[nemothekid]

In terms of content production I think the only economics that have changed significantly have been production technology (CGI, cameras, which has gotten more expensive) and distribution (which is now near free).

That said I don't buy the claim that "they have more money than they know what to do with". Content Production is expensive. Netflix spent $100M in total on House of Cards, and it looks like they are spending $4-5M per episode on their original shows. I'm unsure that without big budgets that small budget productions other than "Let's Plays" and talking heads will ever be successful.

And not only is it expensive, but it is hit driven, your hits have to be able to cover the cost of your other 5-6 failures. You have to have enough cash in bank to weather a lackluster season.

It's doubtful the Netflix model @ $20/mo will be able to cover the million dollar salaries that movie, tv, and voice actors are accustomed to. I'm also unsure they will be able to cover the CGI and production budgets of current big budget films. And currently the internet has yet prove you can support a small production team producing anything more than 3-5 minute content using the internet without a big sponsor. It's also unlikely that you will ever be able to vote with your wallet - bundling ensures that the successful films you watch also pay for the the 3 or 4 failures that came from that studio.

In short my point is its going to take a lot more than cutting a few executive paychecks.

[jquery]

> production technology (CGI, cameras, which has gotten more expensive)

Absolutely not. Production (at a given level of quality) is cheaper than it's ever been. Consumer standards might be respectively higher, but that's not apples to apples.

> It's doubtful the Netflix model @ $20/mo will be able to cover the million dollar salaries that movie, tv, and voice actors are accustomed to.

These actors might have to get accustomed to less, like everybody else.

[nemothekid]

>Absolutely not. Production (at a given level of quality) is cheaper than it's ever been.

I have no data to back this up, and I'll spend some time looking for this, but this doesn't seem true. While hardware, processing power, and sets may have gotten cheaper, I'd argue that the cost centers behind production has always stayed the same and that its been salaries. And I'd argue its worse now that you have to hire VFX teams - no camera costs as much as 90K/yr VFX artist.

>These actors might have to get accustomed to less, like everybody else.

Which is why I'm sure the entertainment industry is going to spend a lot more time figuring out how to squeeze comcast prices from the internet generation. And I'm sure its more likely that they will cut a few writers, and cheap out on the CGI before Brad Pitt get called in to negotiate.