Netflix and Other Streaming Services to Surpass Box Office Profits by 2017

Netflix and Other Streaming Services to Surpass Box Office Profits by 2017

Netflix

Though digital media is on the rise, it's not time to say goodbye to the movie theater just yet.

Going to a theater to watch movies can be a truly miserable experience: between people talking, kicking your seat, and typing away on their phones, it can be hard to actually enjoy the movie which is theoretically what you're there for. So it's no surprise that some people are happy to stay home and watch streaming video instead of heading to the theater - and that streaming profits are growing at a tremendous rate. A new study by PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that streaming video - currently a $7.34 billion a year business - will hit $17.03 billion by 2018. If these numbers hold out, by 2017 streaming video will be pulling in more cash per year than the traditional movie theater, making up 43% of total entertainment revenue.

However, cinema isn't dead quite yet. While profits for streaming video are growing fast - primarily driven by services like Netflix and Hulu - profits for the movie theaters aren't shrinking... they're just growing nearly as quickly. Also falling on the metaphorical cutting room floor are physical home video rentals and sales, which have dropped $3 billion in revenue over the past 4 years and are predicted to fall even further as they're supplanted by digital media.

Source: The Verge

Permalink

What I really mind about the cinema is the food everyone's eating, can't people watch a film without food? You know I really wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the fact that it has to be noisy food. WwhHhyYy??? Why's it always in rustley plastic or foil? Why the hell is popcorn of all things the traditional cinema food?

*crunch* *crunch*

If I ran a cinema I'd only serve soft things like chocolate and gummy sweets, and then it'll be in cardboard containers. No wrappers. No bags! I don't see why it's so hard.

[/rant]

I prefer to watch movies at home. BUT I want them on bluray not streaming. I hate the lag, desink, pixelating, the crap fast forward and rewind functions. Streaming is a mess. Not to mention that netflix and hulu don't have new releases. And there is no way I'm paying $6 or more to RENT a video. Especially a digital version.

I just hate seeing movies with other people.

Especially people who make you pause or rewind the movie every 5 freaking minutes just because they don't pay attention.

Even worse is people who, when you have DVR, do the same thing for EVERY. FUCKING. THING. A three-hour long sport on TV, for instance, becomes five hours because this fucker won't shut the fuck up and pay attention!

...

I, uh, have issues with watching things with my parents.

On one hand, I hate people that won't shut their mouths even when they're chewing. On the other hand, going to the cinema is a pretty special experience, especially for epic action films, which my TV is yet to replicate.

I did pay to watch the Veronica Mars movie online when it was simultaneously released in theatres, but tthat's only because Sweden would never show it in a movie theatre. It felt like watching the TV show.

mechalynx:
On one hand, I hate people that won't shut their mouths even when they're chewing. On the other hand, going to the cinema is a pretty special experience, especially for epic action films, which my TV is yet to replicate.

I did pay to watch the Veronica Mars movie online when it was simultaneously released in theatres, but tthat's only because Sweden would never show it in a movie theatre. It felt like watching the TV show.

Was a real good watch nonetheless.

My favourite thing to come out of Kickstarter.

Jumwa:

mechalynx:
On one hand, I hate people that won't shut their mouths even when they're chewing. On the other hand, going to the cinema is a pretty special experience, especially for epic action films, which my TV is yet to replicate.

I did pay to watch the Veronica Mars movie online when it was simultaneously released in theatres, but tthat's only because Sweden would never show it in a movie theatre. It felt like watching the TV show.

Was a real good watch nonetheless.

My favourite thing to come out of Kickstarter.

Yep, I said it as a compliment. Hope they make more.

For a while, cinema is becoming even more of a social experience than it ever was. Then things like AAA gaming, theater owners in the USA actually enforcing R-ratings before the government starts trying, and just the ridiculous rising costs of a single night out at the movies slowed profits down.

I don't want to pay $12.50 to see a possibly shitty movie and possibly be forced to pay an extra $3.50 to have virtual needles jammed into my ocular orbs because they only have a 3D showing for the next 2 hours. I've waited until Amazon or Netflix has what I might like to check out.

Alexander Kirby:
What I really mind about the cinema is the food everyone's eating, can't people watch a film without food? You know I really wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the fact that it has to be noisy food. WwhHhyYy??? Why's it always in rustley plastic or foil? Why the hell is popcorn of all things the traditional cinema food?

*crunch* *crunch*

If I ran a cinema I'd only serve soft things like chocolate and gummy sweets, and then it'll be in cardboard containers. No wrappers. No bags! I don't see why it's so hard.

[/rant]

I also hate ending up with a guy behind me who must think that candy wrapper must DIE and tries to slay it for 45 minutes. Rest easy, though, knowing that the chumps that buy those things are paying 2-3 times as much for a box that is only half full of a bag that is only 2/3 full of nasty candy.

Popcorn started out being sold by street vendors outside the nickle theaters, then the cinema operators jumped in on it. Popcorn is dirt cheap for them to make (and clean up thanks to minimum wage high school/ college kids), so cinema chain execs can't be assed to choose a quieter or cleaner food.

its just much better to watch things at home, at your own time, pace, in comfort and alone. I would wish they would let me download blue-ray quality movies thought, because streaming like netflix is simply bad quality. I dont mind downloading 35 GB, but alas no legal options exist for actually downloading movies. heck, even if they do it in a DRM way like steam that you can only launch the movie with that account logged into netflix, its the quality that i want and streaming simply cant cut it. Blueray quality video would take around 53 mbps stream, and they sure as hell are not going to be giving me that. im not even asking uncompressed as those are huge, nor do i demand decent framerates.

The amazing part is that rather than adapt to this new market, they're trying to kill it.

Raziel:
And there is no way I'm paying $6 or more to RENT a video. Especially a digital version.

So you do have to pay for individual rents on Netflix ontop of the 9 bucks a month subscription fee?

Zachary Amaranth:
The amazing part is that rather than adapt to this new market, they're trying to kill it.

Why wouldn't they? Theres no money in this for them. $12 per person to see a movie once in the theature, $20 to buy the dvd, or $8 a month to watch all the movies you want, and you're probably giving your netflix login to a couple other people. They're more than willing to sell you a digital copy, but thats not selling. Everyone wants access to everything for dirt cheap. That doesn't work when the movies cost $200+ million to make.

Raziel:

Why wouldn't they? Theres no money in this for them. $12 per person to see a movie once in the theature, $20 to buy the dvd, or $8 a month to watch all the movies you want, and you're probably giving your netflix login to a couple other people. They're more than willing to sell you a digital copy, but thats not selling. Everyone wants access to everything for dirt cheap. That doesn't work when the movies cost $200+ million to make.

I would think at some point they would notice that their attempts to thwart Netflix have been about as successful as Boris and Natasha's attempts to "keel moose and squirrel." Lagging behind the times is what harmed them in the past.

Also, it seems digital copies are selling. They're just not selling in the same numbers as Netflix. Which is the problem. When the MPAA can't have all the monies, it stamps its feet and has a fit. The Entertainment industry suffers heavily from "Nice Guy" syndrome.

Anyway, remember when there was "no money" in a la cart music, and "no money" in music sctreaming, and "no money" in the online game front?

I'm sure they can find something.

Casual Shinji:

Raziel:
And there is no way I'm paying $6 or more to RENT a video. Especially a digital version.

So you do have to pay for individual rents on Netflix ontop of the 9 bucks a month subscription fee?

He was talking new releases, the ones Netflix doesn't have. The ones you have to "rent" from another streaming service, like Amazon/XBL/PSN/a few others I'm forgetting. Those can cost almost as much as BUYING a physical copy.

Zachary Amaranth:
[quote="Raziel" post="7.851852.21065002"]

Why wouldn't they? Theres no money in this for them. $12 per person to see a movie once in the theature, $20 to buy the dvd, or $8 a month to watch all the movies you want, and you're probably giving your netflix login to a couple other people. They're more than willing to sell you a digital copy, but thats not selling. Everyone wants access to everything for dirt cheap. That doesn't work when the movies cost $200+ million to make.

I would think at some point they would notice that their attempts to thwart Netflix have been about as successful as Boris and Natasha's attempts to "keel moose and squirrel." Lagging behind the times is what harmed them in the past.

Also, it seems digital copies are selling. They're just not selling in the same numbers as Netflix. Which is the problem. When the MPAA can't have all the monies, it stamps its feet and has a fit. The Entertainment industry suffers heavily from "Nice Guy" syndrome.

Anyway, remember when there was "no money" in a la cart music, and "no money" in music sctreaming, and "no money" in the online game front?

Netflix is not at all the same as something like itunes. Netflix is like pandora. It pays them only a tiny fraction of what they get when you buy something from itunes or whatever. Who would support netflix when they get a $.25 or whatever for you watching their movie rather than $10-$30?

And they are winning fine against netflix or hulu. Its not like you can watch their new movies there. Netflix is not even worth $8 to me because they have no selection. Its all old tv and old movies. I find lots more to watch on hulu for free.

Raziel:

Netflix is not at all the same as something like itunes. Netflix is like pandora.

And pandora is a music streaming service. Something I just mentioned. You're telling me why something can't work b y using one of my examples against another one of my examples. That literally makes no sense.

And they are winning fine against netflix or hulu.

Netflix and Hulu are seeing a higher growth rate. They're not "winning" in any sense other than they might currently have more of the market. But they're losing that market control all the time, so that seems like a pointless definition of winning. I could be winning in a footrace against Usain Bolt if he gave me a head start, but that's sort of meaningless because he'd trounce me in the end.

Their growth is stalling out. If the PwC predictions are correct, they will be stalling out tremendously over the next few years. And when the market grows and your competition grows and you do not, that's still a big issue. And that's still ignoring the way the landscape will almost certainly change once that force becomes dominant. And the landscape has already changed in the first place.

Zachary Amaranth:

Raziel:
And they are winning fine against netflix or hulu.

Netflix and Hulu are seeing a higher growth rate. They're not "winning" in any sense other than they might currently have more of the market. But they're losing that market control all the time, so that seems like a pointless definition of winning. I could be winning in a footrace against Usain Bolt if he gave me a head start, but that's sort of meaningless because he'd trounce me in the end.

Their growth is stalling out. If the PwC predictions are correct, they will be stalling out tremendously over the next few years. And when the market grows and your competition grows and you do not, that's still a big issue. And that's still ignoring the way the landscape will almost certainly change once that force becomes dominant. And the landscape has already changed in the first place.

I guess winning is not what I mean. When I say the netflix is not winning I mean they don't offer access to the same product. Like Itunes winning against cd sales. But netflix isn't competing against movies really. Yeah netflix and other streamers are winning when judging revenue. But I would have though tv had always been making more revenue then movies. I gues I just see netflix as a more direct competitor to comcast than to Movies. People just can't choice to watch the new blockbuster superhero movie on netflix its not there.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here