Netflix Inc (NFLX) 2014 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Hi. I'm David Wells, CFO of Netflix, and I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Q1 2014 earnings interview. I'm joined today on the Company side by Reed Hastings, CEO, and Ted Sarandos, Chief Content Officer. Interviewing us will be Rich Greenfield of BTIG Research and Doug Anmuth of JPMorgan.

你好。我是 Netflix 財務長 David Wells，歡迎大家參加今天的 2014 年第一季財報採訪。今天，公司執行長 Reed Hastings 和首席內容長 Ted Sarandos 也加入了我的行列。 BTIG Research 的 Rich Greenfield 和摩根大通的 Doug Anmuth 將對我們進行採訪。

We'll be making forward-looking statements in today's earnings interview. Actual results may vary. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Rich Greenfield for our first question.

我們將在今天的收益訪談中做出前瞻性陳述。實際結果可能有所不同。現在，我想把第一個問題交給 Rich Greenfield。

Thanks, David, and thank you to Reed and Ted as well, for having both Doug and myself co-moderate your Q1 earnings conference call. I think we're going to go back and forth, and switch between Doug and myself asking questions.

謝謝大衛，也謝謝里德和特德，謝謝我和道格共同主持第一季財報電話會議。我想我們會來回，在道格和我自己之間切換提問。

The first question we'd like to address to Reed Hastings. The question that I think is on everyone's mind right now is: Why is now the right time for a price increase? I know, a few years ago, you had talked about the need to wait a few years to raise pricing. Is it merely that a few years has passed, or is there something else driving the need to raise pricing?

我們想向里德·黑斯廷斯提出第一個問題。我認為現在每個人都在思考的問題是：為什麼現在是漲價的最佳時機？我知道，幾年前，您曾談到需要等待幾年才能提高定價。只是幾年過去了，還是有其他因素推動了提高定價的需要？

And then attached to that, how should people think about the flow-through of the revenue you're going to generate from that higher price increase? Will that be reinvested in content, or should we expect all of that to drop to the bottom line?

除此之外，人們應該如何考慮從更高的價格上漲中產生的收入的流動？這筆錢會被重新投資到內容上嗎？還是我們應該期望所有這些都會下降到底線？

Rich, over the last couple of years, we've been improving the content selection on Netflix and broadening it. Most recently, with the addition of the amazing shows like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black.

Rich，在過去的幾年裡，我們一直在改進 Netflix 的內容選擇並擴大範圍。最近，又增加了《紙牌屋》和《女子監獄》等精彩節目。

And if we want to continue to expand, to do more great original content, more series, more movies, we have to eventually increase prices a little bit. We're not doing much, we're doing $1 or $2, depending on the country, and all the existing subscribers keep their current price. They don't get an increase.

如果我們想繼續擴張，製作更多精彩的原創內容、更多劇集、更多電影，我們最終必須稍微提高價格。我們沒有做太多事情，我們只做 1 美元或 2 美元，具體取決於國家/地區，並且所有現有訂閱者都保持當前價格。他們沒有得到增加。

So, therefore, the revenue increase to Netflix will be quite modest in the short term. And eventually, as new members come in, they pay a little bit more, and with that, we'll be able to license much more content and deliver it in very high-quality video.

因此，短期內 Netflix 的營收成長將相當有限。最終，隨著新成員的加入，他們會支付更多的費用，這樣我們就能夠許可更多的內容並以非常高品質的影片形式提供。

And Reed, would you still think about tiering going forward, or does this potentially remove that possibility over time?

里德（Reed），您是否仍然會考慮未來分層，或者隨著時間的推移，這是否有可能消除這種可能性？

No, that's definitely a possibility. We're continuing to look at that. So, this is the -- the big focus is on this increase, and we want to get this done well, and make sure we grandfather people cleanly, and it's something we're definitely looking at.

不，這絕對有可能。我們正在繼續關注這一點。所以，重點是這種成長，我們希望把這件事做好，並確保我們乾淨利落地照顧人們，這是我們肯定會關注的事情。

But you still believe a tiered structure over time is possible. What are the things that you could potentially tier on: concurrent streams, standard def, high def, number of devices, content? How do you think about that?

但您仍然相信隨著時間的推移，分層結構是可能的。您可能會在哪些方面進行分層：並發流、標清、高清、設備數量、內容？您對此有何看法？

We have tiering now. We have two plans. We have the two stream at a time; that's $7.99. And we have the four stream at a time, which is $11.99. We have tiering today, and it's definitely something we're thinking about, in terms of expanding the options that people -- that consumers have, some of it being on the criteria that you referred to.

我們現在有分層。我們有兩個計劃。我們同時擁有兩個流；也就是 7.99 美元。我們一次有四個流，價格為 11.99 美元。我們今天進行了分層，這絕對是我們正在考慮的事情，以擴大人們的選擇——消費者擁有的選擇，其中一些是根據你提到的標準。

Is the two-year, Reed, that you talked about, in Ireland for grandfathering, is that what you deem generous, as you think about how to properly support the current subscriber base that you have with the price increase? And how will you actually communicate the risk to a consumer of dropping out and then being tagged with a higher price if they choose to come back?

里德，您在愛爾蘭談到的兩年祖父待遇，是您認為慷慨的嗎？當您考慮如何透過價格上漲來適當支持當前的訂戶群時？您將如何實際向消費者傳達退出的風險，如果他們選擇回來，就會被貼上更高的價格標籤？

You're talking about a $1 or $2 difference per month, so I don't think it's a huge difference. And then, yes, the two-year is very generous. We'll do between a year and two. We're still looking [at kind] of that, so we'll be able to announce more details later.

你說的是每月 1 美元或 2 美元的差異，所以我認為差異不大。然後，是的，這兩年非常慷慨。我們會做一到兩年。我們仍在研究這種情況，因此我們稍後將宣布更多細節。

And, David, how would you think about how you would reinvest the dollars from the price increase, into additional content, or allowing that to fall more down to the bottom line?

大衛，你會如何考慮如何將價格上漲的美元再投資到額外的內容上，或讓其進一步下降到底線？

Well, Doug, we've said before that mostly it's going to be towards content. It's about improving our service. If you think about generous grandfathering, that's going to bleed in over time in terms of the average subscription price. It will take a while; I think it will be gradual.

好吧，道格，我們之前說過，主要是針對內容。這是為了改善我們的服務。如果您考慮慷慨的祖父待遇，那麼隨著時間的推移，平均訂閱價格將會逐漸體現。這需要一段時間；我認為這將是漸進的。

At the point where we reach 30%, where we think is coming up, we'll look at the Business and make the right long-term choices for both profitability as well as a long-term profitability, which you get from a very strong consumer offering, which means content as well.

當我們達到 30%（我們認為即將實現）時，我們將審視業務，並為盈利能力和長期盈利能力做出正確的長期選擇，這是你從非常強大的公司獲得的。消費者產品，這也意味著內容。

David, I think actually on the last conference call, Reed had talked about, as you get to the 30% domestic contribution margin, it would get tougher to expand by 400 basis points a quarter. Does the price increase -- doing it now -- actually change that forecast? Is it easier to add 400 basis points to margins domestically in both 2015, 2016 and beyond?

大衛，我想實際上在上次電話會議上，里德曾談到，當國內貢獻率達到 30% 時，每季擴張 400 個基點將變得更加困難。現在價格上漲真的會改變這個預測嗎？ 2015 年、2016 年及以後將國內利潤率增加 400 個基點是否更容易？

Well, so, adding revenue makes it, by nature, easier. But what he's referring to is the fact that the numbers get larger, right? That margin is a percent of revenue; so, as that number gets larger and larger, it gets harder and harder to add 100 basis points, or 400 year on year. So, I don't think it changes anything in the calculus. When we say that when we reach 30% we'll look at the situation, we'll look at the Company and make the right, smart, long-term choices, including how much we put to content, how much we put in terms of streaming delivery and product, how much to marketing, and then how much to profit.

嗯，所以，增加收入本質上會讓事情變得更容易。但他指的是數字變得更大的事實，對嗎？該利潤率是收入的百分比；因此，隨著這個數字越來越大，增加 100 個基點，即年比增加 400 個基點也變得越來越困難。所以，我認為它不會改變微積分中的任何內容。當我們說達到 30% 時，我們會審視情況，審視公司，做出正確、明智、長期的選擇，包括我們在內容上投入了多少，在條款上投入了多少流媒體交付和產品的數量，營銷費用，以及利潤費用。

And, Ted, do you want to talk for a minute about the new content and some of the things, at least in the general, that we'll be able to do post the price increase?

特德，您想花一分鐘時間談談新內容以及一些我們在價格上漲後能夠做的事情（至少總體而言）嗎？

Yes, I mean, we're rapidly expanding our original production. We have several productions running today, all around the world. And I think when you look at the size and scope, and the ambition level of some of these projects, you'll see that this is a great time for consumers, because people who were never working in television before are thrilled to be working in television today, and doing some of the best work of their life. At higher budgets, sure; but that's a good thing for everybody, including us, because we're in the position to be able to bring that kind of production level to our members.

是的，我的意思是，我們正在迅速擴大我們的原始生產。今天，我們有幾部作品在世界各地上演。我認為，當你看看其中一些項目的規模和範圍以及雄心勃勃的水平時，你會發現這對消費者來說是一個偉大的時代，因為以前從未在電視行業工作過的人很高興能在電視行業工作今天的電視，並做一些他們一生中最好的工作。當然，如果預算較高的話；但這對包括我們在內的每個人來說都是一件好事，因為我們能夠為我們的會員帶來這種生產水準。

David, the comment about international profitability from existing markets expected by the end of the year -- is it fair to assume that the UK is profitable now, with Latin America still experiencing losses?

大衛，關於預計到今年年底現有市場的國際盈利能力的評論——假設英國現在盈利，而拉丁美洲仍在遭受損失，是否公平？

We didn't say anything specifically about individual markets. I think what we've said, and we'd reiterate, is that each market has gotten better, has been growing, and has been improving in terms of a loss, but we didn't give any specifics about it. We wanted to give that comment about our overall profitability of all of our existing markets, to demonstrate that before we launch another substantial expansion, that we're pretty confident in our existing performance in the markets we have today.

我們沒有具體談論個別市場。我認為我們已經說過並且要重申的是，每個市場都在變得更好，一直在成長，並且在虧損方面一直在改善，但我們沒有給出任何具體細節。我們想對我們所有現有市場的整體盈利能力發表評論，以表明在我們啟動另一次大幅擴張之前，我們對我們今天在市場上的現有表現非常有信心。

And, Doug, I'd add that we're very confident of our success in Latin America, as well as the UK. So, we're making great progress in every country, which is giving us a big ambition for this next round of European expansion.

道格，我想補充一點，我們對在拉丁美洲和英國的成功充滿信心。因此，我們在每個國家都取得了巨大進展，這讓我們對下一輪歐洲擴張抱持著很大的野心。

A question for David, though, to follow up. When you look at that $300 million to $400 million, I think that you kind of got hit by as you launched both the UK and Latin America -- should we expect a similar type negative impact on profitability internationally, as you get into markets like France and Germany?

不過，還有一個問題需要大衛跟進。當你看到這 3 億至 4 億美元時，我認為你在推出英國和拉丁美洲時受到了打擊 - 當你進入法國等市場時，我們是否應該預期對國際盈利能力產生類似的負面影響還有德國？

Well, we didn't give specific guidance, Rich, in terms of an actual number. But I would say that, if you think about the UK and looking at our financials at the time we launched the UK, that was a substantial market for us. If you look at what our financials would be today, and into 2015, given the comment about our international profit, starting to be profitable, starting in 2015, then you would have to assume that those investments will be of that size.

好吧，Rich，我們沒有就實際數字給出具體指導。但我想說的是，如果你想想英國並看看我們推出英國時的財務狀況，那對我們來說是一個巨大的市場。如果你看看我們今天和 2015 年的財務狀況，考慮到我們的國際利潤的評論，從 2015 年開始盈利，那麼你就必須假設這些投資將達到這個規模。

Just moving over to profitability on the US side -- I think in the quarter, you saw about 460 basis points of year-over-year increase in contribution margin, David. Where do you feel like you generated the most upside here?

就轉向美國方面的盈利能力——我認為在本季度，您會看到邊際貢獻率同比增長了約 460 個基點，David。您覺得您在哪裡產生了最大的優勢？

You mean in terms of the year-on-year growth, Doug? Or are you talking about versus forecast?

你是指同比增長嗎，道格？還是你在談與預測？

Yes. Sort of versus the 400 basis points.

是的。有點像 400 個基點。

Sure. Year-on-year growth really is about growing our members faster than we're growing our content spend. So, I don't think there's any one particular leverage point, other than a managed level of content growth. We continue to get more efficient across other parts of our Business, but the content spend is the largest piece of that, so it's about managed growth.

當然。年比成長實際上是我們的會員成長速度快於我們內容支出的成長速度。因此，我認為除了內容成長的可控水平之外，沒有任何特定的槓桿點。我們繼續提高業務其他部分的效率，但內容支出是其中最大的一部分，因此這與管理成長有關。

Question for Ted: When you look at House of Cards, I think there have been a lot of focus on the fact that, or you had even said before that season two would have a bigger impact on your overall subscriber growth and net additions than season one, because people had become comfortable with the show. When you look at what happened in Q1, did that actually bear itself out? Is there a way to actually show or tell that season two of House of Cards actually had a greater impact than season one?

問泰德的問題：當你看《紙牌屋》時，我認為人們非常關注這樣一個事實，或者你甚至在第二季之前說過，與第二季相比，第二季對你的整體訂閱者成長和淨增加量的影響更大第一，因為人們已經對這個節目感到滿意了。當你看看第一季發生的事情時，這真的得到證實嗎？有沒有辦法真正證明或告訴我們《紙牌屋》第二季實際上比第一季產生了更大的影響？

Yes, we're getting more sophisticated about how we measure it as well, Rich. I think that what we see is a hungry audience for season two, versus a curious audience in season one. So, where, in season one, Netflix subscribers had no idea what a Netflix original series would be like. So, there was some curiosity, but certainly not a lot of excitement going in.

是的，我們在衡量它的方式上也變得越來越複雜，Rich。我認為我們看到的是第二季的飢餓觀眾，而不是第一季的好奇觀眾。因此，在第一季中，Netflix 訂閱者並不知道 Netflix 原創影集會是什麼樣子。所以，有一些好奇，但肯定沒有太多興奮。

In season two, there was a lot of pent-up demand. We saw a lot of very early front-weighted viewing for the launch, which told us that America was ready for more, and dug in right away.

在第二季，有很多被壓抑的需求。我們看到了很多非常早期的發布前重點觀看，這告訴我們美國已經準備好接受更多，並立即投入使用。

As we mentioned in the letter, we've been absolutely thrilled so far with the show from the early launch, relative to how you would measure television on any show on basic cable or premium cable. And I only give you that information, by the way, to help you understand the class of viewing, to think about a show like House of Cards.

正如我們在信中提到的，到目前為止，我們對這部劇從早期推出以來就感到非常興奮，相對於如何衡量基本有線電視或付費有線電視上任何節目的電視收視率而言。順便說一句，我給你這些資訊只是為了幫助你了解觀看的類別，思考像《紙牌屋》這樣的節目。

And do you think that shows have become more -- are shows becoming more expensive, prompting you to need to raise pricing to afford the shows that you want to create, just because the cost of an individual episode is rising throughout the industry?

您是否認為節目變得越來越多——節目是否變得更加昂貴，促使您需要提高定價來負擔您想要製作的節目，僅僅因為整個行業單個劇集的成本正在上漲？

Partially, Rich. I think what's happening is that we're committing to larger-budget shows, not that the same show is more expensive to make year on year. We're looking at the kind of shows that we're competing with -- we're still only competing with the top end of cable for those shows. And so, think about it like a sports team, where the bidding can get quite high on a couple of key pieces of talent, but the overall salaries stay in check.

部分地，里奇。我認為正在發生的事情是我們致力於製作更大預算的節目，而不是同一部節目的製作成本逐年更高。我們正在研究我們正在競爭的節目類型——我們仍然只與這些節目的高端有線電視競爭。因此，可以把它想像成一支運動隊，對一些關鍵人才的出價可能會很高，但整體薪資仍然受到控制。

And, Ted, do you feel like you're seeing a similar dynamic play out as you head toward the second season of Orange, as well here, in terms of the way the viewer base builds?

泰德，當你走向《女子監獄》第二季時，你是否覺得在觀眾群的建立方面，你也看到了類似的動態上演？

Yes, we had said before: Orange is the New Black has been our most-watched show. So, we're pretty excited to see what an even bigger mob looks like who is hungry for season two, starting June 6.

是的，我們之前說過：《女子監獄》是我們收視率最高的節目。所以，我們很高興看到更多的暴民是什麼樣子，他們渴望從 6 月 6 日開始觀看第二季。

And, Ted, when you look at HBO, they had a big hit this last quarter with True Detective. I think it was a show that Netflix was bidding on, and actually wanted, and thought would work well for Netflix.

而且，特德，當你看看 HBO 時，你會發現他們上個季度的《真探》大受歡迎。我認為這是 Netflix 正在競標、實際上想要的節目，並且認為對 Netflix 來說效果很好。

Curious: They still rolled it out on a week-by-week basis, and seemed to build a lot of excitement and social media buzz around their releasing strategy. Do you ever look at kind of what is happening at HBO and say: Maybe there are other ways of doing things in the US, the way you even experimented with doing it overseas?

好奇：他們仍然每週都會推出它，並且似乎圍繞著他們的發布策略引起了很多興奮和社交媒體關注。你是否曾經看過 HBO 正在發生的事情並說：也許在美國還有其他做事的方式，就像你在海外嘗試過的那樣？

We look at it all the time. I think that works well for them. I think this works well with us -- for us.

我們一直在關注它。我認為這對他們來說很有效。我認為這對我們來說很有效。

I think the promise for our members is that we're going to stay focused on what they like; and what they like is to watch more than one at a time. And we don't know the exact magic number of how many at a time, but giving people the option to watch as much as the entire season, I think, works well and fits well with our brand promise.

我認為我們對會員的承諾是我們將專注於他們喜歡的事情；他們喜歡一次觀看多個節目。我們不知道一次觀看多少個確切的神奇數字，但我認為，讓人們可以選擇觀看整個賽季，效果很好，也符合我們的品牌承諾。

By the way, it may be that in the future we could roll out shows in different release models the way we did with the Turbo cartoons. And, like, to your point, we are in other countries with other American -- US TV shows that we premier outside of the US, like we will with the Breaking Bad spinoff, Better Call Saul, as we did recently with From Dusk Till Dawn, and we will with Fargo.

順便說一句，將來我們可能會像 Turbo 卡通一樣推出不同版本的節目。而且，就像你所說的那樣，我們在其他國家與其他美國電視節目一起在美國境外首播，就像我們在《絕命毒師》的衍生劇《風騷律師》中所做的那樣，就像我們最近在《殺出個黎明》中所做的那樣黎明，我們將與《法哥》一起。

A question for Ted, and for David: Are you still on track, would you say, to double your investment in originals in 2014, but still keep it below the 10% of total content spending level?

問 Ted 和 David 一個問題：您是否仍有望在 2014 年將原創投資增加一倍，但仍將其保持在總內容支出水準的 10% 以下？

Yes, that's in our -- it had been in our previous, and that's the way it's still trending.

是的，這就是我們以前的情況，而且這仍然是趨勢。

This is David. I would say, Doug, that we migrated away from the 10% number, just because that number's going to grow. It's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. But yes, it's still accurate to say that we've doubled year on year, but it's still, as a percent of our overall content spend, is less than 10%.

這是大衛。道格，我想說，我們放棄了 10% 的數字，只是因為這個數字將會成長。它會變得越來越大。但是，是的，可以準確地說我們同比增長了一倍，但占我們整體內容支出的百分比仍然低於 10%。

I guess this is a question for Reed, although it probably could be addressed to a few of you. When you think about the amount of money you're going to be investing in content in 2015, especially with the firepower you're going to get from the price increase, how do you think about your total addressable market in the US? Is it starting to move towards higher levels than you had thought before, just given the amount of content you're actually going to be producing?

我想這是里德的問題，儘管它可能可以向你們中的一些人提出。當您考慮 2015 年將在內容上投資的金額時，尤其是考慮到您將從價格上漲中獲得的火力時，您如何看待美國的整體潛在市場？考慮到您實際要製作的內容量，它是否開始朝著比您之前想像的更高的水平發展？

Rich, about three years ago we identified the model that we think, in the fullness of time, we can be 2 to 3 times larger than domestic HBO, linear HBO, which would be 60 to 90 million subscribers in the US. And that model anticipated that, as we got to 40, we'd get better; as we got to 50, we'd get better. So, I would say all of those improvements in the model that we think of are built in to our 60 to 90 million member projection for the domestic market; and so, we'd stand by that.

Rich，大約三年前，我們確定了一個模型，我們認為，在時間成熟的情況下，我們可以比國內 HBO、線性 HBO 規模大 2 到 3 倍，在美國擁有 60 到 9000 萬訂戶。該模型預計，當我們到了 40 歲時，我們會變得更好；當我們達到 50 歲的時候，我們會變得更好。因此，我想說，我們所考慮的模型中的所有這些改進都是基於我們對國內市場 6000 至 9000 萬會員的預測；因此，我們堅持這一點。

Every year that we add another 5 or 6 million members makes us feel a little bit more confident of getting into that range, which is great. And then with that, we're able to add more content and continue to make the service better.

每年我們都會增加 5 或 600 萬會員，這讓我們更有信心進入這個範圍，這很棒。這樣，我們就能夠增加更多內容並持續改善服務。

Just following up on that question, can you -- Reed, can you comment on whether the recent subscriber growth performance is coming more from gross adds or from lower churn? And in particular, can you give us some more detail on what has been happening to churn in the US over the past year?

就這個問題，你能——里德，你能評論一下最近的用戶成長表現是更多地來自總增加還是來自較低的流失率嗎？特別是，您能否提供我們更多有關過去一年美國客戶流失的詳細資訊？

Yes. Think of most of the growth, Doug, as coming from member satisfaction. When members are really satisfied, they tell their friends about the service, and they retain better. It's really driven from that member sat. When we have great shows coming, and unique exclusives, and things that make people feel passionate about Netflix, then they're, again, more likely to tell their friends, and more likely to stay.

是的。道格，認為大部分成長來自會員滿意度。當會員真正感到滿意時，他們就會向朋友介紹這項服務，這樣他們就會更好地保留。這確實是由那位成員推動的。當我們推出精彩的節目、獨特的獨家內容以及讓人們對 Netflix 充滿熱情的東西時，他們更有可能告訴他們的朋友，也更有可能留下來。

And so, it's a mix of both of those things, but fundamentally it's member satisfaction. Without member satisfaction, you can't get much growth, and, of course, you don't have good retention; but with it, you get -- both aspects are very good. And that's what we've been really focused on.

因此，它是這兩件事的混合體，但從根本上來說，它是會員滿意度。沒有會員滿意度，你就無法獲得很大的成長，當然，你也沒有良好的留任率；但有了它，你就會得到——這兩方面都非常好。這就是我們真正關注的。

In the letter we talked about our advertising strategy evolving towards more emotive and brand and content, and away from direct response. We've realized through testing that we don't need to be running around saying: Netflix free trial, nearly as much. We think that's very commercial and reductionist, and that by focusing on the core elements of member satisfaction and the content that you get if you join Netflix, we can get to a much bigger market share, and a better connection with members. And then when they come to our website and see that they get a free trial, they're doubly happy, but that's not the core reason to come to Netflix.

在信中，我們談到了我們的廣告策略正在朝著更情感化、品牌化和內容化的方向發展，而不是直接回應。透過測試，我們意識到我們不需要到處說：Netflix 免費試用，幾乎一樣多。我們認為這是非常商業化和簡化的，透過專注於會員滿意度的核心要素以及加入 Netflix 後獲得的內容，我們可以獲得更大的市場份額，並與會員建立更好的聯繫。然後，當他們訪問我們的網站並看到可以免費試用時，他們會加倍高興，但這並不是他們訪問 Netflix 的核心原因。

Reed, too, if I could elaborate on it -- going back to Rich's earlier question about satisfaction, the all-at-once model -- the one thing that sure generates is a lot of satisfaction. If you're stuck in Washington, DC or New York in the middle of a snowstorm, and you want to spend a weekend watching House of Cards, it's something not only that brings people a lot of joy, it's something you can't do anywhere else. That's why we invest in that model as well.

里德也是如此，如果我能詳細說明一下的話——回到里奇之前關於滿意度的問題，一次性模型——肯定會產生很大的滿足感。如果你在暴風雪中被困在華盛頓特區或紐約，你想花一個週末看《紙牌屋》，這不僅能給人們帶來很多歡樂，而且是你做不到的事情其他任何地方。這就是我們也投資該模型的原因。

Reed, it sort of seems like you're looking at HBO, where they never talk about: Hey, HBO is $15. They just talk about the value that HBO brings to the consumer from a content standpoint. Is that fair to think about?

Reed，你好像在看 HBO，他們從不談論：嘿，HBO 是 15 美元。他們只是從內容的角度來談論HBO為消費者帶來的價值。這樣想公平嗎？

I wouldn't say it's because of HBO. I think of it as many great services talk about how they're great, and then the pricing is fair, and you have to pay to get the thing. But you want to talk about the great aspect of the service and bring that to the fore; that's generally great marketing.

我不會說這是因為 HBO。我認為這是因為許多優秀的服務都在談論它們是如何優秀的，然後定價是公平的，你必須付費才能得到它。但你想談論服務的偉大方面並將其凸顯出來；這通常是很棒的行銷。

HBO is an example of that great marketing. But we're not trying to copy them, specifically. We're learning and doing best practices, as they've been doing for a while.

HBO 就是這種出色行銷的一個例子。但具體而言，我們並不想複製它們。我們正在學習和實施最佳實踐，就像他們已經這樣做了一段時間一樣。

Reed, just another question -- a little bit related to the competitive landscape. Amazon has seen some strong growth recently in terms of Prime subscribers, saying that they're basically north of 20 million at this point; also rolling out Fire TV. How is all of that impacting Netflix? And what are your thoughts on the recent Prime price increase, and whether that has any impact to you?

里德，這又是一個問題——與競爭格局有點相關。亞馬遜最近在 Prime 用戶方面出現了強勁增長，稱目前基本上已超過 2000 萬；還推出了Fire TV。這一切對 Netflix 有何影響？您對最近 Prime 價格上漲有何看法？這對您有何影響？

Prime's a great service. I'm a Prime member, and most Netflix employees are Prime members, and it's coming across to most people in our societies as very complementary to Netflix. People look at them as multiple channels.

Prime 的服務很棒。我是 Prime 會員，大多數 Netflix 員工也是 Prime 會員，對我們社會中的大多數人來說，它與 Netflix 非常互補。人們將它們視為多種管道。

You saw that Amazon included us on the Fire TV, and, of course, we've been before on the Kindle Fires. And it's a great relationship all around, where we've got unique content. They've got some unique content. They're also doing originals.

您看到亞馬遜將我們納入 Fire TV 中，當然，我們之前也曾在 Kindle Fires 中加入過。這是一種很好的關係，我們有獨特的內容。他們有一些獨特的內容。他們也在做原創。

There's multiple networks out there. It's very much not a zero sum game, and we're building this ecosystem together that's about internet video. And the more players they are in internet video, the bigger that ecosystem gets. And the big theme is: Internet video is taking share away from linear video. And so, we're all participating in that transformation.

那裡有多個網路。這不是一個零和遊戲，我們正在共同建立這個關於網路影片的生態系統。網路影片的參與者越多，生態系統就越大。最大的主題是：網路影片正在奪走線性影片的份額。因此，我們都在參與這項轉變。

When you look at net neutrality, peering, interconnection, Reed, you seem to -- you wrote a letter that basically made it sound like you thought that peering and interconnection was a direct net neutrality violation, or at least violated the principles. FCC Chairman Wheeler said they are more cousins than they actually are the same thing.

當你看到網路中立性、對等互連、互連時，里德，你似乎——你寫了一封信，基本上聽起來你認為對等互連和互連是直接違反網路中立性的行為，或至少違反了這些原則。 FCC 主席惠勒表示，它們更像是表兄弟，但實際上它們是同一件事。

You had said, I think, two calls ago, that you would not need to pay distribution, meaning ISPs, for the amount of content you were serving. You reversed that this quarter. Just from an overall standpoint, can you just address what happened this quarter with Comcast, and how you think about the future of the internet?

我想，您曾在兩次通話前說過，您不需要為您所提供的內容量向分發（即 ISP）付費。你本季扭轉了這一局面。僅從整體角度來看，您能否簡單談談康卡斯特本季發生的事情，以及您如何看待網路的未來？

Sure. The internet is in constant evolution, in terms of the relationships and interconnection that we see. So, we did end up choosing to pay Comcast to improve the video quality that our members experience. We don't think we should have to, but in the short term, we felt like we had no choice. So, we've got that deal in place.

當然。就我們所看到的關係和互連而言，互聯網正在不斷發展。因此，我們最終選擇向康卡斯特付費，以提高會員體驗的視訊品質。我們認為我們不應該這樣做，但從短期來看，我們覺得我們別無選擇。所以，我們已經達成協議了。

In addition, we're lobbying for this idea that we think is very natural, which is interconnect is part of net neutrality. It's a stronger form of net neutrality. And now we're in opposition to the Comcast-Time Warner merger, because we're really concerned about what happens when the combined entity, if the merger were to go through, would have, with over 60% of US homes passed, and eventually over 50% of US homes subscribing to cable internet; and that's a worrisome factor. So, we think it's more in the public interest to either not have them merge, or, if the government goes ahead with it, to at least put some significant merger agreements -- settlements in there.

此外，我們正在遊說這個我們認為非常自然的想法，即互連是網路中立性的一部分。這是一種更強的網路中立性形式。現在我們反對康卡斯特與時代華納的合併，因為我們真的很擔心合併後的實體如果合併成功的話會發生什麼，超過 60% 的美國家庭都通過了，並且最終超過50% 的美國家庭訂閱了有線網路；這是一個令人擔憂的因素。因此，我們認為，要么不讓它們合併，要么如果政府繼續合併，至少簽訂一些重要的合併協議——和解協議，更符合公共利益。

And, Reed, just as a follow-up, when you say that you had no choice, I'm assuming that's coming from a member satisfaction perspective. Did you see a change in relation to churn, or just overall member satisfaction in the Comcast footprint? And then, can you also talk about -- since that deal was signed and you've obviously seen big pickups in speed since then, whether you've seen a corresponding lift in member satisfaction as well?

而且，里德，作為後續行動，當你說你別無選擇時，我假設這是從會員滿意度的角度出發的。您是否看到康卡斯特足跡中與客戶流失相關的變化，或者只是整體會員滿意度的變化？然後，您能否也談談——自從協議簽署以來，您顯然看到了速度的大幅提升，您是否也看到了會員滿意度的相應提升？

Not that I know of. I don't think we've surveyed member satisfaction differentially between Comcast. I imagine it is very much true, but we had years of good experience on Comcast broadband for our members, and then it was only in the prior six months when it started declining rapidly. So, it's a fairly short-term thing. We're glad we've got that now fixed.

從來沒聽過。我認為我們對康卡斯特會員滿意度的調查沒有差異。我想這是非常正確的，但我們在康卡斯特寬頻方面為我們的會員提供了多年的良好經驗，但直到前六個月才開始迅速下降。所以，這是一個相當短期的事情。我們很高興現在已經解決了這個問題。

I think it will just -- it will work out over time, if we can get to no-fee interconnect, not only for Netflix, but for Cogent, for Level 3, for Akamai. We're going to have a bigger, stronger internet if everyone can agree that that's a better model than, say, retrans, which started off with a very small fee and then escalated into this blackout-type model that's been a real problem for the industry, and for consumers. So, we're trying to avoid that by seeing if we can move everyone to no-fee interconnect.

我認為，隨著時間的推移，如果我們能夠實現免費互連，這將會得到解決，不僅適用於 Netflix，也適用於 Cogent、Level 3、Akamai。如果每個人都同意這是一個比重傳更好的模型，我們將擁有一個更大、更強大的互聯網，重傳一開始只收取很少的費用，然後升級為這種停電模型，這對網絡來說是一個真正的問題。行業，以及消費者。因此，我們試圖透過看看是否可以讓每個人都使用免費互連來避免這種情況。

But I assume if we had, Reed -- if we had Brian Roberts sitting on this panel, he would basically look at what you've just said and say: I spent billions of dollars to dig trenches to get the internet, meaning to get Netflix from your offices all the way out to consumers all across the country. If you're going to take up so much of that capacity and force me to actually spend even more money to reach that end consumer, that's not all going to be on me, you're going to have to pay for some of that.

但我想，里德，如果我們讓布萊恩羅伯茨坐在這個小組中，他基本上會看看你剛才所說的話，然後說：我花了數十億美元挖溝渠來獲得互聯網，這意味著獲得Netflix 從您的辦公室一直延伸到全國各地的消費者。如果你要佔用如此多的容量並迫使我實際上花更多的錢來接觸最終消費者，那麼這並不是全部由我承擔，你將不得不支付其中的一些費用。

What's wrong with that, I guess, in terms of you sharing the burden? The reality is: There's always been paying on the internet, whether it's been Level 3 or Cogent. It's not like the concept of peering and interconnection being paid peering is a new concept.

我想，就你們分擔負擔而言，這有什麼問題嗎？現實情況是：無論是 Level 3 還是 Cogent，網路支付一直存在。對等互連和付費互連的概念並不是一個新概念。

No, actually it is. So, in the original days of the internet, it was the opposite, which is: The ISP paid Level 3 for interconnect. And it's only the very large ISPs that now are able, first, to demand they're not paying, and now to demand payment from the transit. So, there's been a real shift in the last five years.

不，實際上是這樣。因此，在網路最初的時代，情況恰恰相反，即：ISP 為互連支付 3 級費用。現在只有非常大的網路服務供應商才能夠先要求他們不付費，現在又要求交通部門付費。所以，過去五年發生了真正的轉變。

But Brian Roberts is incredibly thoughtful. I'd say: If there's anyone that you wanted to trust with controlling half of the US internet, you might pick Brian Roberts. He's very thoughtful, very long term about it, and very reasonable.

但布萊恩羅伯茲卻非常體貼。我想說：如果你想信任誰能控制美國網路的一半，你可能會選擇布萊恩羅伯茲。他的想法非常周到，非常長遠，而且非常合理。

But I don't know that we want anybody to control half of the US internet. That's the real basis of our objection to the merger.

但我不知道我們希望任何人控制美國網路的一半。這就是我們反對合併的真正依據。

Reed, how do you think about the likelihood that you would potentially do similar interconnect deals with other providers -- with telcos, for example?

Reed，您如何看待與其他供應商（例如電信公司）進行類似互連交易的可能性？

Well, we've got peering agreements and interconnect agreements with probably 100 ISPs around the world, including many very large ones. That's an ongoing state. It was only in the case of Comcast, when it got to such a bad state, and then recovered very quickly, thankfully, that it was so visible.

嗯，我們已經與全球約 100 個 ISP 簽訂了對等協議和互連協議，其中包括許多非常大的 ISP。這是一個持續的狀態。只有康卡斯特的情況，當它達到如此糟糕的狀態，然後很快恢復時，值得慶幸的是，它是如此明顯。

And then just a question for David, I guess tied to all of this. Could you give us any sense on how these deals are structured, meaning: Is there any way to think about what the cost of interconnection is going to be to Netflix, from a provider like Comcast? Does it account for 4K, or when you launch 4K, do you have to pay Comcast substantially more, et cetera?

然後問大衛一個問題，我想這與所有這些有關。您能否告訴我們這些交易的結構，即：是否有任何方法可以考慮像康卡斯特這樣的供應商提供的互連成本將為 Netflix 帶來多少？它是否佔 4K 的一部分，或者當你推出 4K 時，你是否需要向康卡斯特支付更多費用，等等？

Rich, we don't talk about the exact specifics of the deal. But as you might imagine, we have been thoughtful about what might be important down the road in the future, including those items that would be important for us to provide our consumers. Comcast and the interconnect fees that we might have to pay are a portion of the expenses that we've borne, including increased content, as we've added more and more content. I would say it's part of the pattern; content continues to be our most -- our largest piece of expense on our P&L.

Rich，我們不談交易的具體細節。但正如您可能想像的那樣，我們一直在思考未來可能重要的事情，包括那些對我們提供給消費者的重要物品。康卡斯特和我們可能需要支付的互連費用是我們承擔的費用的一部分，包括隨著我們添加越來越多的內容而增加的內容。我想說這是模式的一部分；內容仍然是我們損益表中最大的支出。

Reed, just to follow up there: When you think about the amount of bandwidth capacity that Netflix is utilizing, as well as other just large internet companies, is there a longer-term capacity problem in the US, just in terms of bandwidth, especially as you push more toward 4K TVs?

Reed，我想跟進一下：當你考慮 Netflix 以及其他大型互聯網公司所使用的頻寬容量時，美國是否存在長期容量問題，就頻寬而言，尤其是當您更加推崇 4K 電視時？

Doug, you can think of it as Netflix is using this bandwidth, but I think it's more correct to think of it as consumers are paying for a 20-megabit or a 50-megabit package from an ISP. And then they deserve to be able to use that speeds that they've paid for. (technical difficulty)

Doug，您可以將其視為 Netflix 正在使用此頻寬，但我認為將其視為消費者從 ISP 購買 20 兆或 50 兆的套餐更為正確。然後他們應該能夠使用他們所支付的速度。 （技術難度）

-- and the importance of IPTV boxes to your Business. We went to the Amazon Fire TV launch. When we were using the box, we noticed that when you said something like --

-- 以及 IPTV 機上盒對您的業務的重要性。我們去了亞馬遜 Fire TV 發表會。當我們使用這個盒子時，我們注意到當你說這樣的話——

Sorry. I'm being told that we're going to interrupt for a second, and just stand by. We may have had a blip here. We're going to restart. I'll have to ask you to restart your question.

對不起。有人告訴我我們要打斷一下，然後站在一邊。我們可能在這裡遇到了一個小插曲。我們要重新開始。我得請你重新開始你的問題。

Okay. Tell me when.

好的。告訴我何時。

Sure thing. At least this time we had a protocol for a restart here.

當然可以。至少這次我們有一個重新啟動的協定。

Did we lose the last question?

我們失去了最後一個問題嗎？

This is David Wells. Are we back live? Okay. Great.

這是大衛威爾斯。我們回來直播了嗎？好的。偉大的。

This is David Wells. I apologize for the interruption. I'm going to ask Rich Greenfield to repeat just the question he just asked. Rich, please repeat.

這是大衛威爾斯。對於打擾，我深表歉意。我要請里奇·格林菲爾德重複他剛才問的問題。豐富，請重複一遍。

Hi. Reed, we attended the Amazon Fire TV launch recently. And when we were using the device, we noticed that if you said the words, Downton Abbey, it immediately brought up all of the content that was available as part of your Amazon Prime subscription. But yet when you said something like, House of Cards, it immediately did bring up the content; however, it was only for Amazon's paid service. You had to actually buy each individual episode.

你好。里德，我們最近參加了亞馬遜 Fire TV 發表會。當我們使用該設備時，我們注意到，如果您說出「唐頓莊園」這個詞，它會立即顯示您的 Amazon Prime 訂閱中提供的所有內容。但當你說「紙牌屋」之類的東西時，它立即就會顯示出內容；然而，這僅適用於亞馬遜的付費服務。你必須實際購買每一集。

When we asked why it didn't actually direct you to the Netflix app, which is a featured app, it said because they don't have access to your API, unless you want them to have access to your API. That brings to the question of: How do you think about how you work with an IPTV box, like the Fire TV, which is also a competitor in Amazon Prime, for video?

當我們詢問為什麼它實際上沒有將您定向到 Netflix 應用程式（這是一個特色應用程式）時，它說因為他們無權訪問您的 API，除非您希望他們有權訪問您的 API。這就帶來了一個問題：您如何看待如何使用 IPTV 機上盒（例如 Fire TV，它也是 Amazon Prime 的競爭對手）來播放影片？

Well, Amazon's been very straightforward about treating that platform as an open platform. And we definitely want to be in voice search, and we will be in voice search; we're just still working on the mechanics of it. There's no fundamental issue. It's just some timing and scheduling things that came together. I wish we could have made the initial launch date, but it's definitely something that will come out this year.

嗯，亞馬遜非常直接地將該平台視為開放平台。我們肯定希望進入語音搜尋領域，並且我們將會進入語音搜尋領域；我們仍在研究它的機制。沒有什麼根本性的問題。這只是一些時間安排和安排的事情結合在一起。我希望我們能夠確定最初的發布日期，但這肯定會在今年發布。

You don't mind the overarching search being driven by Amazon search versus your recommendation engine?

您不介意由亞馬遜搜尋而不是您的推薦引擎驅動的整體搜尋嗎？

We have that capability also on different MVPD boxes; also on the Roku, where there's an overall search for titles. So, we recognize that. When you're in the Netflix app, you get a more custom tailored search experience, with various suggestions, but it's up to us to continue to improve that. Amazon's been extremely straightforward and open about allowing us to use that voice search, and that's something we're working on.

我們在不同的 MVPD 盒子上也具備這種能力； Roku 上也可以對標題進行全面搜尋。所以，我們認識到這一點。當您使用 Netflix 應用程式時，您會獲得更客製化的搜尋體驗，並提供各種建議，但我們需要繼續改進這一點。亞馬遜對於允許我們使用語音搜尋非常直接和開放，這就是我們正在努力的事情。

Reed, in your letter, you mentioned MVPD integrations coming in the US this quarter. Is it fair to assume that you'll continue to maintain that billing and customer relationship going forward? Will they look like the initial MVPD set-top box deals that you've done in Europe?

Reed，您在信中提到本季度美國將推出 MVPD 整合。假設您今後將繼續維持計費和客戶關係是否公平？它們看起來會像您在歐洲完成的最初 MVPD 機上盒交易嗎？

Definitely, that's a way to start. It can also look like the Apple TV, where that's billed through iTunes. Whether it's iTunes, PayPal or Virgin doing the billing, it doesn't make that much difference. So, you'll always have, as a consumer, multiple options in how that's integrated. As long as it's a separate line item on the bill -- whatever the price of Netflix is in that territory.

當然，這是一種開始方式。它也可能看起來像 Apple TV，透過 iTunes 計費。無論是 iTunes、PayPal 還是 Virgin 進行計費，都沒有太大差別。因此，作為消費者，您將始終擁有多種整合方式選擇。只要它是帳單上的一個單獨的項目——無論 Netflix 在該地區的價格是多少。

Reed, given the peering interconnection deal you signed with Comcast, is it fair to believe that at some point this year you'll actually be on the X1 box, which I know is something that you've talked about wanting to be on?

Reed，考慮到您與康卡斯特簽署的對等互連協議，是否可以相信今年某個時候您實際上會使用 X1 盒子（我知道您已經談到想要使用 X1 盒子）？

We're definitely staying in a state of: We want to be on it. But I don't have anything more to announce today.

我們肯定會處於這樣的狀態：我們想要參與其中。但今天我沒有什麼好宣布的。

Ted, just, in terms of content, we get a lot of questions about House of Cards season three, and what's going on in Maryland, in terms of production, and Reed is smiling now. Can you just give us a little more color in terms of the status there? Is there any concern here for Netflix customers or investors going forward, around that third season?

特德，就內容而言，我們收到了很多關於《紙牌屋》第三季的問題，以及馬裡蘭州在製作方面的情況，里德現在微笑著。您能為我們介紹一下那裡的現況嗎？ Netflix 的客戶或投資者對第三季的未來有什麼擔憂嗎？

No. Keep in mind: The relationship is fairly complicated there, where you have the production company who receives the benefit of a tax incentive from the state of Maryland to keep the show in Maryland. And there have been ongoing negotiations between MRC, who produces the show for us, and the state of Maryland. But I would anticipate that these are overcome-able issues, and it's a very competitive world out there in terms of attracting production.

不。請記住：那裡的關係相當複雜，製作公司從馬裡蘭州獲得稅收優惠，以將節目保留在馬裡蘭州。為我們製作該節目的 MRC 和馬裡蘭州之間一直在進行談判。但我預期這些問題都是可以克服的，而且在吸引生產方面這是一個競爭非常激烈的世界。

The tax incentives in place for House of Cards in Maryland have resulted in hundreds and hundreds of jobs, and not just for actors, but for carpenters and waitresses and hotel workers. The amount of hotel nights and meals that the production of a television series brings to a state is staggering. So, I think this has been one of those really interesting kind of political volleyballs in Maryland. But Maryland's been really great to the show, and we love being there, and we're hoping that MRC and the state work that out. But the investors and fans are not at risk in any way.

馬裡蘭州《紙牌屋》的稅收優惠政策創造了數百個工作崗位，不僅是演員，還有木匠、女服務員和酒店工作人員。一部電視劇的製作為一個州帶來的酒店住宿和餐飲數量是驚人的。所以，我認為這是馬裡蘭州真正有趣的政治排球之一。但馬裡蘭州的表現非常出色，我們喜歡在那裡，我們希望 MRC 和州政府能夠解決這個問題。但投資者和粉絲不會面臨任何風險。

Ted, as a follow-up on content, have you started to see leverage from your international distribution footprint, in terms of getting the rights to a series? Meaning: Now that you're in X number of countries outside the US, is it becoming easier? Is that an advantage to actually buying series, or is that still on the come until you launch more major countries in Europe and Asia?

泰德，作為內容的跟進者，您是否開始看到您的國際發行足跡在獲得系列劇版權方面的影響力？意思是：現在您已經身處美國以外的 X 個國家/地區，是不是變得更容易了？這對實際購買劇集來說是一個優勢嗎？或者，在你在歐洲和亞洲推出更多主要國家之前，這種優勢是否仍然存在？

It's helpful that -- that's where I think we'll see a lot more meaningful measurement of it, as we expand more aggressively. But I think even seeing things like doing licensing North America together, you see it in where we're launching, where we're premiering shows that premier on US networks, on Netflix around the world; being a single buyer for multiple territories puts us in a unique class of buying. And we hope that we realize some economic advantage of that.

這是有幫助的——我認為，隨著我們更加積極地擴張，我們將看到更多更有意義的衡量標準。但我認為，即使看到像一起在北美進行授權這樣的事情，你也可以在我們推出的地方、我們首映的節目中看到這一點，這些節目在美國網絡、世界各地的 Netflix 上首播；作為多個地區的單一買家使我們處於獨特的購買類別。我們希望我們能夠實現一些經濟優勢。

But also, just in being able to coordinate a massive marketing relationship with the studios and networks that produce those shows, that we can then take and be a one-stop for them, in a world that's pretty fragmented today. So, I think we could bring a lot of efficiencies as a global buyer. Just today, the studios and networks aren't set up to be global sellers yet.

而且，只要能夠與製作這些節目的工作室和網絡協調大規模的營銷關係，我們就可以在當今相當分散的世界中為他們提供一站式服務。因此，我認為作為全球買家，我們可以提高效率。就在今天，工作室和網路還沒有成為全球銷售商。

Ted, just following up on that, do you want to move more toward owning original content directly, more end-to-end and the effect giving you sort of greater control over international rights, distribution going forward? How do you think about that?

特德，接下來，您是否想更多地直接擁有原創內容，更加端到端，從而讓您對國際版權和未來的發行擁有更大的控制權？您對此有何看法？

Doug, I think we see it as what we want to do is we want to be able to make those decisions for how the content is exploited; and the more ownership you have, the more likely you can do that. But you can also do that in negotiations in very long-term license deals, as well.

道格，我認為我們認為我們想要做的是我們希望能夠就如何利用內容做出這些決定；你擁有的所有權越多，你就越有可能做到這一點。但您也可以在長期授權協議的談判中做到這一點。

So, I don't have any religion around ownership versus licensing, as long as we get that suite of rights that we're looking for. And you'll see us, going forward, doing a mix of both, because once you decide you're only going to do programming that you own, I think that you forego a lot of great programming. I think we've actually seen that in the kind of weakening of the programming on networks today, that lean more to like almost 85% ownership, that the quality of the programming suffers for it. We want to put the quality of the programming first, and then the set of deals second. But all along what we want to do is be able to have much more control over the way the content is exploited on and off of Netflix.

因此，我對所有權與許可沒有任何宗教信仰，只要我們獲得我們正在尋找的那套權利。你會看到我們，繼續前進，將兩者結合起來，因為一旦你決定只做你自己的編程，我認為你會放棄很多偉大的編程。我認為我們實際上已經看到了當今網路節目的削弱，更傾向於幾乎 85% 的所有權，節目的品質因此受到影響。我們希望把節目的品質放在第一位，然後才是優惠。但我們一直想做的是能夠對 Netflix 內外內容的利用方式有更多的控制。

And, Ted, are you -- are deals that you're not getting purely based on price? Meaning: You just don't have enough dollars that you can allocate to original programming, and so, you couldn't bid to win something like True Detective? Or are there still shows that want to be on one of the existing linear traditional television outlets?

而且，特德，您是否獲得的交易不是純粹基於價格？意思是：你沒有足夠的資金來分配給原創節目，所以你無法競標贏得像《真探》這樣的東西？或者是否仍然有節目想要在現有的線性傳統電視媒體之一上播出？

No, I'd say that a lot of the programming that we're seeing premiere are shows that have passed through these doors, and it's not that we couldn't afford them, it's just that relative to what we believe the audience is, the deal didn't make sense. You either want to make a deal at the price that you want, or one that you'd be happy to see your competitor pay. A lot of that is at play.

不，我想說的是，我們首映的許多節目都是透過這些大門播出的，並不是我們買不起，而是相對於我們認為的觀眾而言，這筆交易沒有意義。您要么想以您想要的價格達成交易，要么希望看到競爭對手支付您的價格。其中很多都在發揮作用。

I don't think there's any -- we would rather be on one versus the other. I think that Netflix is a number-one or a number-two spot destination for these shows, almost across the board these days. We're very proud of that, and happy with that.

我認為沒有——我們寧願選擇其中一個。我認為 Netflix 是這些節目的第一或第二位目的地，如今幾乎是全面的。我們對此感到非常自豪，並對此感到高興。

And, Ted, where do you stand with rights to recent originals like House of Cards and Orange in international markets? Would you launch in certain markets, for example, France and Germany, if you did not have all of your original content there?

而且，泰德，您對《紙牌屋》和《橙色》等最新原創作品在國際市場上的版權有何看法？如果您沒有在某些市場（例如法國和德國）發布所有原創內容，您會在這些市場上推出嗎？

Yes, sure, we would, because we're going to have a lot of new original shows that will launch between now and then. And we'll also have shows that we're premiering in France and Germany, and other markets around Europe, that we won't necessarily have in the United States.

是的，當然，我們會的，因為從現在到那時我們將推出許多新的原創節目。我們還將在法國和德國以及歐洲其他市場首映節目，但我們不一定會在美國首播。

It's like we talked about earlier with Dusk Till Down, the Breaking Bad spinoff, Better Call Saul, as examples. There's a lot of ways that we're backing the original offering, maybe it's slightly different outside of the US in multiple territories. And some of those original shows, as we launch in other territories around Europe and around the world, we will go back and renegotiate, and pull some of those rights back.

就像我們之前討論過的《絕命毒師》衍生劇《風騷律師》中的《黃昏殺戮》為例。我們有很多方式支持原始產品，也許在美國以外的多個地區略有不同。當我們在歐洲和世界各地的其他地區推出其中一些原創節目時，我們將回去重新談判，並收回其中一些權利。

Maybe that's a good segue to talk about international. Reed, when you look at international markets, a lot has been made of France and Germany being the next two markets that Netflix targets. I guess, as you think about those markets, how do you think about the competitive landscape in continental Europe, as well as the appetite for US content, relative to where you've launched previously, which are generally more English-speaking markets?

也許這是一個很好的話題來談論國際。里德，當你審視國際市場時，你會發現法國和德國是 Netflix 接下來瞄準的兩個市場。我想，當您考慮這些市場時，您如何看待歐洲大陸的競爭格局以及對美國內容的興趣，相對於您之前推出的市場（通常是英語市場）？

We've seen tremendous success in the Netherlands, where we launched six months ago, and that, I think, encourages us about being able to figure out the right programming formula in each nation. When we've had success in Argentina, we've had success in Mexico, in the UK, in the Nordics, and now Netherlands; we're going to get into a broad set of markets. We're going to learn as we go. If we're very fortunate, we'll have programmed it completely correctly from day one. More likely, we'll figure out some stuff's working, some stuff's not; we'll adjust the formula.

我們在六個月前推出的荷蘭取得了巨大成功，我認為這鼓勵我們能夠在每個國家找到正確的程式設計公式。當我們在阿根廷取得成功時，我們在墨西哥、英國、北歐以及現在的荷蘭也取得了成功；我們將進入廣泛的市場。我們將邊走邊學。如果我們非常幸運，我們從第一天起就可以完全正確地對其進行編程。更有可能的是，我們會發現有些東西有效，有些東西無效；我們將調整公式。

But what we've become really convinced about is: Around the world, people want the convenience of internet on demand video, and that that really is a very big and broad need. So, we're stepping up on the international expansion, and we're just going to be pushing ahead, market by market.

但我們真正確信的是：在世界各地，人們都想要網路點播影片的便利，這確實是一個非常大和廣泛的需求。因此，我們正在加緊國際擴張，並且我們將逐個市場地推進。

And keep in mind: Our original shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black have become enormous successes in all of those territories. In France, as an example, the most popular television show in France is The Mentalist from CBS. I don't think that there's some unique hindrance because it's not a primarily English-speaking territory for Netflix.

請記住：我們的原創節目（例如《紙牌屋》和《女子監獄》）在所有這些地區都取得了巨大成功。以法國為例，法國最受歡迎的電視節目是哥倫比亞廣播公司的《超感神探》。我不認為有什麼獨特的障礙，因為它不是 Netflix 的主要英語地區。

Ted, this is David. I was going to make the same point in terms of Brazil being a very non-English-speaking market, and lots of demand for western- or Hollywood-produced content.

特德，這是大衛。我也想表達同樣的觀點，因為巴西是一個非英語市場，對西方或好萊塢製作的內容有大量需求。

Doug and Rich, I think we've got time for one question from each of you.

道格和里奇，我想我們有時間回答你們每人一個問題。

All right. One more each. Pressure's on.

好的。每人多一份。壓力來了

In your letter, Reed, you talk about -- when you're talking about the 2Q guidance or the outlook there, you basically talk about -- you use the words, even in a year with full-year growth, in terms of subscribers. So, I guess, what gives you that confidence this year in 2014 that you can deliver more net adds than you did in 2013?

里德，在你的信中，你談到了——當你談論第二季度指導或前景時，你基本上談論的是——即使是在全年增長的一年中，你也使用了用戶數量方面的詞語。那麼，我想，是什麼讓您有信心在 2014 年實現比 2013 年更多的淨增量？

Well, we always hope to grow net adds, both on a year-over-year basis, and quarter over quarter. We're making good progress on that.

嗯，我們始終希望淨增加量能夠實現同比和季度環比增長。我們在這方面取得了良好進展。

But I don't think that we have specific guidance -- we don't have specific guidance for the year. So, what we're saying there is really a mathematical point, which is: Even in a year where you're up year over year, you can have Q2 be down year over year, because of the increased seasonality.

但我認為我們沒有具體的指導——我們今年沒有具體的指導。所以，我們所說的確實有一個數學點，那就是：即使在逐年增長的一年中，由於季節性的增加，第二季度也可能會逐年下降。

So, you wouldn't want to interpret that or misinterpret it as a backhanded way of sliding in full-year guidance. We're just sticking with our quarterly guidance model at this point, and things are looking good.

因此，你不會想將其解釋或誤解為全年指導下滑的間接方式。目前我們只是堅持季度指導模型，而且情況看起來不錯。

Reed, when you think about international expansion, one of the things that I think a lot of investors have emailed us about is pay TV penetration. And obviously, you're a broadband, or your service rides on broadband, but a lot of people look at the relative pay TV penetrations in several of these overseas markets. Do you look at that as a key driver of where you decide to launch? Or is it all about broadband penetration? Meaning: What are the key things you're looking at to figure out where to launch next, and what the total addressable market is in each of these countries?

里德，當你想到國際擴張時，我認為許多投資者給我們發電子郵件討論的問題之一就是付費電視的滲透率。顯然，你是寬頻，或者你的服務依賴寬頻，但很多人都會關注其中幾個海外市場的相對付費電視滲透率。您是否認為這是您決定推出產品的關鍵驅動因素？或者這一切都與寬頻普及率有關？意義：您正在考慮哪些關鍵因素來確定下一步在哪裡推出，以及這些國家的總目標市場有多大？

Well, I think we're going to turn out to see that the total addressable market over time are human beings that enjoy TV shows and movies, because everybody's going to be on the internet. In terms of pay TV penetration, it's relatively low in the UK -- about 60%, and we've been very successful there. So, when we look at that, we just see there's an unmet need. And whether something is a relatively small broadband -- or sorry, small pay TV penetration, or already large like Canada at 90%, we've been successful in both of those kinds of markets.

好吧，我認為隨著時間的推移，我們將發現整個潛在市場是那些喜歡電視節目和電影的人，因為每個人都會上網。就付費電視普及率而言，英國相對較低——大約 60%，但我們在那裡非常成功。因此，當我們看到這一點時，我們只是看到存在未滿足的需求。無論是相對較小的寬頻——或者抱歉，付費電視普及率較小，還是像加拿大這樣已經達到 90% 的普及率，我們在這兩種市場上都取得了成功。

And again, it comes back to the fundamentals of people wanting to have the convenience and simplicity that the internet enables, whether that's on a smartphone, on a tablet or a smart TV. That's what's making us optimistic about the long term in international. Each quarter, we'll have some real work to do, to figure things out. But I think we're going to find that it's a very big opportunity.

再次，這又回到了人們希望擁有網路帶來的便利和簡單的基本原理，無論是在智慧型手機、平板電腦還是智慧電視上。這就是我們對國際市場長期前景持樂觀態度的原因。每個季度，我們都會有一些實際工作要做，以解決問題。但我認為我們會發現這是一個非常大的機會。

Go ahead.

前進。

Are you seeing wireless become a bigger part of your story, in terms of actual time spent watching, especially overseas?

就實際觀看時間而言，尤其是在海外，您是否認為無線電視在您的故事中佔據更重要的地位？

There's a funny dichotomy. So, there's a good amount of watching on a mobile phone, but usually when it's on Wi-Fi because of the data caps. So, wireless plans, cellular plans generally have data caps between 2 and 5 gigabytes, which you can use up pretty quickly. And consumers are very aware of whether they're on Wi-Fi or not, and so they're using the mobile phones and tablets, but mostly on Wi-Fi rather than on cellular.

有一個有趣的二分法。因此，人們在手機上觀看的次數很多，但由於數據上限，通常是在 Wi-Fi 上觀看。因此，無線套餐、蜂窩套餐的數據上限通常在 2 到 5 GB 之間，您很快就會用完。消費者非常清楚他們是否使用 Wi-Fi，因此他們使用手機和平板電腦，但主要使用 Wi-Fi，而不是蜂窩網路。

Now, if, with 4G, we see more competition and lowering prices, and eventually uncapped plans, as they try to compete with wired, then we could see more of that. But right now, that's not what we're seeing in wireless.

現在，如果我們看到 4G 的競爭更加激烈，價格不斷下降，並最終實現無上限的計劃，因為他們試圖與有線網路競爭，那麼我們可能會看到更多這樣的情況。但現在，這並不是我們在無線領域看到的情況。

So -- go ahead.

所以請繼續。

I was going to say: So, if the FCC kind of seems focused on encouraging intermodal competition, if Sprint and T-Mo were to actually merge, that could actually create more competition for Comcast, and be good for Netflix?

我想說：那麼，如果 FCC 似乎專注於鼓勵多式聯運競爭，如果 Sprint 和 T-Mo 真正合併，這實際上可能會給康卡斯特帶來更多競爭，並對 Netflix 有利？

It's a long way till 4G. They first have to be competitive with Verizon and AT&T Wireless, and that's quite a challenge that they're focused on. So, I'm afraid that that, as a realistic alternative, is very speculative at this point that they would be able to compete for residential broadband with cable. So, at this point, cable's the dominant technology.

距離4G還有很長的路要走。他們首先必須與 Verizon 和 AT&T Wireless 競爭，這是他們關注的相當大的挑戰。因此，我擔心，作為一種現實的替代方案，目前他們是否能夠與有線電視競爭住宅寬頻是非常推測性的。因此，在這一點上，電纜是主導技術。

So, with that, let me thank you guys for being on and interviewing us. David, did you want to close?

因此，讓我感謝你們接受我們的訪問。大衛，你想關門嗎？

No, I was just giving you the heads up that we're out of time. So, please, conclude comments, and go ahead.

不，我只是提醒你我們已經沒時間了。所以，請結束評論，然後繼續。

Great. Okay. Thank you, everyone. With that, we'll sign off. Thank you.

偉大的。好的。謝謝大家。這樣，我們就結束了。謝謝。