Netflix Inc (NFLX) 2014 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Welcome to the Netflix Q2 2014 earnings interview. I'm David Wells, CFO. I'm joined today on the Company side by Reed Hastings, our CEO, and Ted Sarandos, our Chief Content Officer. Interviewing us today will once again be Doug Anmuth from JPMorgan, and joining us today for the first time will be Michael Nathanson, from MoffettNathanson, who receives the baton from Rich Greenfield.

歡迎收看 Netflix 2014 年第二季財報採訪。我是財務長大衛威爾斯。今天，我們的執行長里德·黑斯廷斯 (Reed Hastings) 和首席內容官特德·薩蘭多斯 (Ted Sarandos) 也加入了公司的行列。今天接受我們採訪的將是來自摩根大通的道格·安穆斯(Doug Anmuth)，而今天首次加入我們的將是來自莫菲特內森森(MoffettNathanson) 的邁克爾·內桑森(Michael Nathanson)，他從里奇·格林菲爾德(Rich Greenfield) 手中接過了接力棒。

We will be making forward-looking statements today. Actual results may vary. Our first question comes from Doug, so I'll turn it over to Doug.

我們今天將發表前瞻性聲明。實際結果可能有所不同。我們的第一個問題來自道格，所以我將把它交給道格。

Great, thanks, David. Welcome, everybody, and thank you to Netflix for having Michael and me host today's conference call. So our first question, just on international strength, Reed, if you could talk about what drove the international strength in subscribers in Q2? You called out a couple things in particular, in terms of the Virgin deal, in terms of a set top box integration, and then also smart TV viewing in Latin America, so was hoping you could add a little bit more color on those, as well.

太好了，謝謝，大衛。歡迎大家，並感謝 Netflix 邀請麥可和我主持今天的電話會議。所以我們的第一個問題，關於國際實力，里德，您能否談談是什麼推動了第二季國際訂戶實力？您特別指出了一些事情，例如維珍交易、機頂盒整合以及拉丁美洲的智慧電視觀看，因此希望您可以在這些方面添加更多色彩，因為出色地。

You bet, Doug. I mean, what we've seen really is just tremendous adoption of On Demand viewing. Consumers around the world, whether it's Argentina, Brazil, Finland, the UK, its been really quite consistent, so there's some accelerators that we talked about with the smart TV.

你敢打賭，道格。我的意思是，我們所看到的只是點播觀看的大量採用。世界各地的消費者，無論是阿根廷、巴西、芬蘭、英國，都非常一致，所以我們談到了智慧電視的一些加速器。

But there's probably no better symbol of how strong this On Demand phenomenon than to tell you that during the World Cup, we were concerned that we would see a drop off around the world, particularly in Brazil, and that we didn't want to over-read it, if we saw a drop off in net adds and growth. And what was incredible is just how straight our line of net additions were in Brazil during the World Cup, and that's nothing, I don't think, that we're specifically doing. It's really this growing demand for control, and for the consumer to be able to click and watch what they want. And so that's why we're stepping up on the international expansion, is because we really see that this is an enormous moment in history as On Demand Internet services are coming to the fore around the world.

但是，沒有什麼比告訴你世界盃期間，我們會看到世界各地的觀眾數量下降，特別是巴西的觀眾數量下降，而我們不想過度關注這種點播現象的強烈程度了。- 如果我們看到淨增加和增長下降，請閱讀它。令人難以置信的是，世界盃期間我們在巴西的淨增球員數量是多麼的直線，我認為這並不是我們專門做的。這實際上是對控制的需求不斷增長，以及消費者能夠點擊並觀看他們想要的內容。這就是我們加緊國際擴張的原因，因為我們確實看到這是歷史上的一個重要時刻，因為按需網路服務正在世界各地脫穎而出。

Okay, David, can I ask you one on incremental margins? If you look at your margins in the first half of the year, you've grown your margins incrementally 45%, dropping down from revenues to margin, to profits. Why don't you think margins can continue growing at the 400 basis point range that you saw, and why did you identify different levels, the 100, 200, 400 basis point level of improvement? What controls those potential margin levels?

好的，大衛，我可以問你一個關於增量利潤的問題嗎？如果你看看今年上半年的利潤率，你會發現你的利潤率逐漸增加了 45%，從收入下降到利潤率，再到利潤。為什麼您不認為利潤率可以在您看到的 400 個基點範圍內繼續增長，為什麼您會確定不同的水平，即 100、200、400 個基點的改善水平？是什麼控制著這些潛在的保證金水準？

Well, Michael, I don't know if I agree with your premise. I don't think we said that margins will stop growing, or will shift to 200. What we said is, when we get to 30%, we want to give ourselves a little bit of leeway to reevaluate.

好吧，邁克爾，我不知道我是否同意你的前提。我不認為我們說過利潤率會停止成長，或會轉向200。我們所說的是，當我們達到30%時，我們想給自己一點重新評估的空間。

There's a number of things that we'll weigh and balance, and that is the competitive set, what we want to spend on content, how we want to grow that, how our average subscription price is growing with the recent price changes, it's still very early on those, so there's a number of things that will balance out, and we want to give ourselves the leeway to back off a little bit, if we think that's the right trade-off to make, in terms of spending more on content. It doesn't mean that we will. It just means that we're trying to create a little bit of room for ourselves, especially with all of those unknowns, as we get closer to next year.

我們將權衡和平衡很多事情，那就是競爭環境，我們想在內容上花多少錢，我們想如何增長它，我們的平均訂閱價格如何隨著最近的價格變化而增長，它仍然是很早就開始了，所以有很多事情會平衡，如果我們認為這是正確的權衡，我們希望給自己一點退縮的餘地，在內容上花費更多。這並不意味著我們會這樣做。這只是意味著，隨著明年的臨近，我們正在努力為自己創造一點空間，尤其是面對所有這些未知因素。

Okay, thanks. And Reed, in the letter, you talked about the price changes having a minimal impact on growth overall, but can you just provide a little bit more color? Do you think, in terms of the nuances, did it impact churn, or help reduce churn in any way during the quarter? And what's your view on the way the price change could impact going forward?

好的謝謝。里德，在信中，您談到價格變化對整體成長的影響很小，但您能否提供更多資訊？您認為，就細微差別而言，它是否影響了客戶流失率，或以任何方式幫助減少了本季的客戶流失率？您對價格變動對未來可能產生的影響有何看法？

I think we've seen, really, the impact of the price change go through already, so it's pretty nominal, both in terms of acquisition, which in principle becomes a little bit harder, because of the roughly $1 higher prices, or in retention, which could be a hair better from the grandfathered subs. But it's only $1 difference, so I really think that it's background noise, which is what we want it to be. We want to think of what we do, as we're steadily improving the content and the growth and the word of mouth, and that when we make a small change in price, and handle it appropriately, it really makes no noticeable effect in the business, so that's why we're thrilled with that outcome.

我認為我們確實已經看到了價格變化的影響，所以無論是在收購方面還是在保留方面，這在原則上都變得有點困難，因為價格上漲了大約 1 美元，或者在保留方面，這可能比祖父的潛水艇要好一點。但只有 1 美元的差異，所以我真的認為這是背景噪音，這正是我們想要的。我們要思考我們所做的事情，因為我們正在穩步提高內容、成長和口碑，當我們在價格上做出微小的改變並適當處理時，它確實不會對市場產生明顯的影響。業務，所以這就是為什麼我們對這個結果感到興奮。

Okay. David, I wondered if looking at your guidance for Q3, would you have gotten to breakeven internationally in the third quarter, if it wasn't for the new market launches? And should we think about the growth rate and costs in the third quarter sustainable into the fourth quarter internationally?

好的。大衛，我想知道如果沒有新市場的推出，您是否會在第三季實現國際收支平衡？我們是否應該考慮國際上第三季的成長率和成本可持續到第四季？

So in terms of our international guide, I think that you can see that most of that is our new markets. So yes, we would be pretty close to breakeven, if not at breakeven, for Q3 in our existing markets, and then the second part of your question was again, could you repeat that?

因此，就我們的國際指南而言，我認為您可以看到其中大部分是我們的新市場。所以，是的，在我們現有市場的第三季度，即使不是達到盈虧平衡，我們也會非常接近盈虧平衡，然後你問題的第二部分又是，你能再說一遍嗎？

Well if you look at that inflation in Q3 from let's say breakeven to where you're guiding to, should we assume that continues to the fourth quarter? It seems like a logical assumption, that there won't be a lot of change.

好吧，如果你看看第三季的通膨率，從盈虧平衡點到你所指導的水平，我們是否應該假設這種情況會持續到第四季？這似乎是一個合乎邏輯的假設，不會有太多變化。

I see what you mean. Well, just a reminder that our launches that we're saying are in the back half of the third quarter, so they are not a full quarter of content spending. So you're going to get that full quarter of content spending for the first time in Q4. So our typical pattern has been to grow content spend from the launch quarter. In marketing, it balloons a little bit in that first quarter of growth as we launch a brand new brand in those markets and then it tends to settle down into a run rate, and that should give you some trending on our international cost.

我明白你的意思了。好吧，只是提醒一下，我們所說的發布是在第三季後半段，所以它們並不是整個季度的內容支出。因此，您將在第四季度首次獲得整個季度的內容支出。因此，我們的典型模式是從發布季度開始增加內容支出。在行銷方面，隨著我們在這些市場推出一個全新品牌，它在第一季的成長中會稍微膨脹，然後它往往會穩定下來，這應該會給你一些關於我們的國際成本的趨勢。

Thanks.

謝謝。

Great, and Ted, just perhaps one more question just related to Q2, and then we'll move on. Can you comment on Orange Is the New Black? You talked about in the letter how it became the most watched show in every country during Q2. Are there any other updates that you can provide around usage metrics, and then maybe talk about what you saw in Orange in Q2 perhaps versus the second season of House of Cards a quarter earlier?

太棒了，Ted，也許還有一個與第二季相關的問題，然後我們將繼續。你能評論一下《女子監獄》嗎？您在信中談到了它如何成為第二季度每個國家收視率最高的節目。您是否可以提供有關使用指標的任何其他更新，然後也許可以談談您在第二季度《Orange》中看到的內容（也許與一個季度前的《紙牌屋》第二季相比）？

Well, I think it continued the positive trajectory that we saw from House of Cards, meaning that the excitement from a second season is amplified from something like a show that people don't really know a lot about yet, or in the case of House of Cards, before we even launched that, nobody knew what a Netflix original series was going to be like. So here you had a large pool of people around the world anxious for that second season to hit. You saw it in the social media buzz, that was really phenomenal for that launch, and it gives us a lot of confidence for the outlying seasons for Orange Is the New Black, and our other original series as well.

嗯，我認為它延續了我們在《紙牌屋》中看到的積極軌跡，這意味著第二季的興奮感被人們還不太了解的節目之類的東西放大了，或者就《紙牌屋》而言在我們推出《紙牌》之前，沒有人知道 Netflix 原創影集會是什麼樣子。因此，世界各地有很多人都渴望第二季的到來。你在社群媒體的熱議中看到了這一點，這對該系列的推出來說確實是驚人的，它給了我們對《女子監獄》以及我們其他原創系列的邊遠季節充滿信心。

I have one for Ted and for Reed together. So last week, Fox announced interest in acquiring Time-Warner, two companies you know a lot about. If a merger were to occur, how do you think that could affect your negotiating leverage to get acquired and original programming, and is this a deal that you would block, Reed, given the scale of the TV and film output from both companies?

我為泰德和里德準備了一份。上週，福斯宣布有興趣收購時代華納，這兩家公司你都非常了解。如果發生合併，你認為這會如何影響你獲得收購和原創節目的談判籌碼？鑑於兩家公司電視和電影產量的規模，里德，你會阻止這項交易嗎？

Michael, I'd say that Fox and Warner are both pretty powerful companies today, particularly in the area of original production for television and film, so I don't know how that changes much, in terms of them coming together. Wouldn't want to make a lot of speculation about what's driving it. Probably has a lot more to do with cable negotiations in sports than consolidating power in production. It's very difficult to corner the market on creativity or ideas, so I don't see that how it would affect things too dramatically in these early days.

邁克爾，我想說福斯和華納現在都是相當強大的公司，特別是在電視和電影的原創製作領域，所以我不知道他們走到一起會帶來多大的變化。不想對驅動它的因素做出很多猜測。可能與體育賽事中的有線電視談判有關，而不是鞏固生產實力。在創造力或想法上壟斷市場是非常困難的，所以我不認為這會對早期的事情產生太大的影響。

And Michael, I don't have any speculation for you on what we would do. There's not even a deal between those companies, so we'll take it as it comes. But as Ted said, the more that we're working directly with producers, the less vulnerable we are to aggregation in the big content suppliers.

邁克爾，我對我們會做什麼沒有任何猜測。這些公司之間甚至還沒有達成任何協議，所以我們就順其自然吧。但正如泰德所說，我們與製作人直接合作的次數越多，我們就越不容易受到大型內容供應商聚集的影響。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

Just following up there in terms of content, and on studio related, do you feel like you have the need to own your own studio production capabilities, to protect yourself from some of the risks potentially associated with fewer production houses to buy from? Would you create your own studio from scratch perhaps, or would it make sense to be acquisitive in this area?

就內容和工作室相關而言，您是否覺得需要擁有自己的工作室製作能力，以保護自己免受因可購買的製作公司較少而可能帶來的一些風險？您是否會從頭開始創建自己的工作室，或者在這個領域進行收購是否有意義？

I think a lot of it is tactical in terms of how you go about the production cost. Do you want to own the infrastructure versus hire it or rent it, and you'd make those decisions as you go. There's probably some advantages to either model, and we'll keep exploring them as we own more and more of our production, as we go forward. But think about it as the difference between renting sound stage time, or owning the stage itself. It really depends on the volume of production you're planning to ramp up.

我認為，就如何處理生產成本而言，很多都是戰術性的。您是想擁有基礎設施還是租用它或租用它，您可以隨時做出這些決定。這兩種模型可能都有一些優點，隨著我們擁有越來越多的產品，隨著我們的前進，我們將繼續探索它們。但可以將其視為租用攝影棚時間或擁有舞臺本身之間的區別。這實際上取決於您計劃增加的產量。

Okay, Reed, can I shift you to the net neutrality debate, which I know you've shared a lot with already. But in your opinion, what is the right regulatory approach for the US, and should the FCC regulate the broadband industry as entitled to service? So I want to know if you could affect change of regulatory view, how would you do it?

好的，里德，我可以讓您談談網路中立性辯論嗎？我知道您已經對此分享了很多內容。但您認為，美國正確的監管方式是什麼？FCC 是否應該將寬頻產業監管為有權提供服務？所以我想知道如果你可以影響監管觀點的改變，你會怎麼做？

Well I think the most practical thing would be for the FCC to make it a merger condition policy, of strong net neutrality, including no-fee interconnect, so that's our main focuses around the merger acquisitions. In terms of the broad policy framework, it's tough in the US, because there doesn't seem to be much chance that Congress will pass a new law, and so then you've got imperfect instruments in Title II and Section 706. So the fundamental, though, is really for the FCC has the power in merger conditions, and clearly going to be a lot of mergers to be able to institute strong net neutrality, so we think that's the most pragmatic approach.

嗯，我認為最實際的事情是聯邦通信委員會將其製定為合併條件政策，具有很強的網路中立性，包括免費互連，所以這是我們圍繞合併收購的主要關注點。就廣泛的政策框架而言，這在美國很困難，因為國會通過新法律的機會似乎不大，因此第二章和第 706 條中的工具並不完善。不過，最根本的是，聯邦通信委員會實際上擁有製定合併條件的權力，並且顯然將進行大量合併，以便能夠建立強大的網路中立性，因此我們認為這是最務實的方法。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

Just following up there, Reed, last week in your comment letter to the FCC, you said that the Internet is at a crossroads and there's a risk of going down the path toward cable TV. Can you talk about what you meant there in a little bit more detail, and then why you think the other road is better for the industry?

里德，上週您在給 FCC 的評論信中表示，網路正處於十字路口，有走上有線電視之路的風險。您能否更詳細地談談您的意思，然後為什麼您認為另一條路對行業更好？

Sure. In the cable industry, there's been constant conflict between the networks and the cable distributors, leading to blackouts and brownouts, trying to figure out pricing. And we would hate to see ISPs brownout or blackout certain Internet sites while they tried to extract payments. That just ruins the consumer experiences idea, that when you sign up for the Internet you can get everywhere.

當然。在有線電視產業，網路和有線電視經銷商之間一直存在衝突，導致停電和限電，試圖找出定價。我們不願意看到網路服務供應商在試圖收取費用時對某些網路站點進行限製或封鎖。這只會破壞消費者體驗的想法，即當你註冊網路時，你就可以到達任何地方。

So, it's finding an industry structure that works for everybody, that allows there to be great investment in super high speed broadband, but also a stable, understood, interconnect structure that makes it able so the consumers can get all of the services they want. And those doing content services like ourselves and Hulu and others can innovate, without the fear of being taxed. So that's why we're so big on the no-fee interconnect.

因此，它正在尋找一種適合所有人的行業結構，允許對超高速寬頻進行大量投資，同時也找到一種穩定、易於理解的互​​連結構，使消費者能夠獲得他們想要的所有服務。那些像我們、Hulu 和其他公司這樣提供內容服務的人可以進行創新，而不必擔心被徵稅。這就是我們如此熱衷於免費互連的原因。

Reed, it's Michael. Following up on that as the media analyst here, I would say if you look at the power of retrans is the content owner that has the power over the dumb pipe. When I look at where we are going as a Company, you're making more investments in original content, exclusive content. You are the content owner. So why do you think you won't be able to, why don't you think you don't have the power to force the pipes into putting you on whatever you want, because you are the content to what I'm subscribing to?

里德，我是麥可。作為這裡的媒體分析師，我想說的是，如果你看看重傳的力量，內容所有者就擁有對啞管道的權力。當我審視我們公司的發展方向時，我們會在原創內容、獨家內容上進行更多投資。您是內容所有者。那麼你為什麼認為你不能，為什麼你不認為你沒有權力強迫管道把你放在你想要的任何東西上，因為你是我訂閱的內容的內容？

Sure, there's a lot of ways to think about it. We do get asked in the cable business, so for example, HBO is our peer in the cable business. They actually charge the distributor rather than pay the distributor, and so the question comes up, should we over time be charging ISPs for the privilege of carrying our data to their customers, and charging for that?

當然，有很多方法可以思考。我們在有線電視產業確實會被問到，例如 HBO 就是我們在有線電視產業的同行。他們實際上向分銷商收取費用，而不是向分銷商付款，因此問題出現了，隨著時間的推移，我們是否應該向 ISP 收取將我們的資料傳送給其客戶的特權，並為此收費？

And again, I don't think so. I think the Internet really has this different much more open architecture than classic cable, where we meet in the middle, we bring the bits to where they want, we don't charge them, they don't charge us. Both sides innovate, it's very open structure, and I think then you get more competitors for Netflix frankly, but what you get is this open vibrant system that the Internet has been so famous for, and that's really the tradition that we grew up in, and that we're trying to see carry forward, and I'm optimistic about it, frankly.

再說一遍，我不這麼認為。我認為互聯網確實具有比傳統電纜更加開放的架構，我們在中間相遇，我們將比特帶到他們想要的地方，我們不向他們收費，他們也不向我們收費。雙方都在創新，這是一個非常開放的結構，坦白說，我認為這樣你就會為Netflix 帶來更多的競爭對手，但你得到的是這個開放的、充滿活力的系統，互聯網因此而聞名，這確實是我們成長的傳統，我們正在努力看到這一點，坦白說，我對此持樂觀態度。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

And Reed, actually for David let me switch gears a little bit, but sticking with net neutrality. If the condition in the case arises where we don't have strong net neutrality going forward, how do investors get assurances that the business is protected, in terms of cost, perhaps interconnection costs over time? And really thinking about it both on a short-term basis, and then over the long term.

里德，其實是為了大衛，讓我稍微改變一下態度，但堅持網路中立。如果發生這種情況，我們未來不具備強大的網路中立性，那麼投資者如何確保業務在成本方面受到保護，也許是隨著時間的推移互連成本？並真正考慮短期和長期的問題。

Well on a short-term basis, I think there's great assurances in the sense that we've been able to sign these immediate interconnect deals, and still able to achieve our margin targets, and our guidance implies those costs are embedded. So I do think it's about a long term cost, and we'll see where we go from here in terms of the years.

從短期來看，我認為我們已經能夠立即簽署這些互連協議，並且仍然能夠實現我們的利潤目標，因此我們有很大的保證，我們的指導意味著這些成本已包含在內。所以我確實認為這是一個長期成本，我們將看看接下來幾年我們會走向何方。

I think for Netflix, content is our largest cost. It dwarfs all of the other costs, so I think it's really about profit margin at that point, in terms of how much margin goes to a delivery cost, versus other costs in our business. We would rather spend it on content.

我認為對Netflix來說，內容是我們最大的成本。它使所有其他成本相形見絀，所以我認為這實際上與利潤率有關，即與我們業務中的其他成本相比，有多少利潤用於交付成本。我們寧願把錢花在內容上。

Reed, this should be our last one after net neutrality. You referenced the Virgin relationship in the UK as being helpful. Can you give us any more specifics on the rates of growth you get, when you become closer to the distributor or the MSO? Is there anything you can talk about, maybe growth rates in the UK, pre- and post- the Virgin relationship?

里德，這應該是我們在網路中立之後的最後一次。您提到維珍在英國的關係很有幫助。當您與經銷商或 MSO 更加接近時，您能否提供更多關於您獲得的成長率的具體資訊？您有什麼可以談的嗎？也許是英國在維珍關係之前和之後的成長率？

Well we've only been live on Virgin for about six months, so what we can say is the initial reaction has been positive. It's not transformative to ballpark it, I don't think, for either of us but it's great for consumers on input, number one, that's their default input, to be able to use Netflix on the device, the Virgin set top that they use most of the time. So I would say it's an incremental positive. When you look, there's so many new smart TVs coming, that have Netflix built in. There's going to be lots of ways to access Netflix -- Chromecast, Apple TV, smart TV, MVPD set-top, so it's a nice positive, but it's not transformative.

好吧，我們在維珍上上線僅六個月左右，所以我們可以說最初的反應是積極的。我不認為這對我們任何一個人來說都不會帶來變革，但對於消費者來說，第一，這是他們的預設輸入，能夠在他們使用的維珍機上盒設備上使用Netflix 是很棒的大多數時候。所以我想說這是一個積極的增量。你會發現，有很多內建 Netflix 的新型智慧電視即將推出。訪問 Netflix 的方式有很多種——Chromecast、Apple TV、智慧電視、MVPD 機上盒，所以這是一個很好的積極因素，但這不是變革性的。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

David, a question just around free cash flow. As you're ramping up originals here fairly aggressively, and you obviously mention a number of titles that are in production, and as that ramps up into 2015, can you just help us understand how we should think about the impact in terms of working capital around originals, and how we should think about that future trajectory of free cash flow versus EPS going forward? Thanks.

大衛，一個關於自由現金流的問題。當你在這裡相當積極地增加原創作品時，你顯然提到了一些正在製作的遊戲，並且隨著2015年的增加，你能否幫助我們理解我們應該如何考慮營運資本方面的影響圍繞原始數據，我們應該如何思考自由現金流與每股盈餘的未來軌跡？謝謝。

Sure. It's no different than we've said before, which is the two main things that are pressuring cash use. Our content expansion, predominantly our produced content, as well as our international expansion. So Doug, I don't think anything has changed.

當然。這與我們之前所說的沒有什麼不同，這是對現金使用造成壓力的兩個主要因素。我們的內容擴張，主要是我們製作的內容，以及我們的國際擴張。所以道格，我認為沒有任何改變。

I will say that we've been able to bump along at flat to slightly up, in terms of free cash flow. If we expand more aggressively internationally obviously that will pressure a little bit, and as we continue to expand original content and produced content that will expand. So investors should expect to see a little bit of a dip in Q4 and Q1, and it will be tied to that expansion of content, and in the future, it really depends on how fast we expand internationally.

我想說的是，就自由現金流而言，我們已經能夠保持平穩或略有上升。如果我們在國際上更加積極地擴張，顯然這會帶來一些壓力，隨著我們繼續擴大原創內容和製作內容，這種壓力將會擴大。因此，投資者應該預期第四季度和第一季會出現一些下滑，這將與內容的擴張有關，而未來，這實際上取決於我們國際擴張的速度。

Ted, following on that answer, how does the content offerings differ, domestically and internationally? How does the local language factor play in? Do you have to source more locally than we probably would expect in France and Germany versus Canada and the UK? So any update on your strategies on sourcing content internationally?

泰德（Ted），根據這個答案，國內和國際提供的內容有何不同？當地語言因素如何發揮作用？您是否需要在法國和德國而不是加拿大和英國進行比我們預期更多的本地採購？那麼你們在國際上採購內容的策略有什麼更新嗎？

Well Michael, what's been really great is how much the content travels. So in all of the international territories, and France and Germany don't appear to be that much different, it's somewhere between 10% and 20% local, and mostly the rest will be international product. Mostly Hollywood product that people want to see around the world. So we do have a heavy focus on accessing the local content that matters, and establishing local relationships with the local producers in every market. We imagine when we get out to some more exotic parts of the world, that may skew a little more local, but to date its been well within that 20% local range.

邁克爾，真正很棒的是內容的傳播量。因此，在所有國際地區，法國和德國似乎沒有太大的不同，本地產品的比例在 10% 到 20% 之間，其餘大部分將是國際產品。主要是世界各地人們想看到的好萊塢產品。因此，我們確實非常注重獲取重要的本地內容，並與每個市場的本地生產商建立本地關係。我們想像，當我們前往世界上一些更具異國情調的地方時，這可能會更加偏向本地化，但迄今為止，它完全在 20% 的本地化範圍內。

Thanks.

謝謝。

So a question on international expansion, perhaps for Reed. So if we think about the six markets that are coming here over the next few months, it feels like there are some specific nuances to some of them, perhaps Germany, which is more of a debit card than a credit card market for example, France, which has some protections around its own local content. Can you talk about some of those nuances, and how they are likely to impact your business?

這是一個關於國際擴張的問題，也許對里德來說。因此，如果我們考慮未來幾個月即將到來的六個市場，感覺其中一些市場存在一些具體的細微差別，也許是德國，它更像是藉記卡而不是信用卡市場，例如法國，它對自己的本地內容有一些保護。您能否談談其中一些細微差別，以及它們可能如何影響您的業務？

Well, I think, Doug, in every market around the world there are nuances. Just to give you an example, in Brazil, there's a tremendous payment complexity, plus the leadership of TV Globo. In Canada, there's the CRTC. In the UK, the BBC is quite unique in its role in society.

嗯，我認為，道格，世界各地的每個市場都存在細微差別。舉個例子，在巴西，支付非常複雜，再加上環球電視台的領導角色。在加拿大，有 CRTC。在英國，BBC 在社會中的作用相當獨特。

So think of us as adapting to the local conditions in each case. As you point out, in Germany, there's a number of aspects that are unique, as well as in France. And we're going to see this as we continue to expand beyond France and Germany and other countries, that there's unique conditions in every market. And our challenge and excitement around the Company is becoming a great global Company where we really understand the nuance of each of these markets, and do a great job for consumers around the world.

因此，我們要因地制宜。正如您所指出的，德國和法國都有很多獨特之處。隨著我們繼續向法國、德國和其他國家以外的地區擴張，我們將看到每個市場都有獨特的條件。我們公司所面臨的挑戰和興奮正在成為一家偉大的全球性公司，我們真正了解每個市場的細微差別，並為世界各地的消費者提供出色的服務。

So there are some challenges there, there's no question. I'm sure we will stub our toes on some things, and learn and pick up the pieces, like with payments in the beginning of Lat Am three years ago. But we've got a lot of confidence about being able to figure out the issues once we get started. So that's why our view is we should get in the market, we should figure things out, and then we'll figure out those issues again around payments or other things in Germany and in France.

所以毫無疑問地存在一些挑戰。我確信我們會嘗試一些事情，學習並收拾殘局，就像三年前拉丁美洲年初的付款。但我們對一旦開始就能夠解決問題充滿信心。這就是為什麼我們的觀點是我們應該進入市場，我們應該解決問題，然後我們將在德國和法國再次解決有關支付或其他問題的這些問題。

Following on the answer to France for Reed, there's a government policy in France called cultural exception, and you're familiar with it, where you have to fund a certain number of local productions, and pay also taxes to an authority. So how do you get around that issue, where in France, I know is very protectionist about the content that can be shown there?

繼里德對法國的回答之後，法國有一項政府政策，稱為文化例外，你很熟悉它，你必須資助一定數量的當地製作，並向當局納稅。那麼，如何解決這個問題？據我所知，在法國，對於可以在那裡展示的內容，保護主義非常嚴重？

Well, we aren't really trying to get around anything. We want to invest in French society and in French content, and we want to give an avenue for French content to get out around the world. There's some amazing French storytellers, there's a great French movie business, TV shows are growing. We're looking to do some investments in France with production that we can do, we joke about it being House of Cards, being House of Versailles. That's not literally the kind of thing it would be, but something like that, where it's a big French production, but it's not just for France, it's for the whole world. We're actively licensing, again, French content.

好吧，我們並不是真的想迴避任何事。我們希望投資法國社會和法國內容，我們希望為法國內容走向世界提供途徑。法國有一些令人驚嘆的說故事的人，法國電影業很發達，電視節目也在成長。我們希望在法國進行一些投資，並利用我們可以做的製作，我們開玩笑說它是紙牌屋，是凡爾賽宮。這不是字面上的意思，而是類似的東西，這是一部法國大製作，但它不僅是為了法國，也是為了全世界。我們再次積極授權法國內容。

Think of what we're trying to do as connecting the world, as some of the world's best content brought to the world's citizens, and that's really motivating for Ted, for me, for all of the people at Netflix. And so, we definitely got to work with French society, and with the assumptions and beliefs that they have. And we want to be loved in France by French consumers, because we understand French content, because we give it a bigger home, and because we bring them some variety like US television shows, things that historically have been under-distributed. Ted, do you want to add to that?

想想我們正在努力連結世界，將世界上最好的內容帶給全世界的公民，這對泰德、我和 Netflix 的所有員工來說都是巨大的激勵。因此，我們肯定要與法國社會以及他們的假設和信念合作。我們希望在法國受到法國消費者的喜愛，因為我們了解法國內容，因為我們給它一個更大的家，因為我們為他們帶來了一些像美國電視節目這樣的多樣性，而這些東西在歷史上一直未被充分傳播。特德，你想補充一下嗎？

Yes, I would just say for all of that protectionism and all of the cultural favors, that The Mentalist is the most popular television show in France, so the tastes don't run that far off when you get down to the consumer. But I'm really excited to have France look at us as somebody who brings opportunity to the market, not there to harm the market in any way, and that we will employ French production employees, and create great content in France.

是的，我只想說，儘管有所有的保護主義和所有的文化優惠，《超感神探》是法國最受歡迎的電視節目，所以當你深入消費者時，品味並沒有偏離那麼遠。但我真的很高興法國將我們視為為市場帶來機會的人，而不是以任何方式損害市場的人，並且我們將僱用法國製作員工，並在法國創造精彩的內容。

But as Reed said, for around the world, and we currently even have -- Gaumont is a French Company that produces Hemlock Grove for us now, and is about to go into production with Narcos. A lot of our animation projects are co-productions with French production companies, so this is not new ground for us, we're really excited about it.

但正如里德所說，對於世界各地，我們目前甚至有——高蒙是一家法國公司，現在為我們生產鐵杉林，並將與毒梟一起投入生產。我們的許多動畫項目都是與法國製作公司合作製作的，所以這對我們來說並不是什麼新鮮事，我們對此感到非常興奮。

Ted, just following up there, can you give us an update on certain content that you have as originals in the US and other parts of the world, but that you don't currently own on a first run basis in Germany and France? I believe such as House of Cards, and your thoughts just on how material that is to the service?

Ted，接下來，您能否向我們介紹您在美國和世界其他地區擁有原創但目前在德國和法國尚未擁有的某些內容的最新情況？我相信《紙牌屋》，您對這對服務的重要性有何看法？

Well, Doug, because we're expanding our originals so rapidly, I don't think it's necessarily detrimental. We would love to have had House of Cards in the first window in France and Germany, but its been very successful for others there. But Orange Is the New Black we will be launching for the first time in those territories, and all of our going forward series will also be there. And we're backfilling by having some other first-run content like From Dusk Till Dawn and other series, that will premier in France and Germany for the first time on Netflix as well.

好吧，道格，因為我們正在如此迅速地擴展我們的原創內容，所以我認為這不一定是有害的。我們很想在法國和德國的第一個窗口推出《紙牌屋》，但它對那裡的其他國家來說非常成功。但《女子監獄》將在這些地區首次推出，我們所有的後續系列也將在那裡。我們也推出了一些其他首播內容，例如《殺出個黎明》和其他劇集，這些內容也將在法國和德國首次在 Netflix 上首播。

Ted, do you have to change the way you source content? Would it be more efficient for the Company to buy all rights and all media going forward? So how do you think about that and what is your impact to the business model by doing that?

Ted，您是否需要改變獲取內容的方式？對公司來說，購買所有版權和所有媒體是否會更有效率？那麼您對此有何看法？這樣做對您的商業模式有何影響？

The more we expand, the more you reach those tipping points where the economics make sense to buy out the rest of the world, for different projects. When we first got in, remember, we were taking a pretty big bet on House of Cards right off the bat, so we were hedging it a bit, by leaving some of those other territories on the table. And as we've gotten more and more international, and more and more original, we're picking up those territories today.

我們擴張得越多，就越能達到臨界點，從經濟角度來看，為不同的專案購買世界其他地區的股份是有意義的。請記住，當我們第一次進入時，我們立即在《紙牌屋》上下了相當大的賭注，因此我們通過保留一些其他領域來進行對沖。隨著我們變得越來越國際化、越來越原創，我們今天正在佔領這些領域。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

David, a question just about the overall addressable market internationally, and I think you go into a little bit of detail in the letter, but you mentioned 700 million broadband households, I believe, globally. We know the 90 million or so in the US, and adding -- expanding international here to 180 million. How are you thinking basically about the rest of the TAM, and the ability for that to grow here over time?

大衛，這是一個關於國際整體可尋址市場的問題，我認為您在信中詳細介紹了一些細節，但我相信您提到了全球 7 億寬頻家庭。我們知道美國大約有 9000 萬，並且國際上有 1.8 億。您對 TAM 的其他部分以及隨著時間的推移在這裡發展的能力有何看法？

Well yes, those numbers, the 730 million is Kagan's number. There's another number that's 800 million that's Price Waterhouse's, so around that range of 700 million to 800 million are today's broadband households. And all of those territories, mainly outside the US and most of the developed markets in Europe, are growing at a much faster pace. So those numbers are going to grow and grow. For us, we look at China is about a quarter of that 730 million. We're addressing a large swath of Europe, and we would look to further that in Europe later if we're successful. And so we like what we see.

嗯，是的，這些數字，7.3 億是卡根的數字。還有一個數字是普華永道的 8 億，所以今天的寬頻家庭大約在 7 億到 8 億之間。所有這些地區，主要是美國以外的地區和歐洲大多數已開發市場，都在以更快的速度成長。所以這些數字將會不斷增加。對我們來說，中國約佔這 7.3 億人口的四分之一。我們正在針對歐洲的大部分地區，如果我們取得成功，我們將期待稍後在歐洲進一步推進這一目標。所以我們喜歡我們所看到的。

As Reed said earlier, we really do see widespread adoption and enjoyment of Netflix as a product. The On Demand aspects, the great content that's produced in any market, and the exciting aspects of us as a global distribution platform, and being able to bring great content to markets in the US, to markets in Europe and Asia, we like the prospects of our opportunities there.

正如里德之前所說，我們確實看到 Netflix 作為一種產品得到了廣泛的採用和享受。點播方面，在任何市場產生的精彩內容，以及我們作為全球發行平台的令人興奮的方面，以及能夠將精彩內容帶到美國市場、歐洲和亞洲市場，我們看好前景我們在那裡的機會。

Reed, David just mentioned China as a large source of potential broadband households. How do you get into China, and what's your thinking about potential timing of a China expansion?

里德·大衛剛剛提到中國是潛在寬頻家庭的一大來源。您如何進入中國？您對中國擴張的潛在時機有何看法？

Well, I'll let David address that.

好吧，我會讓大衛解決這個問題。

I think it's early. It's fair to tennis match that right back at me, Michael, but I think it's pretty early. I think my reason that I would say it's a quarter is it's conspicuously large, and it's conspicuously a growing and very strong economy. So look for the future, in terms of an answer from us, in China.

我認為還早。邁克爾，這對我來說是公平的網球比賽，但我認為現在還為時過早。我認為我之所以說這是四分之一，是因為它的規模明顯很大，而且它是一個明顯成長且非常強勁的經濟體。因此，從我們的答案來看，中國的未來。

Okay, thanks.

好的謝謝。

Great, just shifting gears into the US streaming business. As you approach 40 million streaming subs in the US toward the end of this year, and you're looking toward that lower end of 60 million to 90 million that you talk about, how do you think the mix of net adds changes between gross adds and churn going forward, and does lower churn really become an even stronger driver of the business?

太棒了，剛剛轉向美國串流媒體業務。到今年年底，美國的串流訂閱用戶數將接近 4000 萬，並且您正在關注您所說的 6000 萬到 9000 萬的下限，您認為淨增加量與總增加量之間的變化如何以及未來的客戶流失率，較低的客戶流失率真的會成為業務更強大的驅動力嗎？

Doug, if that's addressed to me, I think that obviously, we do think that we've got growth in both, so it would be growth in reducing churn, or improving our retention, and in bringing more and more people into the market. I mean, our originals have the potential, as we produce more and more content, to bring more people into Netflix, and bring new types of subscribers into Netflix. So I think over time that mix will shift more and more to people who are coming back, and people who are staying longer, just as we penetrate deeper into the US. But we still think we've got some room to grow on both sides.

道格，如果這是針對我的，我認為顯然，我們確實認為我們在這兩方面都取得了增長，因此這將是減少客戶流失或提高我們的保留率以及讓越來越多的人進入市場的增長。我的意思是，隨著我們製作越來越多的內容，我們的原創作品有潛力吸引更多人進入 Netflix，並為 Netflix 帶來新類型的訂閱者。因此，我認為隨著時間的推移，這種組合將越來越多地轉向那些回來的人和停留更長時間的人，就像我們深入美國一樣。但我們仍然認為雙方都有一些成長的空間。

Ted, when you think about your US programming mix, what do you think the optimal mix of expenses would be between originals, acquired TV and acquired film? And what's the right balance of spending across those three buckets?

泰德，當您考慮美國的節目組合時，您認為原創節目、購買電視和購買電影之間的最佳支出組合是什麼？這三個方面的支出的正確平衡是什麼？

Over time, Michael, I'd love if you could think about it much more fluidly than that, because we have a lot of programming like Breaking Bad, that in the UK, it's a Netflix original show, and in other territories it's a license. And we move pretty fluidly in and out of that, so baked into our margin guidance is our content spend, and we want to move a lot of it to originals, mostly because we have found that it's given us new brand strength as those shows have been successful. And if they continue to prove to be successful we want to move down that path further.

隨著時間的推移，邁克爾，如果你能更流暢地思考它，我會很高興，因為我們有很多像《絕命毒師》這樣的節目，在英國，它是Netflix 原創節目，在其他地區，它是一個許可。我們非常流暢地進出這一點，因此我們的內容支出納入了我們的利潤指引，我們希望將其中大部分轉移到原創節目上，主要是因為我們發現它為我們帶來了新的品牌力量，就像那些節目一樣已經成功了。如果他們繼續被證明是成功的，我們希望沿著這條道路進一步前進。

But there's a lot of times where we will premier the sequel to Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, we're going to premier that everywhere outside of North America on Netflix, so that's kind of an original show and kind of not for us, in terms of how we treat it. So we're really, if you want to think about it as total content expense, and we want to get the content the consumers love, and right now we're having success in that area, and we want to keep pushing down that path. So there's no optimal mix in that way.

但很多時候，我們會首播《絕命毒師》的續集《風騷律師》，我們會在北美以外的任何地方在 Netflix 上首播，所以這是一部原創節目，不適合我們。就我們如何對待它而言。所以，如果你想把它視為總內容支出，我們真的希望獲得消費者喜歡的內容，現在我們在該領域取得了成功，我們希望繼續沿著這條道路前進。所以這種方式不存在最佳組合。

Okay.

好的。

Ted, can you walk us through what the release schedule looks like for originals just through the rest of 2014 and then into 2015? And I realize it's tough maybe to choose between your kids here, but what new shows are you particularly excited about?

Ted，您能否向我們介紹 2014 年剩餘時間和 2015 年原作的發行時間表？我意識到在你的孩子之間做出選擇可能很困難，但是你對哪些新節目特別感興趣？

Well, we've listed out all of the premier dates that are coming up. The ones coming up in August, where we have BoJack Horseman, which is our first foray into adult animated comedy. It has Will Arnett and Aaron Paul voicing it. It's very funny, and it's again, it's a new broadening of what we're doing on originals, that's pretty exciting. And then we have the fourth season of The Killing also coming out in a couple weeks, that we're also excited about, in August.

好吧，我們已經列出了所有即將到來的首要日期。八月上映的《馬男波傑克》是我們首次涉足成人動畫喜劇。由威爾·阿奈特和亞倫·保羅配音。這很有趣，而且，這是我們在原創作品上所做的新的擴展，這非常令人興奮。然後，《殺戮》第四季也將在幾週後推出，我們對此也很興奮，也就是八月。

The one that's very ambitious and on a large scale, and we've been really thrilled with how its been coming in, is Marco Polo that we're filming in Malaysia right now. It's a very large scale show, we filmed it in Venice, in Malaysia, in Kazakhstan. It's like we're trying to do things that would be very difficult to do on conventional television. Marco Polo is a very ambitious project coming together really beautifully, and we're excited about that for Q4.

我們現在正在馬來西亞拍攝的《馬可波羅》是一部非常雄心勃勃、規模宏大的電影，我們對它的到來感到非常興奮。這是一個規模非常大的演出，我們在威尼斯、馬來西亞、哈薩克拍攝。這就像我們正在嘗試做一些在傳統電視上很難做到的事情。馬可波羅是一個非常雄心勃勃的項目，它非常完美地結合在一起，我們對第四季的表現感到興奮。

Reed, and Ted, I wonder, from when you first started, you basically built a service on library acquired content. You've evolved to exclusives and originals. I wonder, when you look at usage trends today, how important are the library archive shows that you maybe bought in the first rounds of negotiations with studios, versus the things you're buying now? So if you talk a bit about behavior usage trends among your consumers, as you've gotten longer into the process?

里德和泰德，我想知道，從你們剛開始的時候起，你們基本上就在圖書館獲取的內容上建立了一項服務。您已經發展成為獨家產品和原創產品。我想知道，當您查看當今的使用趨勢時，圖書館檔案顯示您可能在與工作室的第一輪談判中購買的東西與您現在購買的東西相比有多重要？那麼，如果您談論消費者的行為使用趨勢，因為您進入這個過程的時間更長了？

Well the great thing about this time we're in right now, Michael, is the content is so great, and there's so much of it being produced, you could barely watch it all in your lifetime. So the library becomes important, because most people have never seen it, so it's new to them. We're producing and bringing out original programming at about as fast a pace as we can, and maintaining the quality that we've been able to, so we're going to continue pushing down that path, and originals is going to be an important component of that, all the time.

邁克爾，我們現在所處的這個時代的偉大之處在於，內容是如此精彩，而且正在製作的內容如此之多，你幾乎無法在有生之年看完所有內容。所以圖書館變得很重要，因為大多數人從未見過它，所以它對他們來說是新的。我們正在以盡可能快的速度製作和推出原創節目，並保持我們已經能夠達到的質量，所以我們將繼續沿著這條道路前進，原創將成為始終是其中的重要組成部分。

We'll also, I think, we'll always be a very valuable off net buyer for networks, because so much of that content has never been seen by the public. So we're excited that we'll continue to play in that space, where we're pretty popular at May screenings, so we commit when they are showing those projects, for us to potentially be a first window partner for those shows outside of the US. And because we are not wed to, we're only going to put on the shows that we produce, that gives us the opportunity to put a lot of content in front of consumers that they love, regardless of the business model.

我認為，我們也將永遠是網路上非常有價值的網外買家，因為其中許多內容從未被大眾看到過。因此，我們很高興我們將繼續在這個領域發揮作用，我們在五月份的放映中非常受歡迎，因此當他們展示這些項目時，我們承諾，我們有可能成為這些節目在其他地區之外的第一個窗口合作夥伴美國。因為我們沒有結婚，所以我們只會播放我們製作的節目，這使我們有機會向消費者展示他們喜歡的大量內容，無論商業模式如何。

Ted, I just wanted to follow-up on a point that you said earlier, just around contracts. And I guess I'm curious how the initial kind of contracts around House of Cards and Orange may differ from what you're signing for new original series now, and is it fair to think that you are getting all of the international or global rights basically for these new originals that are coming out?

特德，我只是想跟進你之前提到的關於合約的一點。我想我很好奇圍繞《紙牌屋》和《女子監獄》的最初合約可能與您現在為新的原創系列簽署的合約有何不同，並且認為您獲得了所有國際或全球權利是否公平基本上是為了這些即將推出的新原創作品？

The key for us, Doug, is that we're trying to make sure we can control the exploitation in those territories, particularly the ones that we're heading to, so you can either get to that by owning the show outright, or by negotiating the control of those rights up front, with the content owners, and have them as partners. And I'm open to either one of those, that give us those controls, so that when we open in new markets, we can launch those titles with us, if they're coming up at a time that makes sense, given that we put so much branding power behind those shows, leading up to their launch.

道格，對我們來說，關鍵是我們正在努力確保我們能夠控制這些地區的剝削，特別是我們要去的地區，所以你可以通過完全擁有該節目來實現這一點，或者通過預先與內容所有者協商這些權利的控制權，並讓他們成為合作夥伴。我對其中任何一個都持開放態度，這給了我們這些控制權，這樣當我們打開新市場時，我們可以與我們一起推出這些遊戲，如果它們在合理的時間出現，考慮到我們在這些節目的在推出之前，他們投入瞭如此多的品牌力量。

Reed, can I ask you about international competition? You really enjoyed a first mover advantage in your first markets you went into, but now you see a lot of European markets where there's two or three services outside of the UK, let's say in Germany and France, trying to do what you're doing. How do you think you'll be able to differentiate yourself and competition levels in some of those markets were someone like a Sky, Sky Deutschland, is already trying to achieve the same type of service?

里德，我可以問你一些國際賽事的事情嗎？在您進入的第一個市場中，您確實享有先發優勢，但現在您看到很多歐洲市場，在英國以外（例如德國和法國）有兩到三個服務，試圖做您正在做的事情。如果像德國天空電視台這樣的公司已經在嘗試提供相同類型的服務，您認為您將如何在其中一些市場中脫穎而出並提高競爭水平？

Well it's a bit revisionist history, Michael because to say we were first mover, because if you think about the UK, LOVEFiLM had been there for seven years, developed a 2 million subscriber base, bought by Amazon, infused with streaming content, was a tremendous significant competitor to us 2.5 years ago when we launched. And what we did is we focused on television content, they focused on movies, we focused on incredible streaming performance so you never got buffering, working with all of the integrators. And fundamentally it's a focus thing, which is, it's everything for us, whereas this was a project for someone within a larger Company. And then now, 2.5 years later, of course LOVEFiLM has folded up as a brand, so we're tremendously excited about the opportunity to continue to move forward.

邁克爾，這有點修正主義歷史，因為說我們是先行者，因為如果你想想英國，LOVEFiLM 已經在那裡呆了七年，發展了 200 萬訂閱者基礎，被亞馬遜收購，注入了流媒體內容，是一個2.5 年前我們推出時，我們面臨著巨大的競爭對手。我們所做的是我們專注於電視內容，他們專注於電影，我們專注於令人難以置信的串流媒體效能，因此您永遠不會緩衝，與所有整合商合作。從根本上來說，這是一個焦點問題，也就是說，它對我們來說是一切，而這是一個大公司內部某人的專案。 2.5 年後的現在，LOVEFiLM 當然已經成為一個品牌，因此我們對有機會繼續前進感到非常興奮。

We've also had Sky, from the beginning in the UK, be a very aggressive competitor. Lots of different aspects of their service, but what its turned out, is that we can grow very substantially in the UK, and Sky is untouched. Similar to here in the US, how we're growing rapidly, but MVPD as a total is untouched.

我們的天空電視台從一開始在英國就成為了一個非常積極的競爭對手。他們的服務有很多不同的方面，但結果是，我們可以在英國實現大幅增長，而天空電視台卻沒有受到影響。與美國類似，我們正在快速成長，但 MVPD 總體上沒有受到影響。

So I think the big MVPDs are recognizing that Netflix, it's one more network, it's like YouTube, it doesn't change our outcomes in any material way, and we have again great focus, global R&D. So those are the things that we look forward to, but in the end of the day there may well be room for several of these services in a market, with different types of content, they each have exclusive content.

因此，我認為大型 MVPD 正在認識到 Netflix，它是另一個網絡，就像 YouTube，它不會以任何實質性方式改變我們的成果，而且我們再次專注於全球研發。這些都是我們期待的事情，但最終，這些服務中的幾種在市場上很可能有空間，具有不同類型的內容，它們各自都有獨家內容。

If you think historically in the US, like HBO and Showtime, they are not really competing against each other except for content, they are competing to get part of someone's entertainment budget, and in the same way we're like that in a new market, so we don't need to beat some new competitor. We just need to create an incredible service that all of the citizens in each country that we serve, want to be part of Netflix.

如果你從歷史上看，在美國，就像HBO 和Showtime 一樣，除了內容之外，他們並沒有真正相互競爭，他們只是在競爭以獲得某人的娛樂預算的一部分，就像我們在新市場中的情況一樣，所以我們不需要打敗一些新的競爭對手。我們只需要創造一項令人難以置信的服務，讓我們所服務的每個國家/地區的所有公民都希望成為 Netflix 的一部分。

Okay.

好的。

Great. Ted, can you talk more about your plans for Chelsea Handler's new show coming up, and does this signal more of a move into live streaming, and now that you're moving more into late night talk, is there more of a strategy potentially around sports content over the long term?

偉大的。泰德，你能更多地談談你對切爾西·漢德勒即將推出的新節目的計劃嗎？這是否意味著更多地轉向直播，現在你更多地轉向深夜談話，是否有更多潛在的策略體育內容是長期的嗎？

I think Chelsea is going to be a great representative of the programming on Netflix, because her show is a lot about the entertainment world, movies and television and pop culture, and we think that it will be a great addition to Netflix in 2016. We just filmed her first comedy special in Chicago, and she's going to do four more in 2015, and the show itself, you should think about it as the way that people are not watching scripted programming the way they used to, they are also not watching these late night talk shows the way they used to, meaning they are not watching them at 11:30. They are watching them days, weeks, sometimes months later, online, or on stacked episodes on DVR.

我認為 Chelsea 將成為 Netflix 節目的傑出代表，因為她的節目涉及娛樂世界、電影電視以及流行文化，我們認為這將是 Netflix 2016 年的一個重要補充。剛剛在芝加哥拍攝了她的第一部喜劇特別節目，她將在2015 年再拍攝四部，而這部劇本身，你應該把它想像成人們不再像以前那樣觀看有劇本的節目，他們也不再觀看這些深夜脫口秀節目仍以他們過去的方式播放，這意味著他們不會在11:30 觀看這些節目。他們會在幾天、幾週、有時幾個月後在網路上或在 DVR 上觀看堆積的劇集。

So what we're hoping to do with Chelsea and her team is create a show that's built closer to the way people are going to watch it, the way we had done with serialized dramas, where we took out the commercial breaks and the cliffhangers, and really produced it for the way people watch. And we've got a lot of time between now and then to work through all of the format details, and Chelsea is incredibly excited, and we're really excited about her brand, and we think it's going to be great for us. And in terms of your other question, I think about it as more of a continuum, that this is not that instantly-perishable content by any stretch, but it's, to your point, it's more perishable than a movie. But the economics level that out for us.

因此，我們希望與切爾西和她的團隊一起製作一部更接近人們觀看方式的節目，就像我們處理連續劇的方式一樣，我們去掉了廣告插播和懸念，並真正按照人們觀看的方式製作它。從現在到那時，我們有很多時間來研究所有格式細節，切爾西非常興奮，我們對她的品牌感到非常興奮，我們認為這對我們來說會很棒。就你的另一個問題而言，我認為它更像是一個連續體，這無論如何都不是那種會立即腐爛的內容，但就你而言，它比電影更容易腐爛。但經濟學為我們證明了這一點。

David and Reed, I have a question on international margins. Do you think that international margins in their end state will look like US margins, or is anything structurally different about your international business or scale, versus the US activities?

大衛和里德，我有一個關於國際邊緣的問題。您認為最終狀態的國際利潤率是否會與美國利潤率類似，或者您的國際業務或規模與美國業務在結構上有何不同？

This is David. I'll take that one. No, there isn't. We've gotten this question before. There's nothing really different about our international businesses, that we can't achieve US-like margins or better in some of our markets. It really is about the competition in those markets. And in terms of what consumer alternatives are there, and how much we're able to charge and the value that we deliver to those consumers. But there's nothing structurally challenging about those markets, that we can't achieve equal or better.

這是大衛。我會接受那個。不，沒有。我們之前已經收到過這個問題。我們的國際業務並沒有什麼特別之處，我們無法在某些市場上實現與美國相同或更好的利潤率。這確實與這些市場的競爭有關。以及消費者有哪些選擇、我們能夠收取多少費用以及我們為這些消費者提供的價值。但這些市場在結構上沒有任何挑戰，我們無法實現同等或更好的目標。

David, just a question on the balance sheet. Can you help us understand how you think about the right amount of cash to have on the balance sheet, just given international expansion and then current free cash flow generation? And as part of that, we see the streaming content obligations move from $7.1 billion to $7.7 billion, which I think is one of the more significant moves that we've seen in recent quarters. And just how we should interpret that?

大衛，只是一個關於資產負債表的問題。您能否幫助我們了解，考慮到國際擴張和當前自由現金流的產生，您如何看待資產負債表上的適當現金數量？作為其中的一部分，我們看到串流內容義務從 71 億美元增加到 77 億美元，我認為這是我們最近幾季看到的最重要的舉措之一。我們應該如何解釋這一點？

Well the content obligations are a little bit lumpy, depending upon what we do on produced content. So I would look at it over a year-on-year basis rather than a sequential basis, but you're right. They've gone up some. They will continue to go up, as we expand and grow our produced content line, and to some extent, our international expansions as well.

嗯，內容義務有點不穩定，這取決於我們對製作的內容所做的事情。因此，我會逐年查看，而不是連續查看，但你是對的。他們已經上漲了一些。隨著我們擴大和發展我們製作的內容線，以及在某種程度上，我們的國際擴張，它們將繼續上升。

As we sign up for multi-year deals those obligations roll on to the table as well, so the right amount of cash, cash is not an inoculator in terms of a prolonged competitive battle. It does help in terms of short-term, it does help the business in terms of making producers and others feel good about our balance sheet position. I would say in general, I was a bit worried earlier on, say two or three years ago, when we were going through 2011, that we were a little thin, and I thought we would be burning it faster than we actually did.

當我們簽署多年協議時，這些義務也會隨之而來，因此適量的現金，現金並不是長期競爭的預防劑。就短期而言，它確實有幫助，它確實有助於企業讓生產商和其他人對我們的資產負債表狀況感到滿意。我想說，總的來說，我早些時候有點擔心，例如兩三年前，當我們經歷 2011 年時，我們有點單薄，我認為我們會比實際燃燒得更快。

So for awhile there, I was a bit of a Chicken Little in terms of saying, telling investors, we're going to start burning, we're going to start burning, and we really didn't. We grew it a little bit. We stayed flat for a while.

所以有一段時間，我有點像個小雞，告訴投資者，我們要開始燃燒，我們要開始燃燒，但我們真的沒有。我們把它長大了一點。我們待了一段時間。

So I think I'm pretty solid on telling folks, look, in Q4 and Q1 we're going to start using cash a little bit more as we expand internationally, and as we grow our content spend, and in the future, it will really depend on our international, on the pace of our international expansion. So I think I feel good about the level we're at now, and it will really depend on our future plans.

因此，我認為我非常堅定地告訴人們，看，在第四季度和第一季度，隨著我們的國際擴張，隨著我們內容支出的增加，我們將開始更多地使用現金，並且在未來，它將開始更多地使用現金。這真正取決於我們的國際化，取決於我們國際擴張的步伐。所以我認為我對我們現在的水平感覺良好，這實際上取決於我們未來的計劃。

Ted, just recently this week I think you announced a Pay 1 deal in Canada for Disney, and I know you've done a couple Pay 1 deals elsewhere. Where do you think the potential is really to break the Pay 1 window outside the US, is that somewhere we could see more deals like that going forward?

特德，就在本週，我認為您在加拿大宣布了迪士尼的 Pay 1 交易，而且我知道您在其他地方也完成了幾筆 Pay 1 交易。您認為哪裡有潛力真正打破美國以外的 Pay 1 窗口？我們是否可以在未來看到更多類似的交易？

I made a distinction before around Disney, relative to the other studios, in that for us, that Disney output deal represents a pretty big chunk of kids' viewing in general. So I think of it more like a kids programming move, that also has a lot of movie components, and some really great movie components with the Marvel films and certainly the upcoming Star Wars movies.

我之前在迪士尼周圍，相對於其他工作室，做了一個區分，對我們來說，迪士尼的產出交易代表了兒童觀看的相當大的一部分。所以我認為它更像是一個兒童節目的舉措，它也有很多電影成分，以及一些非常偉大的電影成分，包括漫威電影，當然還有即將上映的星際大戰電影。

What's really interesting about the Canadian deal is that Disney has now moved that deal in the US and Canada to one supplier, which has not been the historic norm, and we're also going to line up the window, so our Canadian subscribers can be seeing in the movies at the exact same time as the US subscribers. And we do have other Pay 1 deals around the world, including Warner Brothers in the Nordics, as an example, and a few others. But for us, it's getting access to films, trying to continue to narrow that window, so we can get them to consumers sooner and sooner, to deliver on the expectation that the Internet has set up for what I want, when I want, where I want.

加拿大交易真正有趣的是，迪士尼現在已將美國和加拿大的交易轉移給了一家供應商，這並不是歷史常態，而且我們還將排隊窗口，以便我們的加拿大訂戶可以與美國訂戶同時觀看電影。我們在世界各地也有其他 Pay 1 交易，包括北歐的華納兄弟以及其他一些交易。但對我們來說，它正在獲取電影，試圖繼續縮小這個窗口，這樣我們就可以越來越快地將它們提供給消費者，以實現互聯網為我想要的東西、在我想要的時間、地點所建立的期望。我想。

Doug and Michael, why don't we do one question each for you, and then we'll wrap it up.

道格和邁克爾，我們為什麼不為你們每人問一個問題，然後我們就結束這個問題。

Okay, great. So I wanted to go back to something we touched on earlier, and I guess it's primarily for David. Just trying to understand better, and hope you can drill down more on the 30%, why that's the right level to go to and then reassess the domestic streaming margins, and help us understand better how you think about these tradeoffs that you mentioned in the letter, the 400, 200, and then 100 basis points of margin improvement on an annual basis?

好的，太好了。所以我想回到我們之前談到的一些事情，我想這主要是針對大衛的。只是想更好地理解，並希望您能更深入地了解30%，為什麼這是正確的水平，然後重新評估國內流媒體利潤率，並幫助我們更好地理解您如何看待您在30% 中提到的這些權衡信中，利潤率每年提高 400、200、然後 100 個基點？

Well Doug, there's nothing magical about the 30% number. It's a convenient level for us to reassess, and we think we'll get there next year. So there's nothing magical about that one 30% number, and then in terms of whether we -- how we think about the next target, whether we leave it at 400 basis point year-on-year growth, or whether it goes to 200 or 100. It's really about, do we think that we can continue to expand our market and solidify our competitive position with investments in content, or do we think that we can continue to grow content at a moderate, a slightly less aggressive pace, and put more to margin.

道格，30% 這個數字並沒有什麼神奇之處。這是一個方便我們重新評估的水平，我們認為明年就會達到這個水平。因此，30% 的數字並沒有什麼神奇之處，然後就我們是否——我們如何考慮下一個目標，我們是否將其同比增長保持在 400 個基點，或者是否達到 200 個基點或100. 這實際上是關於，我們是否認為我們可以透過內容投資繼續擴大我們的市場並鞏固我們的競爭地位，或者我們是否認為我們可以繼續以適度的、稍微不那麼激進的速度增長內容，並把更多保證金。

As we grow, what we've explained in terms of that margin that we're getting bigger and bigger, it just gets harder to deliver 400 basis points of growth on a higher and higher margin. It's just the math behind it. So it may not be the right thing to do, to continue to press forward, as aggressively on content or on profit growth, versus other things that we could spend the money on, with content being the largest one.

隨著我們的成長，正如我們用利潤率解釋的那樣，我們變得越來越大，以越來越高的利潤率實現 400 個基點的成長變得越來越困難。這只是背後的數學原理。因此，與我們可以花錢的其他事情（其中內容是最大的事情）相比，繼續積極推動內容或利潤成長可能不是正確的做法。

I would say, just following on that, is there anything that you know today on the content cost side, like the Disney deal in June 2017, that makes you say that? Have you looked at your -- is there something that you're looking forward to, and saying, that is a hurdle that could change it?

我想說，接下來，您今天在內容成本方面是否有任何了解，例如 2017 年 6 月的迪士尼交易，讓您這麼說？你是否審視過你的事——是否有一些你期待的事情，並說，這是一個可以改變它的障礙？

No, Michael. This is more about perspective opportunity spend on the content line. We forward plan our business, we forward plan our content spending, knowing fully well that Disney deal has been done over a year. And then we have projections, Disney could have 20 releases at $400 million plus box office, but that's not likely to happen.

不，麥可。這更多的是關於內容方面的機會支出。我們提前規劃我們的業務，我們提前規劃我們的內容支出，我們充分了解迪士尼的交易已經完成一年多了。然後我們預測，迪士尼可能會發行 20 部電影，票房超過 4 億美元，但這不太可能發生。

So I think what we've done is taken a bunch of different median scenarios and said look, we've got that planned out. It's really about what else can we do with it, can we do more experiments in Ted's world in the produced content? Can we license more content, is that the right decision versus profit growth? And making a very smart decision as business owners long term about the competitiveness, and setting ourselves up competitively for the long term.

所以我認為我們所做的就是採取了一系列不同的中位數場景，然後說看，我們已經計劃好了。這實際上是關於我們還能用它做什麼，我們可以在製作的內容中在 Ted 的世界中做更多的實驗嗎？我們可以授權更多內容嗎？與利潤成長相比，這是正確的決定嗎？作為企業主，從長遠角度考慮競爭力，做出非常明智的決定，並為自己奠定長期競爭力。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Thank you, to everyone for joining us for the call, and we look forward in October to be able to report to you on our initial success with our French and German launches. Thank you very much.

感謝大家參加我們的電話會議，我們期待在 10 月能夠向您報告我們在法國和德國推出的初步成功。非常感謝。

Thanks.

謝謝。