Afterlife is superb but no way is it worth $4m an episode.
What are you basing that assertion on? Don't forget we're talking global rights, not just one territory.
Limited number of sets and a small cast of which arguably only Ricky is a big name with star power. The Crown cost three times as much for episodes twice as long with an ensemble cast and lavish sets, plus having to accurately recreate historic events.
That said your point about international rights is a good one I hadn't thought about, but for me the figures are still a much better deal for Ricky Gervais than Netflix.
Also I believe Netflix buys out the whole production and pays the cast once rather than have to pay repeat fees for years. That means a high upfront cost but the show is then fully owned by Netflix for them to do whatever they want.
I know options are limited but I struggle to see why big companies think price hikes are the answer to declining custom. You've only got to look at the National Lottery increasing the standard draw tickets from £1 to £2 with the promise of bigger jackpots. They didn't seem to realise the vast amount of people who'd protest by not playing led to the jackpots not increasing at all.
I know options are limited but I struggle to see why big companies think price hikes are the answer to declining custom
. You've only got to look at the National Lottery increasing the standard draw tickets from £1 to £2 with the promise of bigger jackpots. They didn't seem to realise the vast amount of people who'd protest by not playing led to the jackpots not increasing at all.
I guess it's because customers expect a constant level of content for the subscription, and the only way to continue that is to increase prices. Of course, this causes a spiral of people leaving because it's now too much, which causes prices to increase to keep that level of content, etc.
You also see it when people get pay rises. They think, "great, I've got extra money to spend each month". And then they save for a take out finance on a new car, move to a bigger house with a higher mortgage, or they spend more on shopping each month and suddenly that extra money they were getting is just a regular monthly expenditure they've gotten used to.
As I say, I know there's little else they can do to try and reverse dwindling subscriber numbers. I just find it ironic that most companies in this position opt for a decision more likely to drive away the people who are still subscribed.
The pay TV increases are always so much above inflation too - often just £1 but the jump from £5.99 to £6.99 for example is an increase of 17%.
Ultimately like many start ups they came in low to attract customers and longer term that just isn't sustainable. Also worth noting that with very few exceptions the pay TV market has generally been supported by advertising as well, something VOD do not take.
SVOD services are having to invest in creation of their own content, as acquisitions of third party content become more difficult (as original rights holders create their own SVOD services instead)
Content creation is usually significantly more expensive than content acquisition, and requires funding...
This splitting of content means something's got to give, people can't keep subscribing to countless different streaming services, especially when they have to keep upping their prices to support themselves.