0

Streaming services for music make notoriously little money for musicians unless you are a top tier selling artist. It can take thousands of streams to get the equivalent revenue that an album purchase would give them.

I understand that movie streaming services (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) have to pay rights to movie studios to be able to stream for movies but how does that revenue compare to the revenue they made from older business models where people rent movies in a physical or digital form?

In short, is the new streaming business model as bad for movie studios as it is for musicians? If not, what is the difference?

  • Not really. The streaming service pays the studio for the right to stream. It must be assumed that the studio will demand a reasonably profitable price. – Paulie_D Oct 7 at 19:59
  • @paulie That was a specific netflix question. This is much more general and, if it attracts any good answers, would be worth preserving. – matt_black Oct 7 at 21:19
  • The big difference between music streaming and movie streaming is that the music industry largely lost control of the deals they could do long before subscription services became mainstream. Plus, they do make, in aggregate, a ton of money from them despite this, just in a different way. Movies studios seem to retain much more control over their rights. So, I presume, they do deals that don't pay them per view but demand big money upfront for limited streaming rights. – matt_black Oct 7 at 21:23
  • 1
    Movie and TV content isn't like Music. Music can be created by an individual, even a large and successful musician has relatively low costs compared to creating a TV show or a movie. The business model must be very different. – iandotkelly Oct 8 at 15:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .