Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Blind Item #2

The streaming giant just reported that last year, it blew through the largest mountain of cash in the company’s history.  Of course, they said that this year would finally be when they burn through about only 75% of that amount.  two years ago, they said the same thing and were wrong.

Meanwhile, they finally had to admit what I told you years ago, that the viewership numbers they report are total crap.  The government regulators must have taken notice and  made them do that. 

26 comments:

Tricia13 said...

Netflix

MyDogSmiles said...

Obamaflix

.robert said...

How are they convincing people to give them more money?

https://www.zacks.com/stock/chart/NFLX/fundamental/debt-equity-ratio-quarterly

s.s. said...

robert, it's money laundering disguised as impossibly incompetent business deals...

Unknown said...

Netflix sucks.

Huckleberry said...

Enty's been reporting this for years. It surely can't go on indefinitely. When are they going to collapse?

Thot Crimes said...

Netflix is a propaganda apparatus with unlimited money to burn. Any Entertainment or quality is purely incidental to the thrust of the operation.

They had a 10 year old trans identify as a bottom in one of their shows. 10 years old. Name one other protected group that lives in that kind of bubble.

J said...

Burning through cash and community-organizer Obama buying dazzling real estate.

Coincidence.

Tricia13 said...

My God Thot you are so right about that.

John Doe said...

Obviously Netflix, though I don't think that there was any involvement from government regulators. Reed Hastings makes up the crap as he goes. I believe the the entire Board of that company is fake. A real Board would not allow a CEO to take such staunch financial and political risks with investor capital. I heard a rumor a long time ago that Netflix is actually CIA ops, and that that's where the bulk of their money comes from...similar to Facebook, Amazon, and Google. The real objective of these companies isn't to turn a profit (so they don't care about how much money they lose) but to gather information about the habits, tastes, and preferences of the folks who use these platforms. Some of it is also money laundering to finance propaganda production and to pay certain people for their roles in the Cause---similar to the book publishing industry---which is how they can afford to pay people like the Obamas hundreds of millions of dollars. They hired on Susan Rice, and now they want to bring on Harry and Meghan and pay them hundreds of millions of dollars too. Think about it...what experience do any of these people have with writing and producing movies? Answer = none. What do all of these people have in common (including all the actors who are hired by Netflix to star in its productions)? Answer = they are all Progressive liberals. It is also not difficult to see the political agenda being pushed by the Netflix productions themselves...all of it = Progressive extremism. I'm actually ok with it because I cancelled my Netflix subscription years ago, and we still live in a free country. Its just surprising that so many Netflix subscribers still don't realize that its propaganda.

Or, perhaps they do. Netflix's subscriber base is actually declining. They finished 2019 in the red. And they are still spending ridiculous amounts of money on original productions. No legitimate business continues to purposefully bleed such vast amounts of cash when it is constantly in the red and its revenues are declining. Where else could they be getting that money from?

yepthatsme said...

Enty still hoping to make money from Netflix and Tesla shorts? Meanwhile Tesla just hit 100 billion in market cap for the first time! Expect more blinds about how mexican hit squads are on their way to take out Musk! You go Enty!

Angela said...

Good thing that we have experts here, because I would have assumed you were all completely clueless (apart from yepthatsme and a few others).

What Netflix is doing is exactly the same thing as Amazon a decade ago. It's about building market share and being part of the final four or five big streaming services, after the others leave the table. That will be the time where they will be able to get big profits.

By producing a lot of shows, they force most of their competitors to develop overnight a ton of original programming, which causes every promising show to go through bidding wars as anything with potential is up for grabs. Netflix now relies mostly on their in-house production companies (rather than ordering an original show from another studio, or buying streaming rights from an existing show), which slightly protects them from this trend.

Amazon did the same. For 15 or 20 years, they would at best break even, they would reinvest everything they had earned into infrastructures, online services, etc. until they forced most of the online mail-order competition (plus book shops, etc.) out of business. And that was the moment (around 2015 or 2017) they started to turn huge profits.

Netflix isn't assured of becoming the next Amazon (others, like Uber or WeWork have tried the same strategy without finding a way to monetize their market share), but it's far from being a stupid or a suicidal strategy. You just have to be in a capacity to wait until most of your competition gives up.

E said...

Gathering fodder for your online rantings again? It must have taken forever to find places that actually care what a negative nerdo like you has to say

Brayson87 said...

+1 Angela. You know if you see me agreeing with Angela the blind must be completely sideways. It is an Amazon gearing up type situation, except with a lot more competition. The streaming wars have officially begun and wars cost money. Especially when your competitors are Disney, Amazon, etc.

I know I'm excited that the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is coming back this Friday on Netflix. ;)

Unknown said...

Omfg. This shouldn't even be news. Duh. It's like, ohh big shocker that higher-ups in large companies manipulate figures to make themselves look better.

John Doe said...

Amazon never had competitors equivalent to its caliber, even in its early days. Amazon lost money initially but nowhere near the amounts that Netflix is losing now. Unlike Amazon, Netflix has many high profile competitors who are eating severely into its market share: giant conglomerates that are many times larger than Netflix itself, competitors with vastly superior resources---like Disney, Apple, and (ironically) Amazon. Netflix is valued at about $3.5 billion and its stock value keeps declining because the company is heavily leveraged. Each of of its competitors is valued at many times that amount. Bezos alone could write a personal check to buy Netflix, and it wouldn't dent his finances much. Streaming service options will become more competitive in pricing as more big dawgs enter the ring, and Netflix is financially the weakest of them all.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/01/22/netflix-misses-u-s-subscriber-target-for-3rd-straight-quarter-after-mocking-christians-abortion-activism/

yepthatsme said...

Umm, Netflix is valued at 144 billion and its enterprise value is 151 billion! Bezos is worth 118 billion as of 22/01/2020! Just saying....

Brayson87 said...

+1 yep, Everybody is an expert. Never trust a financial link that contains both Christians and abortion.

Angela said...

Netflix may not be the leading streaming service in five years, just like Amazon has a leader position on a few markets, but it's much easier to become a major streaming service, one of the five or six companies that matter now, rather than in ten years, when the entry price will be much, much higher.

Look at the "major" film studios in the thirties: MGM, Fox, Warner, Paramount, RKO, United Artists. Most of them still exist today, even if it's in a different form. Some second-tier studios at the time, like Columbia and Universal, then made their way to the top, while RKO would cease operations, but the situation was then quite stable for decades, until the seventies, compared to the early days of film production.

Same thing with the major TV networks. Established in the fifties or sixties, then it took a lot of time and effort for Fox to join the three other ones, then it took even longer for cable to make them lose market share.

So, whoever is still a major actor in streaming services in five or ten years, when they become the prime way all over the world to watch shows or films, would get some glowing longterm perspectives. And that's what matters to some investors. At this stage, Netflix is more likely to be relevant five years from now than Peacock, Hulu and a bunch of others.

Final comparison: the two main smartphone platforms, Android and iOS (iPhones) were all launched a decade ago, when the market was much smaller than today, Apple or Google were newbies there (Apple was also something a very much smaller company) and the big players were RIM and its Blackberry or Nokia. Microsoft, also a competitor, was caught off guard, even if they managed to develop Windows Phone, which was really fine. Problem is that by the time Windows Phone was released, people were already satisfied with their iPhone or their Galaxy, while Windows Phone offered no new killer app. And despite being this computing industry giant, Microsoft had to leave the market to other companies and to reinvent itself. Apple, Google or Samsung became giants themselves, and made hundreds of billions due to their leadership at the right time.
Netflix is also a disruptor on their own, as they've been changing the way we watch TV. If they just hold their position, they have a good shot at being relevant in the future, when things will settle, even when names such as "NBC" or "The CW" will have slided into the same oblivion as DuMont. So, spending a few billion dollars now may be part lottery but it offers the Netflix investors a good shot at winning a ton more in a few years.

Little dog said...

dear GOD some of you people are fuking IDIOTS!



I suggest you actually WATCH AJ and the Queen before you start slagging off about the program!

The character is NOT trans. it's a girl. born a girl, identifying as a girl.
The actor is NOT trans. It's a girl, born a girl, identifying as a girl.

There was a very VERY obvious joke made about the child "being a top" A joke made by an adult, to an adult, when the child/character was not present.

But yeah... make up some complete bullshit about about transexuals to help get you through the day.

stupid fukkers!





Brayson87 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mrs Libnish said...

Obamaflix...BWAHAHAHAHAHA...made me lol. Fuck Netflix. I'll be back for Stranger Things and record the whole season in one fell swoop. Then cancel my membership. Again.

There is nothing else but straight up garbage on that crapper.

Substance D said...

I love tranny hissy fits. (Bring back the draft!)

GentleBreeze said...

We've had Netflix for years. The old man told me to cancel it, cause he didn't like the new programming.

Unknown said...

Anyone who uses Breitbait as evidence is not to be trusted here. Just saying. They are infamous as a propaganda fake news site.

Unknown said...

@Mrs Linish
Sounds like you are a cheap loser. Netflix should start a blacklist and add you in. Some of you are literally pirates.

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days