Entertainment

Netflix deep in debt

  • Last Updated:
  • May 11th, 2018 1:53 pm
[OP]
Deal Guru
Feb 9, 2012
12463 posts
1850 upvotes
Toronto

Netflix deep in debt

Netflix is Reportedly $20 Billion In Debt.
"On Monday, Los Angeles Times revealed that Netflix is spending so much money on original content and that has resulted in a $20.54 billion debt."
"Netflix may be one of the biggest streaming services but it may also be bleeding money according to a new report."
"According to the report, Netflix IS aware of the debt and expects “to be free-cash-flow negative for many years”.

SOURCE: http://etcanada.com/news/244902/netflix ... n-in-debt/
112 replies
Deal Guru
Mar 20, 2003
10059 posts
398 upvotes
Moncton, NB
And yet their stock is higher than ever... but don't get me wrong, if Netflix went bankrupt I'd probably weep.
KitKat item collector- always looking for swag or branded items.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2008
6270 posts
2004 upvotes
Toronto (Markham)
It's an investment.

4 Things will happen from this:
1) They stay the course and operate in the red in order to improve their product and ultimately come out on top in the black, rivaling all competition including cable/network tv
2) They cancel all their original programming
3) They increase their fees
4) Advertisements
Tis banana is IRIE :razz:

10% off is cold, 50% off is warm, 75% off is hot, but FREE IS RFD!
Deal Addict
Feb 21, 2013
3371 posts
712 upvotes
Toronto
You gotta spend money to make money.

In the long run, their investments on original content will pay off, because whatever profits they generate won't have to be shared in royalties or licensing fees.

This is a huge number, but I feel like the article itself is a bit click-baity. I assume most new companies who create media have to go borrow money to churn out the amount of quality shows Netflix does... It's not like they have all the capital for these shows stored up and just pay for all of this in cash...

But this does allow us Netflix subscribers (and other premium content subscribers) to get on a high horse about piracy... and anyone who pirates shows from Netflix are complicit in their increased debt.
XBox Live: M1GO | PSN: CURRENTLY INACTIVE
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 17, 2012
2013 posts
253 upvotes
In another world
I always wonder how Netflix makes enough money to pay actors/producers/staff for their original series.
Solely from subscriptions?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 12, 2004
9545 posts
3845 upvotes
Ottawa
They need to get back to their roots of the mail DVD rental business.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.
- Mark Twain
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2017
2397 posts
746 upvotes
Feneant wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 6:28 am
And yet their stock is higher than ever... but don't get me wrong, if Netflix went bankrupt I'd probably weep.
Short term there is no little correlation between stock price and profitability. Think Tesla. Losing more and more money every day, and now with Solarcity folded into the company they're in in bigger trouble yet their stock price keeps going up.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Feb 9, 2012
12463 posts
1850 upvotes
Toronto
chimaican wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 10:36 am
It's an investment.

3) They increase their fees
4) Advertisements
Netflix could try a completely free channel with ads (for the non movie content) but it may or may not work.
Don't forget that raising prices doesn't always work.
If anything, it might be more profitable to lower their fees.
Boosting the number of people who subscribe would boost their bottom line, even at a lower price because there's more profit in 1000 people at $5.99 than there would be at 600 or 700 at $8.99 (something like that-example is adjustable)
BUT
an increase in fees may lead to more people believing they don't really need Netflix.
(or a boost in people finding ways to watch the content for free illegally online some place...)
Deal Addict
Feb 21, 2013
3371 posts
712 upvotes
Toronto
playnicee1 wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 12:27 pm
Netflix could try a completely free channel with ads (for the non movie content) but it may or may not work.
Don't forget that raising prices doesn't always work.
If anything, it might be more profitable to lower their fees.
Boosting the number of people who subscribe would boost their bottom line, even at a lower price because there's more profit in 1000 people at $5.99 than there would be at 600 or 700 at $8.99 (something like that-example is adjustable)
BUT
an increase in fees may lead to more people believing they don't really need Netflix.
(or a boost in people finding ways to watch the content for free illegally online some place...)
If anything, they should consider limiting the ability to share Netflix with other people. I know a lot of people who share netflix with their family (I even have someone piggybacking off of my sub), but these are people who are able to afford the low monthly cost of Netflix anyway, yet there's no incentive for them to pay for their own since they can easily share it.
XBox Live: M1GO | PSN: CURRENTLY INACTIVE
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2008
6270 posts
2004 upvotes
Toronto (Markham)
playnicee1 wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 12:27 pm

Netflix could try a completely free channel with ads (for the non movie content) but it may or may not work.
Don't forget that raising prices doesn't always work.
If anything, it might be more profitable to lower their fees.
Boosting the number of people who subscribe would boost their bottom line, even at a lower price because there's more profit in 1000 people at $5.99 than there would be at 600 or 700 at $8.99 (something like that-example is adjustable)
BUT
an increase in fees may lead to more people believing they don't really need Netflix.
(or a boost in people finding ways to watch the content for free illegally online some place...)
Well, a smart economist would understand that lowering fees will increase subscribers leading to more profit, however, most CEOs and upper management are not smart, they always raise prices to appease shareholders. Smiling Face With Open Mouth
M1GOmigs wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 12:50 pm
If anything, they should consider limiting the ability to share Netflix with other people. I know a lot of people who share netflix with their family (I even have someone piggybacking off of my sub), but these are people who are able to afford the low monthly cost of Netflix anyway, yet there's no incentive for them to pay for their own since they can easily share it.
Yeah, they won't ever do that. Doesn't your IP address change depending on the network you're logged onto? So if I use my tablet at work, won't I be assigned a temporary IP address there versus when I connect at home, or at a cafe? No way to track where a device is used, so unless their going to limit Netflix for only home use ONLY, I don't see how they would be able to stop people. They would have to lock the account to a device (like Windows) but then that would defeat the purpose of watching it anywhere anytime on any device. You'd be limiting the customer to a limited number of devices, and even doing so won't stop sharing, because I could just tell my friend/family to use the same tv all the time.
Tis banana is IRIE :razz:

10% off is cold, 50% off is warm, 75% off is hot, but FREE IS RFD!
Member
User avatar
Dec 28, 2010
370 posts
115 upvotes
look at the balance sheet. They are way more in debt but who cares with 13B assets...
Actions speak louder than words
Deal Addict
Feb 17, 2013
1510 posts
108 upvotes
They should consider releasing some of their original content for the home video market. Lord knows, I want Okja on Blu-ray.
Deal Addict
Feb 21, 2013
3371 posts
712 upvotes
Toronto
chimaican wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 2:56 pm
Yeah, they won't ever do that. Doesn't your IP address change depending on the network you're logged onto? So if I use my tablet at work, won't I be assigned a temporary IP address there versus when I connect at home, or at a cafe? No way to track where a device is used, so unless their going to limit Netflix for only home use ONLY, I don't see how they would be able to stop people. They would have to lock the account to a device (like Windows) but then that would defeat the purpose of watching it anywhere anytime on any device. You'd be limiting the customer to a limited number of devices, and even doing so won't stop sharing, because I could just tell my friend/family to use the same tv all the time.
I didn't mean specifically limiting the IP or device usage, but the actual simultaneous usage.

Currently, as a $12 premium plan subscriber, I can share my subscription with 3 other people, and we can all watch different shows simultaneously. I actual share this with my brother in law's household, where he and his girlfriend have access, and my wife and I each have our own access. But TBH they can actually also afford to pay for their own accounts if they so wanted, and would be willing to do so because they are invested in the shows. My parents do the same thing, and so do many of my friends.

The only reason why they still share with us is because there's no reason not to. But if they even just limited simultaneous viewing to say 3 screens instead of 4, then there's a likelihood that some of the households who are sharing might actually just consider getting their own subscriptions. It's the price of a week's worth of coffee for a wealth of entertainment.
XBox Live: M1GO | PSN: CURRENTLY INACTIVE
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 17, 2012
2013 posts
253 upvotes
In another world
tinlun wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 3:54 pm
They should consider releasing some of their original content for the home video market. Lord knows, I want Okja on Blu-ray.
This.
And not only movies but their TV series.
Deal Addict
Feb 17, 2013
1510 posts
108 upvotes
gontori wrote:
Aug 1st, 2017 4:12 pm
This.
And not only movies but their TV series.
I know some of their TV series have been brought to DVD and bluray but home video releases have kinda died down for the last two years.

Top