Share:

Rogers Aims to Create Netflix Rival, Mulls Developing Own TV Shows

Share:

According to a report from The Globe and Mail, Rogers is said to be creating a Netflix rival which could include developing its own exclusive shows to the streaming service:

That’s about to change: Rogers Communications Inc. is developing a service that would give subscribers access to movies and television shows and is also considering developing television series solely for digital distribution to enhance the product’s appeal.

The product could compete with similar offerings from companies such as Bell Media and Videotron, which has already developed and marketed a French-language Netflix alternative available in Quebec and Ontario.

The goal of a the service is to take a bite out of Netflix and retain former cable customers who have opted into streaming outside digital offerings. Essentially Rogers wants to offer a digital product beyond its existing cable offerings with streamlined movies and older seasons of popular TV shows. The company would be able to compete with for Canadian rights to content with Netflix or share rights when content isn’t exclusive to the latter.

Just yesterday Bell Media and Astral executives argued to the CRTC their $3.38 billion merger was essential to create a Netflix competitor. It now looks like the race is on to see who will launch the first true Netflix rival in Canada, as cable giants aim to remain relevant as more consumers decide to cut the cord on premium packages and TV altogether.

Share:

  • Too little too late, Rogers. The proverbial Netflix train has already sailed.

  • FragilityG4

    Again if Rogers and Bell just made their offerings competitive they wouldn’t have to worry about Netflix. Since being on Rogers Cable for three years I’ve seen two price increases and have lost four channels. There’s part of the problem.

  • Al

    You can’t compare cable companies to Netflix. They’re two very different things. It’s ridiculous to think that cable companies could be competitive with Netflix. It’s just not possible. Not even a little.

  • crosseyed_mofo

    this from a company whose first response to the netflix launch in canada was reducing data caps

    how cute

  • FragilityG4

    How so? Cable companies have advertising to help pay the bills along with subscriptions. Netflix has subscriptions and that’s it. Cable companies are over priced for the little they offer.

  • Al

    Cable companies don’t have advertising. The broadcasters have the advertising.
    The broadcasters set the rate that the cable company has to pay to share their station. If broadcasters raise their rates, then so must the cable company.
    Cable companies and Netflix are miles apart in what each provides. You just cannot compare the two. Consequently, there is no logic in expecting cable companies to be able to compete.

  • FragilityG4

    How many broadcasting stations does Rogers and Bell own?

  • Al

    Less than 1% of those included in their services.

  • FragilityG4

    Hahaha sure if you include the tiny ones that are essentially irrelevant. All the major Canadian broadcasters are under the Rogers or Bell umbrella. Sorry I have no sympathy for these guys.

  • Al

    Nope – you would be wrong. Besides, I’m referring to ALL broadcast channels on your satellite. Why on earth are you just thinking Canadian? And Bell doesn’t own Rogers and vice versa, therefore, they can’t benefit from what the other company owns. Plus those are operated as separate, self-sufficient entities.

    You need to look at the big picture. Not some tiny little bits of info that you want to focus on in order to attempt to support your totally bizarre notion that cable companies should attempt to compete with Netflix.

  • FragilityG4

    Please you’re insinuating they make no money. This is a bully tactic that Rogers and Bell has used for years. Why do you think they created little mobile companies like Chatr and Solo? Take away from the small guy so they don’t have to compete.
    With the Canadian broadcasters under their control they get to keep majority of ad revenue and that equals a ton of money … Just look at their reported earnings.
    Why are you so adamant about defending these guys? What have they done for us lately besides raising rates and deleting channels? Are they really losing a lot from Netflix or do they just want them eliminated as an option? One could argue they have benefited from them by people upgrading their Internet plans to handle the amount they watch.
    At the end of the day this is just a bully tactic … But the people will speak with their wallets and we’ll see who prospers … Lots of ill will towards Rogers and Bell … And well placed.

  • Al

    That’s irrelevant. It’s as if you are saying cable companies should subsidize themselves and their customers by diverting profits from one independently operated entity to another. Stock holders and every business person from around the planet would laugh at that ridiculous notion.

    Cable companies have to pay a per-subscriber fee to each of the broadcasters that they include in their service. That includes American networks and specialty channels like the various cable news networks, music channels, and on and on and on. Do you really think they can do all that for less than $8 a month per subscriber? If that could be done, then Netflix would be doing it as well.

    If you want to say that cable companies make a selfish profit percentage, I won’t argue with you. But it’s a silly notion to think prices could be dropped so low that they could compete with Netflix pricing. Again… Netflix and cable companies are two very different things.

    You can’t use your hatred for a company as a driving excuse for an argument. You need to incorporate reality and logic.

  • FragilityG4

    I’m not saying lower to the price of Netflix … But certainly they can do better then what they are right now not to mention if the customer had more choice, like an a la cart system, they would be more pleased. They keep advertising to me that I get three hundred stations with my plan … I watch maybe twenty of those … Where’s the value?

  • Al

    You said “competitive”. That means “similar”. If they cut their prices in half, they still wouldn’t be competitive with Netflix’s price.
    It’s irrelevant, whether or not they can do better (although I’m sure they can). That’s a different topic.

  • FragilityG4

    Competitive does not necessarily mean similar, it just means offering something that might entice someone to purchase your service over the competition.

  • Al

    They AREN’T each other’s competition! I keep saying that. They are two different types of products! By your argument, Bell (or Rogers) is already competitive, because they offer something that has enticed you to use their service.
    To be competitive, you have to offer a similar product at a similar price. So, as I have been trying to say, your point is IRRELEVANT!!!

  • FragilityG4

    Hahaha okay they aren’t similar. Whatever ends this circular nonsensical conversation. You win, I’m too tired 🙂

  • a machines

    Hopefully this competition
    will bring price reduction and better quality television. I have my doubts the old school thought can stay relevant.

Deals