Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,592 Posts
/sarcasm on/ Banning advertising for their main streaming competitor. That's very competitive of them. It's so nice to see fair and open competition in the marketplace. /sarcasm off/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Netflix doesn’t advertise Disney on their platform so it is just fair for Disney to do the same especially that they will become streaming competitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,592 Posts
Netflix is user supported and does not sell advertising so that argument is a fallacy. It's like Disney not accepting General Motors ads and saying it's because GM does not advertise Disney on their vehicles. I'm sure a lot of people will be fooled by Disney's argument though. After all, it must be right because Disney wouldn't lie would they? See here for more insight on Disney's strategy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
No, it is more like GM advertising Chrysler vehicles which means that Disney would be shooting itself in the foot if they were to continue advertising Netflix and at the same time trying to get their own streaming service going.
Netflix makes money on advertising almost in every movie or a show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,592 Posts
Except that GM and Chrysler don't sell advertising, they sell vehicles. Maybe a better example would be for Disney owned companies to refuse to sell advertising to any company that sells products that compete with Disney. That would include all other theme parks, movie studios, TV companies, all actors, directors and producers that don't work for Disney, etc. It's not usually done because it would start an advertising boycott war (similar to a trade war,) kill revenue and create chaos in the industry.

Disney has effectively declared war on Netflix. It may be considered to be anti-competitive and be deemed illegal in some countries. Disney now has such size and reach that it could easily come under anti-competition rules if it decides to use that power to hurt competitors. Actions like refusing to sell advertising to competitors could also violate FCC regulations since it regulates public broadcasting. That may not happen with the current FCC administration since it's clearly in the pocket of big business but that could easily change in a few years.

Netflix makes money on advertising almost in every movie or a show.
Cite a few examples and prove that it benefits Netflix, not the studio that creates the show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
Don't know what's with the tortured analogies but I'll take "may be considered to be anti-competitive and be deemed illegal in some countries" seriously when CBS is forced to show ads for NBC programming or ESPN is forced to show ads for Fox Sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,592 Posts
I see celebrities on talk shows promoting their shows airing on different networks quite often. It's not like the networks come right out and ban them. I've also seen ads for Global or CTV on the other network. Within certain legal, moral and ethical guidelines, advertising is generally available for anyone who wants to pay. Banning competitors' advertising to gain an advantage is generally not done, at least not as blatantly as the recent Disney action.

...tortured analogies...
Look into the EU's anti-competition laws some time. American companies are being slapped with multi-billion dollar fines for trying to do what they get away with in the US. Also check out United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 some time. Using market position to hurt competitors is also illegal in the US, though not often used since. That is probably due to the difficulty and expense of prosecuting a large, powerful company such as Microsoft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
I repeat my skepticism. Guests promoting their ABC TV shows on The Tonight Show is not the same thing as ABC buying commercials on NBC. Also, I suggest you read United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 yourself as it seems you've missed the whole basis of the lawsuit - abuse of monopoly power. Arguing that Disney has a monopoly on TV entertainment is going to get quickly tossed if that's the basis of your antitrust suit (same with the EU suits). Now, if you can provide examples of one non-monopoly service being forced to show advertising for a rival service then you may have a case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
756 Posts
It's really just a drop in their ad budget bucket for Netflix, to be cut off by Disney.

Netflix spent $1.8 billion on advertising last year, including $99.2 million on U.S. TV ads, with some 13% [$12.9 million] going to Disney-owned entertainment networks.

This is the original WSJ article (much more detailed than The Verge article summary in an earlier post):

Disney Bans Netflix Ads as Streaming’s Marketing Wars Intensify

Comcast’s NBCUniversal has targeted to spend roughly $100 million on ads outside of its own properties to launch Peacock.
NBCUniversal is expected to spend at least double that amount on its own properties, including airing a heavy amount of promotions for Peacock on its coverage of the 2020 Olympics,

AT&T’s WarnerMedia is planning to spend roughly $300 million on advertising over the next year to push HBO Max.

Hulu, which is now majority-owned by Disney, has spent heavily on promotions. It shelled out $574 million in 2010 amid a major push, and even as a more mature company last year spent $161.2 million.
Meanwhile [as of Oct. 3, 2019], Amazon Fire TV has no deal in place to carry Disney+.

Amazon Clashes With Disney Over Terms for Offering Apps in Fire TV

Though Disney+ won’t have ads, the discussions with Amazon to carry it on Fire TV gave the tech giant an opportunity to revisit advertising terms for various other Disney apps. Disney won’t want to have the service’s distribution curtailed at the launch, and Amazon won’t want to miss out on offering a service that will include classic Disney movies, a lineup of Star Wars and Marvel content, the full catalog of “The Simpsons” and more.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top