Forum - View topic

Answerman - Why Do Companies Buy Rights For Territories They Don't Service?

The problem I have with this. Is it doesn't guarantee us a home video release and/or dub. Which is some serious BS.

Viz uses Hulu for all their streaming. At that point it doesn't matter if Canadian ad rates and the dollar are low (which was CR's excuse for ending free streaming in Canada - I was shocked that never got covered by ANN) given the service only operates in 2 countries. It's been so long that comes across more as a deliberate decision than anything else. Hulu is owned by a consortium of media companies that have longstanding and far reaching deals with Canadian media companies, so it makes sense. Viz could do Canadians a solid and stop lying though:



I'm not sure Amazon plans on expanding their streaming service (which AFAIK uses a subscription-based model with no ads) to Canada anytime soon. We're usually the go to country for US businesses to expand to, but they've chosen a number of other markets over us. To add some weight to that theory, they've sold a few of their original shows to Canadian broadcasters/streaming services. I don't see why they would sell their ammo if they planned on entering the content wars in Canada. You could say, "Well, maybe those Canadian services will license the anime Amazon produces!", except those Canadian services have shown literally no interest in anime. Other than Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Buddyfight and Yo-Kai Watch, there's no anime on TV either.

Between Amazon's very foundation, its initiative to produce an online art gallery, its opening of brick-and-mortar stores, and its experimental usage of delivery by drone, Amazon's business strategy is to sink huge amounts of money into establishing a market share of something and be patient with making it back. What Amazon's doing with this show fits perfectly in line with its business patterns in the past.

That's because Amazon, as best I can tell, is a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers. The shareholders put up the equity, and instead of owning a claim on a steady stream of fat profits, they get a claim on a mighty engine of consumer surplus. Amazon sells things to people at prices that seem impossible because it actually is impossible to make money that way. And the competitive pressure of needing to square off against Amazon cuts profit margins at other companies, thus benefiting people who don't even buy anything from Amazon.

It's a truly remarkable American success story. But if you own a competing firm, you should be terrified. Competition is always scary, but competition against a juggernaut that seems to have permission from its shareholders to not turn any profits is really frightening.

What I don't get in the streaming regional restriction debates is why some people feel that American companies are obligated to serve every nook and cranny of the world.

But is it any surprise that no one wants to stream to places where the potential consumers loudly and routinely announce their eternal allegiances to bootleg streaming sites?

(Of course, the above doesn't apply to cases where American companies actually do acquire streaming rights to other territories, but choose not to use them as part of some sort of "stockblocking" scheme.)

Viz uses Hulu for all their streaming. At that point it doesn't matter if Canadian ad rates and the dollar are low (which was CR's excuse for ending free streaming in Canada - I was shocked that never got covered by ANN)

The "stockblocking" may not be deliberate,

Crackle is owned by Sony, so I find it hard to characterize Crackle as "small" under any interpretation of that word.

Crackle is owned by Sony, so I find it hard to characterize Crackle as "small" under any interpretation of that word.