandoori drumsticks in Stockholm and the less said about me and a two litre jar of custard the better.  This happens with movies and TV series too. During the lockdown I had a binge with 19 seasons of Midsomer Murders, Star Wars 1-9 (plus Rogue One), NCIS season 1 through 15, as well as a revisit on Blu ray of ALL Marvel movies. 

They tend to weigh on us, it is like we accept the universe we watch, but we also understand that what we see is not real, for some reason the borders face during a binge, have you never noticed that? So when I saw ‘Disney ramps up Star Wars and Marvel franchises’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55269531), I had my concerns. Now, for those who love the binge, who love their passion of Star Wars, Marvel or Disney, I am fine with that, I wish you all the best (and loads of happy fun), yet the article gives us two parts.

The first is “it also announced price increases from February next year”, OK, £7.99 per month might not seem a big deal, but with unemployment the way it is, it will make a lot of people unhappy. Australia gives us $8.99AUD per month (or $89.99 per year) which is interesting as it implies that for a year, you get 2 months for free, it would make the stage more interesting, but overall, it implies that Australia is getting Disney Plus almost 50% cheaper than the UK (which translates to $14.04 per month), as such in this global age, a lot of people will not be happy. This was merely an observation, not a stage of discussion.

The second part is seen with “Disney said that it planned to offer 10 new TV series in its Marvel and Star Wars franchises over the next few years”, and yes, we have an issue with ‘over the next few years’, which is blatantly inaccurate. The hype creators gave us WandaVision, Loki, Hawkeye, WhatIf, Moon Knight, She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel 2, Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special, as well as several movies (at least one title confirmed for 2022) as well as “roughly 10 Star Wars series are coming to Disney Plus, but it also gave some early details about a few of those series and other Star Wars projects”, which the Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/10/22167976/disney-investor-day-2020-biggest-announcements-plus-marvel-star-wars-pixar-animation) gives us. 

We want to make it bout the money, but we need to look at the fact that a lot of people get to enjoy well over a dozen series in a setting that they LIKE, all whilst the US produced over 500 series last year that most of us (non-Americans) will not get to see. So is the stage of £2 (per month) really a lot? No, but it is the £7.99 (£80, or £96) a year that matters. You see, we all see the full time incomes, but there are plenty on £13,803 for part-time roles, which is not a lot, especially when the bills are paid.

Yet this is NOT about the money, consider the annual cost and consider the focal point of Disney Plus. There is off-course more to Disney Plus, but to have such a driven focal point can slap back to the owners. Yes, they are and should be proud of what they offer, but like gaming, we might have a favourite game, but at times we want something else and there are alternatives, but there is the snag for Disney, if the people turn away from Disney too often, someone will figure out to be a paying member two months a year and catch up on those months. What will Disney do, turn these paying customers away? 

The stage of annual fees versus returning fees will soon become a much more focussed debate and a focal point for revenue investigators all over, because it is not merely Disney that faces this consideration. In this, I have nothing against Stan, HBO, Netflix, Disney Plus, or Apple TV, but the people in a much larger setting have limited funds, they could consider one, some might consider a second one, but that is pretty much it, the quality of life in most of the Commonwealth and the EU is not in a good place. So whilst some are fighting over the pie, the consumer is considering another buffet

MonthChannel
JanuaryNetflix
FebruaryApple TV
MarchDisney Plus
April
MayNetflix
JuneApple TV
JulyDisney Plus
August
September
OctoberNetflix
NovemberApple TV
DecemberDisney Plus

In this setting we see three months a year, some might go for to month a year and optionally safe a little money, in that setting both Disney and Netflix will enter a tunnel of massive problems, their stage is not fitting the cost endured, you cannot make a case of $15,000,000,000 of costs a year and people merely coming for two months a year, the system will collapse and that is what Disney faces too. The people are lacking cash and optionally bandwidth too.

Do you think they will waste time on too much monthly fees, or will they wisen up and binge when they can, let’s not forget these executives promoted bingeing when it suited their needs, now it will not, and the spreadsheet deck that they hold does not permit the thought I am voicing here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media

FACT on piracy?

There is a newscast that got to me in the middle of the night (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25575298).

Now, let me start that I am not in favour of digital piracy in any way. I have had a fortunate live, so for the most, I could go to the cinema and enjoy the big screen. At times I got to buy a DVD/Blu-ray, so I could enjoy the quality of the movie at home.

What gets to me is this quote “A spokesperson for the Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said that piracy puts jobs in the entertainment industry at risk and prevented future investment in entertainment.

This spokesperson needs to take a hard look at himself/herself in the mirror in regards to the ‘BS’ (as I personally see it) that is proclaimed by said spokesperson! Why?

The 25 most profitable movies represented in the US alone $5.2 billion dollars. At the top is Iron Man 3 which did $400 million in the US, but did an awesome $1.2 billion worldwide. So, there is no future danger to investments, there is a truckload of money to be made there and greed is trump. An additional interesting fact is that the second Hobbit movie is on that top 25 too. It made over 200 million in one week, so lighten up FACT!

Perhaps FACT needs to take a new look at the message they are proclaiming. What angers me is that this is pretty much the same BS Sony ‘voiced’ gave when all that music was shared in the early 90’s (when the US had similar poverty numbers) on how much damage they had.

These people do not realise that a large portion of the US and the EEC is in such a recession that the people cannot afford the luxury of going to the cinema (or buying a DVD for that matter). In the US the poverty line now hits 1 for every 7 Americans, so it is time for FACT to wake up! In the UK things are slightly better, but only 1.1% better, making it 1 in 7 as well. So, perhaps FACT would like to take that into consideration before blaming dangers to piracy?

Who downloads movies?

Well, the main group here in my view remains the student population (who can hardly make ends meet as school fees go up and up). In addition I must state that this does not OK the transgression, but consider that these people have little options to see anything. Prices go up, yet students end up with less and less. The second group is the poverty group, who likely have no internet, but rely on a friendly neighbour to burn them a DVD. I am not saying that this is good, legal or acceptable! I am just saying that perhaps setting the right dimension might help ‘comprehension’ for those who cannot afford any of it anyway.

the second quote that the BBC gave “Piracy threatens the livelihoods of over 1.5 million people whose jobs rely on the continued success of films, TV programmes and other forms of entertainment that are created in the UK.” reads a little better, but I fear that this is slightly disjointed. We dealt with films, but we did not deal with TV programs. There we see that the big ‘winner’ is Game of Thrones (HBO) the quote that another site gave me “It also seems that those involved in Game of Thrones are not too worried by the levels of piracy around their show.

This does not make it OK, but consider that these series can only be watched with a subscription and that in the UK and the US 1 in 7 is below the poverty line. The financial situation in many European countries is not that much better, then perhaps those involved should realise that they, for the most are not doing that bad. Forbes showed an additional side to the HBO dilemma (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/10/international-audiences-have-few-choices-to-legally-watch-hbos-game-of-thrones/). Consider that the three pirated TV series that truly jump out are all HBO series. Can FACT explain how these poverty driven families can shell out $50 a month for cable? And, even those making minimum wage (which is only marginally better than poverty) can often not afford any of the choices FACT would deem acceptable.

So, and your truly (meaning me!), did I ever watch an illegal movie version? (I never downloaded it!) Yes, I did once. It was Star Wars Episode One and I only watched it because the Movie was launched 4 months later in the Dutch cinema then in the US (an unacceptable time-lag for such a movie). I still watched it in the cinema, I bought the DVD and later the Blu-Ray and so they got more than their money’s worth!

So, is there a real issue?

Depends on how you look at it. From my point of view, the bulk of those downloading the movies and/or TV series cannot afford them in any way, which means that there would never have been a sale to begin with. Those who are above that mark are a decreasing population. As TV series and movies are offered via iTunes, consoles and other digital media for just a few dollars, getting the series (or movie) in that way would be preferable to many viewers, especially as those versions tend to be of better quality. The growth in sales as claimed by some (an increase of 40% in digital sales), means that the tide is shifting. The biggest group that remains has no way of buying it ever under the economic pressures they face.

Yes, you might have a case against these people, but consider how movies claim to make so many billions. Do they really want to go on a hunt for those who live below poverty? Has it truly come to this?

How about we use all that effort to get these people a ‘decent’ income?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media