Netflix Inc (NFLX) 2014 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Hi, this is David Wells. I'm the CFO of Netflix, and I'm welcoming you to the 2014 Q4 earnings interview. Joining me today is Reed Hastings, our CEO; and Ted Sarandos, our Chief Content Officer, is joining us from Miami at the National Association of Television Executives meeting. Also at that meeting is Michael Nathanson, and with too many conflicts. So reprising his role as interviewer today is Rich Greenfield, analyst from BTIG. And joining him is Mark Mahaney from RBC.

嗨，我是大衛威爾斯。我是 Netflix 的財務官，歡迎您參加 2014 年第四季財報採訪。今天加入我的是我們的執行長里德·黑斯廷斯 (Reed Hastings)；我們的首席內容長 Ted Sarandos 將從邁阿密加入我們，參加全國電視高管協會會議。邁克爾·內森森（Michael Nathanson）也參加了這次會議，而且衝突太多。今天，BTIG 分析師里奇·格林菲爾德 (Rich Greenfield) 再次擔任採訪者。加入他行列的還有來自加拿大皇家銀行 (RBC) 的馬克·馬哈尼 (Mark Mahaney)。

We will be making forward-looking statements today. Actual results may vary. I'm going to turn you over to Mark, who has our first question.

我們今天將發表前瞻性聲明。實際結果可能有所不同。我將把你交給馬克，他有我們的第一個問題。

Thanks, David. A question to start off for Reed. You had talked about an S curve and the ability to get to 60 million to 90 million subs in the US. And you beat the sub numbers for the quarter, but there's a year-over-year reduction in net sub adds. So walk us through what your latest thinking is on the ability of Netflix to reach 60 million to 90 million US subs.

謝謝，大衛。先向里德提出一個問題。您談到了 S 曲線以及在美國獲得 6000 萬至 9000 萬訂閱者的能力。本季的子項數據超出了預期，但子項淨增加量比去年同期有所減少。請向我們介紹一下您對 Netflix 吸引 6000 萬至 9000 萬美國訂閱者的能力的最新想法。

Well, it's looking very good. We're at 39 million in the US, adding 5 million-plus a year. So that trajectory is great. And if you step back and you say -- is Internet video going to be in every home in America in 10 years? That's a pretty clear yes. So, tons of potential there, and we're very excited about just continuing to improve our service.

嗯，看起來非常好。美國的用戶數已達 3,900 萬，每年增加 500 萬以上。所以這個軌跡很棒。如果你退後一步，你會說—— 10 年後，網路影片會進入美國的每個家庭嗎？這是一個非常明確的答案。因此，那裡有巨大的潛力，我們對繼續改進我們的服務感到非常興奮。

This is a question for Reed. When you think about the international growth profile, the comments that you made in terms of the cadence of market launches -- basically saying that every single market would be launched over the course of the next two years -- was a pretty big move from what I think we were expecting, and what I think investors were expecting. Was there something that happened when you looked at the success you were having overseas, whether it be France, Germany, Latin America? Did something happen to change how fast you planned on rolling out the rest of the world to get you over the next two years?

這是要問里德的問題。當您考慮國際成長概況時，您對市場啟動節奏的評論（基本上是說每個市場都將在未來兩年內啟動）與先前的預測相比是一個相當大的變化。我認為我們和投資者都在期待。當您看到自己在海外取得的成功時，無論是在法國、德國或拉丁美洲，是否發生了一些事情？是否發生了什麼事情改變了您計劃在未來兩年內向世界其他地區推出的速度？

Yes, Rich, there's two real drivers. One is the success that we've seen from Argentina to Finland, to have all of our first wave of markets from Canada, Latin America, Nordics, Netherlands, UK and Ireland be profitable together as a group. It's just a tremendous accomplishment. And that the growth rates that they're seeing, it's going to be very significantly profitable going forward. So that's been a big driver for us.

是的，里奇，有兩個真正的司機。其中之一是我們從阿根廷到芬蘭所看到的成功，使我們來自加拿大、拉丁美洲、北歐、荷蘭、英國和愛爾蘭的所有第一波市場作為一個整體共同獲利。這真是一項巨大的成就。他們所看到的成長率，未來將帶來非常可觀的利潤。所以這對我們來說是一個很大的推動力。

And then I think Ted really had the vision to figure out how to start to get global rights for some of the content by moving up the food chain. And we've been pushing on that dimension to be able to get the global rights where we don't have to go country by country across 200 countries, but instead, can provide the producer upfront money, guaranteed money and get great access. Ted, do you want to add to that?

然後我認為特德確實有遠見，想出如何透過向食物鏈上游移動來開始獲得某些內容的全球版權。我們一直在推動這個層面，以便能夠獲得全球版權，我們不必一個一個地跨越 200 個國家，而是可以為製片人提供預付款、有保證的資金並獲得良好的准入機會。特德，你想補充一下嗎？

Yes. I think our success this year with Better Call Saul and Gotham, where we had moved up the process, licensed for all of our operating territories and our future operating territories directly with the producers of those shows. So, Better Call Saul directly with Sony, and Gotham directly with Warner Television, instead of going country by country and piling of those deals and lining up windows. This enables us to make the service, the selection for more global for viewers around the world who increasingly know exactly when these shows began, and are hungry to see them as soon as they can.

是的。我認為今年我們在《風騷律師》和《哥譚》中取得了成功，我們加快了流程，直接向這些節目的製作人授予了我們所有運營區域和未來運營區域的許可。因此，最好直接與索尼聯繫，《哥譚》直接與華納電視台聯繫，而不是逐個國家進行交易並排隊等待。這使我們能夠為世界各地的觀眾提供更全球化的服務和選擇，他們越來越確切地知道這些節目的開始時間，並且渴望盡快看到它們。

Question for Reed or David on the international sub numbers. They came in materially higher in the December quarter, and your guiding for materially higher than expected numbers for the March quarter. Can you give us any color on which markets and which countries did better than expected? Or was this just the case of the European launch being a little more delayed than expected and you're seeing the full impact of that? Where was the upside from?

向 Reed 或 David 詢問有關國際子號碼的問題。它們在 12 月季度大幅上漲，並且您對 3 月季度的預期數字大幅上漲。您能否告訴我們哪些市場、哪些國家的表現比預期好？或者這只是歐洲的發布比預期延遲了一點，而您看到了其全部影響？上漲空間從何而來？

Mark, this is David. It's across several markets. As you know, we don't talk specifically about individual markets for competitive reasons. But I would say it wasn't driven by any one individual market, it was driven by several markets. So we're really pleased with the growth that we saw in the fourth quarter and carrying into the first quarter.

馬克，這是大衛。它橫跨多個市場。如您所知，出於競爭原因，我們不會具體談論個別市場。但我想說，它不是由任何一個單獨市場驅動的，而是由多個市場驅動的。因此，我們對第四季和第一季的成長感到非常滿意。

If I could just follow up, David, on that question on Latin America though. You did give out a 5 million subscriber -- that you had reached 5 million subscribers during the quarter in Latin America. Could you give us any other feel for -- are there any other milestones to think about as you think about other markets that you've already launched that we should be thinking about? And why you're disclosing something like 5 million in Latin America without more detail overseas?

大衛，如果我能跟進有關拉丁美洲的問題。你們確實提供了 500 萬訂戶——本季拉丁美洲的訂戶數量已達 500 萬。您能否給我們任何其他感覺——當您考慮我們已經推出的其他市場時，是否還有其他值得考慮的里程碑？為什麼你們只揭露拉丁美洲的 500 萬人口，而沒有在海外提供更多細節？

Well, it's a nice round number, and we'll be giving out milestones as we hit them, I think, in other markets. But it's incrementally better for us to talk about that with consumers in Latin America because it validates the quality, the breadth and the size of the service. It's helpful from a consumer standpoint in the market. So we weigh between the investment community and the consumer community what's helpful, in terms of incremental information.

嗯，這是一個不錯的整數，我認為，當我們在其他市場達到這些里程碑時，我們將給出這些里程碑。但對我們來說，與拉丁美洲的消費者談論這一點會更好，因為它驗證了服務的品質、廣度和規模。從市場消費者的角度來看，這很有幫助。因此，我們在增量資訊方面權衡投資界和消費者界什麼是有用的。

What changed that actually accelerated? Because it was an area that you had talked about as a problem, historically, on these calls. Why is Latin America now accelerating to the point where you're now really getting excited about the growth potential?

是什麼改變實際上加速了？因為從歷史上看，您在這些電話會議上曾經將這個領域視為一個問題。為什麼拉丁美洲現在正在加速發展，以至於您現在對成長潛力感到非常興奮？

Well, nothing changed. We knew we would hit 5 million in the quarter, and we did. What changed maybe -- that we give you incremental information. I think what we've said all along, in terms of Latin America, it was a challenging market. We've had payments issues and e-commerce trust issues that we've wrestled with and improved over the last 3 to 3.5 years, but it's been growing all along. I think either folks may not have taken us at our word for that, but we're very pleased with it. It's been steady growth.

嗯，一切都沒有改變。我們知道本季銷量將達到 500 萬，而且我們做到了。也許發生了什麼變化——我們為您提供了增量資訊。我認為我們一直以來所說的拉丁美洲是一個充滿挑戰的市場。在過去 3 到 3.5 年裡，我們一直在努力解決和改善支付問題和電子商務信任問題，但問題一直在增長。我認為任何人可能都不相信我們的話，但我們對此感到非常滿意。一直在穩定成長。

We continue to see great growth and great potential in the market. It's a market with about 65 million broadband households. If you take that 5 million number that we talked about, and 65 million in terms of addressable, we think we've got a lot of room for growth in the market.

我們繼續看到市場的巨大成長和巨大潛力。這是一個擁有約 6500 萬寬頻家庭的市場。如果你考慮我們談到的 500 萬個數字，以及可尋址的 6500 萬個數字，我們認為我們的市場有很大的成長空間。

David, I want to follow up on the global expansion. One of the two things you bolded in this press release was this line about completing global expansion over the next two years. I noticed the bolded stuff. The question is -- you talked about this a little bit before. It sounds like you're buying international content or getting content for international markets more efficiently. Are there learnings from some of the international markets, the launches you've had to-date, that have allowed you to be more efficient in rolling out new markets going forward? It's pretty big statement to make and pretty big change just over the last 90 days.

大衛，我想跟進全球擴張的情況。您在本新聞稿中大膽提出的兩件事之一是關於在未來兩年內完成全球擴張的這句話。我注意到粗體的內容。問題是──你之前談過這個問題。聽起來您正在購買國際內容或更有效地為國際市場獲取內容。是否有從一些國際市場以及您迄今為止推出的產品中學到的經驗教訓，使您能夠更有效地開拓新市場？這是一個相當重大的聲明，也是過去 90 天發生的相當大的變化。

Sure, Mark. I think one thing that I would add to what Rita and Ted talked about in terms of our incremental confidence in international is that our originals programming continues to be highly engaged across markets outside the US. We thought it might be, based on the type of content that those markets were enjoying. But we just didn't know.

當然，馬克。我認為，在麗塔和特德談到的關於我們對國際的信心不斷增加的問題上，我要補充的一件事是，我們的原創節目繼續在美國以外的市場上保持高度參與。根據這些市場所喜歡的內容類型，我們認為可能是這樣。但我們只是不知道。

And now we've had another year of experience in originals. We see that the originals are in the top list of content watched in all those markets. So it gives us more confidence that when we make something, we produce, we incur those production costs, that it will be an asset that can be enjoyed across markets and across a bigger and bigger set of international markets. So, I'd say -- go ahead, Mark.

現在我們在原創方面又累積了一年的經驗。我們看到，原創作品位於所有這些市場觀看內容的榜首。因此，這讓我們更有信心，當我們製造某種東西時，我們生產，我們承擔這些生產成本，這將是一種可以跨市場和越來越大的國際市場享受的資產。所以，我想說——繼續吧，馬克。

No, please finish, David.

不，請說完，大衛。

I would say the incremental lessons for us have been -- the payments lessons we've learned, and we continue to grow and address each individual market separately, because they all seem to have different challenges. The types of programming in each market, I think, Ted's team is getting smarter and smarter, and we've become incrementally better in terms of knowing what to license up front, what to add, in terms of licensing over 12, 24 months, to make the content better and better.

我想說，對我們來說，增量的教訓是——我們學到的支付教訓，我們繼續發展並分別解決每個單獨的市場，因為它們似乎都有不同的挑戰。我認為，每個市場的程式設計類型都變得越來越聰明，我們在了解預先授權什麼、添加什麼方面、在 12、24 個月的授權方面已經變得越來越好，讓內容越來越好。

I had a brief follow-up, and just to bring the question back to Reed, then. Reed, is the point that Netflix is really selling two universal goods? One is streaming, and the second is streaming of this content that has universal appeal, a lot of which is US content. Not all of it, but the most popular shows in one market pretty much largely transfer to be the top content in other markets, as well. Is that the secret sauce?

我進行了簡短的跟進，然後將問題帶回給里德。里德，Netflix 真的在銷售兩種通用商品嗎？一是串流媒體，二是串流媒體具有普遍吸引力的內容，其中許多是美國內容。雖然不是全部，但一個市場中最受歡迎的節目在很大程度上也成為其他市場的熱門內容。這就是秘密醬汁嗎？

Well, I'll certainly chew on that first part of what you said, which is the magic of streaming is on-demand, in control, being able to binge on episodes, watch a movie in the middle of the night. And that is a very universal truth, which is even stronger in developing markets where television is not as advanced as it might be, say, in the US or France. So the more that we expand out of that footprint, the more we are differentially great with the interactive side.

好吧，我肯定會仔細考慮你所說的第一部分，即串流媒體的魔力是點播、可控、能夠狂看劇集、在半夜看電影。這是一個非常普遍的事實，在電視不像美國或法國那樣先進的發展中市場中這一事實更為明顯。因此，我們擴展的範圍越廣，我們在互動方面就越有優勢。

Then in terms of the content, it would be easy to over-generalize from our experience in Western Europe and Latin America. There's some content like House of Cards that really does carry around the world. It's not on our [serve]; it's in China. But it's been tremendously popular in China. But not every piece of content will carry equally well. But we've certainly been impressed on how there's a segment of the market in every country that follows Western, Hollywood, British content. And then we're augmenting that with all kinds of local programming.

那麼就內容而言，根據我們在西歐和拉丁美洲的經驗，很容易過度概括。像《紙牌屋》這樣的內容確實風靡全球。這不在我們的[發球]範圍內；這是在中國。但它在中國非常受歡迎。但並非所有內容都能同樣出色地傳播。但我們確實對每個國家都有一部分市場追隨西方、好萊塢、英國內容印象深刻。然後我們透過各種本地編程來增強這一點。

So it's not quite as simple as we do our originals, that's the whole thing, it's everywhere. But that's at least a two-thirds impact. And Ted, maybe you can add some color on how we look at the markets beyond Western Europe?

所以它並不像我們做原創那麼簡單，這就是全部，它無所不在。但這至少有三分之二的影響。泰德（Ted），也許您認為我們如何看待西歐以外的市場添加一些色彩？

Yes, it's been so encouraging how truly global these brands have been. When we set out our original programming from the beginning, obviously our markets were pretty limited, and we were thinking about them mostly as US shows and they would travel like other US shows have. We've been really enthused to see -- particularly in our Western European launches -- shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards, even in later seasons, performing tremendous for us. Because people hadn't got around to seeing them yet, and we could get the brand out there and push it out there. And then Marco Polo was kind of a global phenomenon, as well.

是的，這些品牌真正的全球化程度令人鼓舞。當我們從一開始就開始製作原創節目時，顯然我們的市場相當有限，我們主要將它們視為美國節目，並且它們會像其他美國節目一樣傳播。我們非常高興地看到，尤其是在西歐推出的節目中，《女子監獄》和《紙牌屋》等節目即使在後來的幾季中也為我們帶來了巨大的表現。因為人們還沒有時間看到它們，而我們可以將品牌推廣到那裡。然後馬可波羅也成為全球現象。

So to us, it was very encouraging that what the world really wants is high-quality, big production values, great storytelling, and that can be truly universal. It might be that there are some cultural barriers to US content as we get into more exotic markets. But my guess is, is that we're going to continue to see our original programming travel and carry the Netflix brand around the world.

因此，對我們來說，非常令人鼓舞的是，世界真正想要的是高品質、高製作價值、精彩的故事敘述，而這可以真正普及。當我們進入更具異國情調的市場時，美國內容可能會遇到一些文化障礙。但我的猜測是，我們將繼續看到我們的原創節目在世界各地傳播並攜帶 Netflix 品牌。

This is a question for Ted, because you bring up Marco Polo. I think the impact on the fourth quarter is really important to hone in on. We got a lot of questions e-mailed into us basically with the sentiment of how much of a drag was Marco Polo and the negative reaction on Q4 subscriber metrics? Did the negative press impact, negatively, gross additions?

這是泰德的問題，因為你提到了馬可波羅。我認為對第四季的影響非常重要。我們收到了很多透過電子郵件發送給我們的問題，基本上都是關於馬可波羅的拖累程度以及對第四季度訂戶指標的負面反應的情緒？負面新聞是否對總增加量產生了負面影響？

And then tied to that, as you've mentioned also, you've got House of Cards, Season Three coming. How much of your guidance for Q1 benefits from Season Three of House of Cards, globally? I think last year, you made a comment that Season Two had, had a much bigger impact on gross additions than the prior year. Does that follow through, you think, again for Season Three?

與此相關的是，正如您也提到的，《紙牌屋》第三季即將推出。在全球範圍內，您對第一季的指導有多少受益於《紙牌屋》第三季？我想去年，您發表了評論，第二季對總增量的影響比前一年大得多。您認為，這會在第三季再次延續嗎？

Rich, I think it's tough to get a big subscriber reaction to a new series that people haven't heard before, even if they get excited about it. They're more curious about it before they've seen the first few. While Marco Polo had some negative reactions in the press, viewers have loved it, and the volume of viewing has been phenomenal. The rate at which people are completing the show is comparable to our other big tent-pole original shows. So we're thrilled that we made a show that viewers have loved around the world. And of course because it's a Season One, we had not baked in or had a big anticipation for subscriber impact.

里奇，我認為人們以前沒有聽過的新系列很難引起大的訂閱者反應，即使他們對此感到興奮。在看到前幾個之前，他們對此更加好奇。雖然《馬可波羅》在媒體上引起了一些負面反應，但觀眾很喜歡它，而且觀看量非常驚人。人們完成節目的速度與我們其他大型原創節目相當。因此，我們很高興我們製作了一個受到世界各地觀眾喜愛的節目。當然，因為這是第一季，我們對訂閱者的影響並沒有太大的期待。

House of Cards, Season Two; Orange is the New Black, Season Two; and Arrested Development have been the ones that -- the shows where we've been able to track real measurable subscriber growth with their launches. And I think as we go forward with Season Three of House of Cards and Season Three of Orange Is the New Black -- Daredevil has a built-in fan base from Marvel. Our feature film -- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II -- has a built-in fan base from the original film. So I think we'll see those kind of impacts that we saw from Season Twos in the past.

《紙牌屋》第二季； 《女子監獄》第二季；和《發展受阻》是那些我們能夠透過其發布來追蹤真正可衡量的訂戶成長的節目。我認為，隨著《紙牌屋》第三季和《女子監獄》第三季的推進，夜魔俠已經擁有了漫威的固定粉絲群。我們的劇情長片－《臥虎藏龍2》－擁有原版電影的固定粉絲群。所以我認為我們會看到我們在過去的第二季中看到的那種影響。

Because part of the fear is that the marketing benefit that came along with originals that had good reviews had a big impact on just building the Netflix brand. And obviously, Marco Polo -- maybe it's getting good consumer reviews. But the critical press or the media, the general entertainment media, doesn't seem to be excited about it the way they had been about your prior originals.

因為部分擔憂是，好評如潮的原創作品所帶來的行銷效益對 Netflix 品牌的建立產生了巨大影響。顯然，馬可波羅——也許它得到了消費者的好評。但批評媒體或媒體、一般娛樂媒體似乎不像對你之前的原創作品那樣對此感到興奮。

I find it hard to believe that you can build sustainably on things that get well-reviewed and not watched. So I'm thrilled that this is getting watched and loved, and I think that is sustainable.

我發現很難相信你可以在那些受到廣泛好評但不被關注的事情上可持續發展。所以我很高興這能受到關注和喜愛，而且我認為這是可持續的。

And Rich, we're really focused on the consumer and the social media that comes out of that. So if you look at the commentary from people to their friends about Marco Polo, it's extremely positive. The spectacle, the costumes, the story line, the exotic-but-approachable -- it's a great one. The investor audience tends to be highly educated, and that really skews towards House of Cards. But, well, you're an exception. (laughter) So you get some of that marketing-to-me kind of thing, where House of Cards for the investor audience is a tighter match than Marco Polo. But really, Marco Polo has been a great success, and we've renewed for Season Two.

里奇，我們真正關注的是消費者和由此產生的社群媒體。因此，如果你看看人們對他們的朋友對馬可波羅的評論，你會發現這是非常積極的。奇觀、服裝、故事情節，充滿異國情調但又平易近人——這是一部很棒的作品。投資者受眾往往受過高等教育，這確實偏向紙牌屋。但是，好吧，你是個例外。 （笑聲）所以你會得到一些對我來說是行銷的東西，對於投資者觀眾來說，《紙牌屋》比《馬可波羅》更適合。但事實上，《馬可波羅》取得了巨大的成功，我們已經續訂了第二季。

And Rich, one final comment regarding guidance. It's worth reminding folks that the investment community is hyper-focused on whether we're within 100,000 or 200,000 of our guiding number. But when we're talking about our guide for Q1 at 1.8 million domestic members, in terms of growth, the addition of even House of Cards, Season Three is 100,000, 150,000. So we're talking about -- on the margin it's helpful, but it's not the big thing that's going to drive the growth in Q1.

里奇，關於指導的最後評論。值得提醒人們的是，投資界高度關注我們是否在指導數字的 100,000 或 200,000 以內。但當我們談論第一季 180 萬國內會員的指導時，就成長而言，即使是《紙牌屋》第三季的增加也是 10 萬、15 萬。所以我們談論的是——從邊際上看，它是有幫助的，但它並不是推動第一季成長的大事。

Let me go back to Ted with two questions on original content. Does the success, then, of Marco Polo want to lead you to look to do even more of these relatively blockbuster type of productions?

讓我帶著兩個關於原始內容的問題回到 Ted。那麼，《馬可波羅》的成功是否會讓您開始嘗試製作更多這類相對轟動的作品呢？

And then secondly, in terms of the viewing of the season, just to be clear, are you seeing greater viewing of each of the original content -- House of Cards, Orange is the New Black? Are they increasing every year as you've seen really successful series do in the past? Are the audiences building up for each of those?

其次，就本季的收視率而言，需要明確的是，您是否看到每個原創內容（《紙牌屋》、《女子監獄》等原創內容的收視率有所提高？）它們是否像您過去看到的真正成功的系列那樣每年都在增加？這些觀眾是否都在為這些活動做好準備？

The audience is definitely building season-on-season for each of those shows. And I think, as you see in our line-up of upcoming shows, that we have some pretty epic and pretty spectacular shows upcoming -- like Daredevil, like Sense8 -- that are done on a very big scale.

觀眾肯定會逐季觀看這些節目。我認為，正如你在我們即將推出的節目陣容中看到的那樣，我們即將推出一些非常史詩般、非常壯觀的節目——比如《夜魔俠》，比如《超感8》——規模非常大。

But remember, we're releasing 320 hours of new original programming this year alone. And in there, there's a mix of big epic spectaculars. Some smaller productions, but I probably think equally loved, like a comedy from Tina Fey and Robert Carlock, the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. And other shows, as well, like Grace and Frankie, with Jane Fonda and Lilly Tomlin. So we're not going after one kind of audience or one type of show. Tastes are super-diverse, and we have a big subscriber base and were trying to serve all of them.

但請記住，光是今年我們就發布了 320 小時的全新原創節目。在那裡，有各種大型史詩奇觀。一些規模較小的作品，但我可能認為同樣受到喜愛，例如蒂娜·菲和羅伯特·卡洛克的喜劇《堅不可摧的金米·施密特》。還有其他節目，例如珍芳達和莉莉湯姆林主演的《格蕾絲和法蘭基》。所以我們不會追求一種觀眾或一種類型的節目。口味非常多樣化，我們擁有龐大的用戶群，並試圖為所有人提供服務。

When you look at the subscriber growth, David, obviously, you're looking for slower growth or slower net adds, as you look on a year-over-year basis. Should investors just assume that a 20% annual decline? Or is the content that Ted's talking about, is there the potential to re-accelerate that, where you could have more adds domestically in 2016 than 2015?

大衛，當你觀察用戶成長時，顯然，你會發現成長放緩或淨成長放緩，因為你逐年觀察。投資者是否應該假設每年下跌 20%？或者 Ted 談論的內容是否有可能重新加速，2016 年在國內的新增內容可能比 2015 年還要多？

And then tied to that, you gave out, I think, your first-ever margin guidance for 2020 of 40%. Was that tied to a specific subscriber number in your head? Or is there a pricing flexibility, where you think pricing is notably higher? How do we think about how you get to that 40% contribution margin?

與此相關的是，我認為你們給了 2020 年首個 40% 的利潤指引。這是否與您腦海中的特定訂閱者號碼相關？或者是否存在定價彈性，您認為定價明顯更高？我們如何看待如何實現 40% 的邊際貢獻？

Sure. Well, I'll take the first part. We certainly could end up higher, right? Now, we've learned our lessons on giving full-year guidance on member numbers, so we tend not to do that. But what we're saying is -- look, the current trends that we saw in Q3 and Q4, extrapolated forward, are down year on year, in terms of net addition growth. We have a lot of content, as Ted just talked about, coming out in Q1 and the rest of 2015.

當然。好吧，我將採取第一部分。我們當然可以走得更高，對吧？現在，我們已經吸取了對會員數量提供全年指導的教訓，因此我們傾向於不這樣做。但我們要說的是——看，我們在第三季和第四季看到的當前趨勢，從淨增量成長的角度推斷，是年減的。正如 Ted 剛才談到的，我們有很多內容將在 2015 年第一季和剩餘時間推出。

So we certainly could see it jump up. It's really hard to know. But I think the prudent thing for us right now is just to continue to extrapolate the current trend that we're seeing. And that was down year on year, and that's what you see reflected in our Q1 guide.

所以我們當然可以看到它跳起來。這真的很難知道。但我認為目前對我們來說謹慎的做法是繼續推斷我們所看到的當前趨勢。這一數字同比下降，這就是我們第一季指南中所反映的情況。

In terms of the margin guidance for 40%, it isn't the first time. We actually guided to 30%, in terms of setting a margin target out there. But we wanted to give investors some guidance in terms of long-term margin growth. And what it's about for us is the steady march upward of about 200 -- averaging about 200 basis points a year.

就40%的利潤指引而言，這並不是第一次。就設定利潤率目標而言，我們實際上指導為 30%。但我們希望在長期利潤成長方面為投資者提供一些指導。對我們來說，這意味著穩步上升約 200 個基點——平均每年約 200 個基點。

We're going to have some lumpiness with the content coming in, in terms of heavy quarters of content introduction. We have accelerated amortization on that original content, which tends to pressure the P&L in those quarters when we launch a lot of content. But I think for the 40%, it's the continued steady growth of the business. And we think that we have the flexibility in the model that doesn't require an 80 million subscriber or 90 million subscriber business to get there. We can get there with the growth that we see layered in today.

就大量的內容介紹而言，我們的內容將會出現一些混亂。我們加速了原創內容的攤銷，當我們推出大量內容時，這往往會對這些季度的損益造成壓力。但我認為對於40%來說，是業務的持續穩定成長。我們認為我們的模型具有靈活性，不需要 8,000 萬訂戶或 9,000 萬訂戶業務即可實現這一目標。我們可以透過今天看到的分層成長來實現這一目標。

David, can I ask about pricing elasticity? You talk about that a fair amount in the press release. Two quarters ago, it seemed like there was a lot of conviction in the pricing power. Last quarter, some questions. Now, it seems like there's greater conviction. Do think you think you really have enough data points? I know you mentioned Mexico. It sounds like you did some additional research on some of the newer subs coming in.

大衛，我可以問一下定價彈性嗎？您在新聞稿中多次談論了這一點。兩個季度前，人們似乎對定價能力抱持著很大信心。上個季度，有一些問題。現在看來，大家的信念更加堅定了。您認為您真的擁有足夠的數據點嗎？我知道你提到了墨西哥。聽起來你對一些新推出的潛水艇做了一些額外的研究。

Do you have other markets that you've looked at and you've seen the results from there that give you the confidence that there is this pricing elasticity or pricing power? Do think we could, then, going forward, see a $1 price increase every other year, or every two years, and maybe with a year grandfather?

您是否已經研究過其他市場並且看到了那裡的結果，這些結果讓您確信存在這種定價彈性或定價能力？那麼，我們是否認為我們可以看到價格每隔一年或每兩年上漲 1 美元，也許還有一年的祖父？

Well, I don't think we're talking about $1 to the consumer price increase every year. What we're talking about is using our tiers to provide value and choice for the consumers to steadily grow our average subscription price over time. That doesn't necessarily require the frequency of an annual price increase. I think what you should expect from us is a steady growth of that ASP, and we'll disconnect pricing. I don't think there's any reason for us to have a global single event. We'll look at pricing in each market and we'll grow it accordingly to what we think makes sense in each market.

嗯，我不認為我們談論的是每年消費者價格上漲 1 美元。我們所說的是利用我們的層級為消費者提供價值和選擇，從而隨著時間的推移穩步提高我們的平均訂閱價格。這不一定需要每年漲價的頻率。我認為您應該對我們期望的是平均售價的穩定增長，並且我們將斷開定價。我認為我們沒有任何理由舉辦全球單一活動。我們將研究每個市場的定價，並根據我們認為對每個市場有意義的價格相應地調整價格。

In terms of evidence, sure, we have seen growth persist through pricing introduction or raises through those markets. So I think besides Mexico, we've got some other examples. Ultimately, it will rest upon when those grandfatherings expire. So we still have that to come.

就證據而言，當然，我們已經看到透過引入定價或透過這些市場提高價格來實現持續成長。所以我認為除了墨西哥之外，我們還有其他一些例子。最終，這將取決於這些祖父條款的到期時間。所以我們還有未來。

But we think we have enough evidence today to look at it and say -- the growth that we saw that slowed down in Q2 and Q3 wasn't necessarily -- wasn't related to the pricing. We still scratch our heads a little bit, in terms of explaining fully. And as I said before, it takes several quarters for you to really get comfortable in the answer and to look at every piece of information. But right now, I think we've got enough information to say, based on Mexico and other markets, that there's still pricing power, plenty of pricing power for Netflix, and not a reaction to the elasticity.

但我們認為我們今天有足夠的證據來審視它並說——我們看到的第二季和第三季放緩的成長不一定是——與定價無關。在充分解釋方面，我們仍然有點摸不著頭腦。正如我之前所說，你需要幾個季度的時間才能真正熟悉答案並查看每個資訊。但現在，我認為我們已經有足夠的資訊可以說，基於墨西哥和其他市場，Netflix 仍然有定價權，有足夠的定價權，而不是對彈性的反應。

Just expending on that, Reed, when you think about the way you price, you basically foreclosed on advertising as an incremental way to drive revenue. Are there forms of tiering that could actually be interesting to generate more revenue for Netflix on a per-subscriber basis?

里德，當你考慮定價方式時，你基本上就取消了廣告作為增加收入的增量方式的贖回權。是否存在某種形式的分層實際上可能會有趣，可以為 Netflix 在每個訂閱者的基礎上創造更多收入？

Sure. The biggest one is our $12-a-month plan, is our plan for Ultra HD. Today there are very few televisions that are Ultra HD, and we only have a few titles. We have more than anybody else, but we only have a few titles. But if you look ahead two years, four years from now, many of the TVs sold at Best Buy will be Ultra HD, and lots of our content will be Ultra HD. And it's a natural match.

當然。最大的一項是我們每月 12 美元的計劃，即我們的超高清計劃。如今，超高清電視非常少，我們也只有少數幾部作品。我們比任何人都擁有更多的頭銜，但我們只有幾個頭銜。但如果你展望兩年、四年後，百思買銷售的許多電視將是超高清的，我們的許多內容也將是超高清的。這是天生的搭配。

So I think what we'll be able to do is, as the high-end of the market spends $2,000 to get an Ultra HD television, it seems fair and natural to them that, just like you pay for a difference between standard def and HD, that there's a difference between HD and Ultra HD. That's a way that we get incremental revenue without making any changes ourselves, by just letting the tide come to us.

因此，我認為我們能夠做的是，隨著高端市場花費 2,000 美元購買超高清電視，這對他們來說似乎是公平和自然的，就像您為標準清晰度和高清電視之間的差異付費一樣高清，高清和超高清之間有區別。這是一種無需我們自己做出任何改變、只需順其自然而獲得增量收入的方法。

And Reed, if I could add to that, I think what's exciting about this move is, unlike other format changes, this one is led by a thin layer of content, but the front-end of the content. So we're shooting all our original series, with very few exceptions, in Ultra HD. Our Breaking Bad licenses are all in Ultra HD. Blacklist, all the very front-line shows, and then complementing it with more and more of the catalog. But it's not a show-off of weird, quirky things that look good. It's actually the programming that people are watching.

里德，如果我可以補充一點的話，我認為這一舉措令人興奮的是，與其他格式變化不同，這一變化是由一層薄薄的內容主導的，而是內容的前端。因此，除了極少數例外，我們所有的原創系列都以超高清格式拍攝。我們的絕命毒師許可證都是超高清的。黑名單，所有最前線的節目，然後用越來越多的目錄來補充它。但這並不是炫耀看起來不錯的奇怪、古怪的東西。這實際上是人們正在觀看的節目。

Another question for Ted. You talked about your overall content, your ability to gain efficiencies in terms of your procurement of content. Can't tell if whether the competitive landscape is changing at all. Amazon may be getting critical acclaim; it's hard to tell whether they're getting customer acclaim for their shows. Are you seeing anything in the market that suggests that your ability to acquire content is getting easier or harder?

特德的另一個問題。您談到了您的整體內容，以及您在內容採購方面提高效率的能力。無法判斷競爭格局是否正在改變。亞馬遜可能會受到好評；很難說他們的表演是否得到了顧客的好評。您是否在市場上看到任何跡象表明您獲取內容的能力變得更容易或更困難？

On the original side, it's a very competitive market, and we are, fortunately, in a position ourself as a premier destination for the biggest and best projects. We don't say yes to all of them, and we see them show up at other places. But we do think that we're the first or second go-to for most of the projects that we're looking for.

從最初的角度來看，這是一個競爭非常激烈的市場，幸運的是，我們能夠成為最大和最好項目的首選目的地。我們不會對所有人說“是”，但我們會看到他們出現在其他地方。但我們確實認為我們是我們正在尋找的大多數項目的第一或第二選擇。

I think, in terms on the licensing side, the same thing. Which is, as we increase our footprint, our ability to compete in that space really helps being able to get the most high-profile shows. But by doing that, by being more and more confident at earlier and earlier stages. So being able to license that content with much greater confidence. Sometimes a pre-pilot gives us the ability to find those efficiencies.

我認為，就許可方面而言，也是一樣的。也就是說，隨著我們擴大足跡，我們在該領域的競爭能力確實有助於獲得最引人注目的節目。但透過這樣做，在越來越早的階段變得越來越自信。因此能夠更有信心地授權該內容。有時，預試點使我們能夠提高效率。

But Ted, just to follow on that. Stacking rights has become a real issue for US studios. They're now looking at your requirements for limiting stacking, and also the global buying. Meaning, you don't want to buy things that don't have that global license attached to it. Is that making it harder for you to buy content from some of the big TV producers, as you look out over the course of the next 12 months -- whether it be the Foxes, the Warners, the CBS's? Or is that a non-issue?

但是特德，只是跟進這一點。疊加版權已成為美國電影公司面臨的現實問題。他們現在正在考慮您對限制堆疊的要求以及全球購買的要求。這意味著，您不想購買沒有附加全球許可證的東西。展望未來 12 個月，這是否會讓您更難從一些大型電視製作商那裡購買內容——無論是福克斯電視台、華納電視台還是哥倫比亞廣播公司？或者這不是問題？

I think, really, the truth of it is, it doesn't make it harder, because it actually makes it more attractive as the studios streamline their operations. I think they're looking for more streamlined ways of selling their programming efficiently. And on the stacking rights, we're not standing in the way of the network withholding those rights; we're just saying we won't pay full freight if it's not fully exclusive. And so if they want to withhold the right for stacking, they're welcome to do that. It's just, there is a price tag to it. That's some portion of the $3 billion we're spending this year.

我認為，事實是，這並沒有讓事情變得更困難，因為隨著工作室簡化運營，這實際上使它變得更具吸引力。我認為他們正在尋找更簡化的方式來有效地銷售他們的節目。關於堆疊權利，我們不會阻止網路扣留這些權利；我們只是說，如果不是完全排他性的，我們不會支付全額運費。因此，如果他們想保留堆疊的權利，歡迎他們這樣做。只是，它有一個價格標籤。這是我們今年 30 億美元支出的一部分。

But you are, essentially, limiting their downside, but you're also limiting the studios' upside if they agree to sell their content to you. Is that fair?

但從本質上講，你限制了他們的負面影響，但如果工作室同意向你出售內容，你也限制了工作室的正面影響。這樣公平嗎？

In what way?

以什麼方式？

Well, they don't have the ability to sell it to -- based on the success here, if they're selling it to you, let's just say pre-release, they can't go out and sell it in other markets over time. If they basically limit the stacking, they obviously can't leverage all of their other platforms with those full in-season stackings.

好吧，他們沒有能力把它賣給——基於這裡的成功，如果他們把它賣給你，我們就說預發布，他們不能出去在其他市場上銷售它。時間。如果他們基本上限制堆疊，那麼他們顯然無法利用所有其他平台的全部當季堆疊。

That can do it, Rich; they just can't do it for free.

那可以做到，里奇；他們只是不能免費做到這一點。

Right.

正確的。

Yes.

是的。

A question for Reed. Reed, a couple of months ago, I think, HBO talked about plans to launch this stand-alone streaming service some time in 2015. Any thoughts you have on what kind of impact that could have on your business? And specifically, do think that there is a probability that there would be a broad streaming solution that would come out at a price point lower than Netflix?

問里德一個問題。 Reed，我記得幾個月前，HBO 談到了在 2015 年某個時候推出這項獨立串流媒體服務的計劃。您對這可能對您的業務產生什麼樣的影響有什麼想法嗎？具體來說，您是否認為有可能出現一種價格低於 Netflix 的廣泛串流媒體解決方案？

You know, it's really hard to speculate on what they're going to do on pricing. To the degree that they go really aggressive and match Netflix's price for HBO, then it's extremely disruptive to their current ecosystems, since their prices are higher than that. They've generally given the signal that they're going in softly, in terms of not being too disruptive, using the existing partnerships. That would tend to imply a little bit higher price point. In the Nordics, they did choose, which is the first place that they competed over the top, to be directly on top of us -- about 79 krone for the pricing. So we'll just wait and see.

你知道，很難猜測他們將在定價方面做什麼。如果他們真的非常激進並與 Netflix 對 HBO 的價格相匹配，那麼這對他們當前的生態系統來說是極具破壞性的，因為他們的價格比這個要高。他們通常會發出這樣的訊號：他們將利用現有的合作關係，溫和地介入，不會造成太大的破壞。這往往意味著價格會更高一些。在北歐，他們確實選擇了直接領先我們，這是他們爭奪的第一個位置——大約79克朗的定價。所以我們就拭目以待吧。

I think even if they were two match us in pricing, it's just going to be a lot of people subscribing to both. And I think over the years, the last five years, with HBO and Showtime, when Showtime has a great run with Homeland and The Affair, it increases Showtime subscriptions. It doesn't decrease HBO. And I think we'd see the same with us and HBO. Which is, if they do great work, people will additionally subscribe to them because that cost is pretty small per month -- ours is small per month -- relative to all the other entertainment options. So it's definitely not a zero-sum situation.

我認為即使他們的定價與我們匹配，也會有很多人同時訂閱。我認為多年來，過去五年，隨著 HBO 和 Showtime，當 Showtime 的《國土安全》和《婚外情事》表現出色時，它增加了 Showtime 的訂閱量。它不會減少 HBO。我想我們和 HBO 也會看到同樣的情況。也就是說，如果他們做得很好，人們就會額外訂閱它們，因為相對於所有其他娛樂選擇，每月的成本相當小——我們的每月成本很小。所以這絕對不是零和的局面。

Both Reed and David, on the next question, as it relates to Dish and Sling TV. MVPD integration in this country has been really a challenge for Netflix. I think you've had a lot more success signing deals outside of the United States. What does the Dish deal mean initially, in terms of the willingness of others in the US? And will we ever see you on the X-1, integrated into the platform?

里德和大衛，關於下一個問題，因為它與 Dish 和 Sling TV 有關。 MVPD 在這個國家的整合對 Netflix 來說確實是一個挑戰。我認為你們在美國境外簽署交易取得了更大的成功。就美國其他國家的意願而言，Dish 協議最初意味著什麼？我們會在整合到該平台的 X-1 上見到您嗎？

And then, to the extent that Dish is actually creating subscribers -- this is the part for David -- curious how you get compensated -- or, sorry, how you're compensating Dish if they're able to actually grow your gross additions?

然後，就 Dish 實際創造的訂閱者而言——這是 David 的部分——好奇你如何獲得補償——或者，抱歉，如果 Dish 能夠真正增加你的總增加量，你將如何補償 Dish ？

I can answer both. We're certainly not going to talk about the financial details with Dish. To the degree Dish has always been a maverick doing some things first, to the degree that they enjoyed great success, like Virgin in the UK, with a platform and it helps the Hopper get more popular -- because it's also an Internet platform -- then I think it is likely that Dish's competitors would want to co-opt that benefit and integrate with us. But right now, everyone is in a watch-and-see; let's see how Dish succeeds with the Hopper hardware, which is what has Netflix. And that's independent of Sling TV. So those are two different things.

兩個我都可以回答。我們當然不會與 Dish 談論財務細節。從某種程度上來說，Dish 一直是個特立獨行的人，首先做一些事情，他們獲得了巨大的成功，就像英國的Virgin 一樣，它擁有一個平台，它幫助Hopper 變得更受歡迎— —因為它也是一個互聯網平台——那麼我認為 Dish 的競爭對手很可能會想要利用這一優勢並與我們整合。但現在，每個人都在觀望。讓我們看看 Dish 如何利用 Hopper 硬體取得成功，Netflix 也擁有該硬體。這與 Sling TV 無關。所以這是兩件不同的事情。

What you think of Sling TV? A lot of people have downplayed it. What do you think of the offering and it's impact on your business specifically?

您對吊帶電視有何看法？很多人都淡化了它。您如何看待該產品及其對您業務的具體影響？

I don't think we'll see any impact on our business. It's a great start. Charlie Ergen has been a great entrepreneur, and I think he sees the future, that it's Internet-centric. And it may not be the perfect offering today, but it's got, at $20 a month, very attractive pricing. And he's been an incredible entrepreneur, in terms of starting with something small like the early Dish, and building it into be the Internet MVPD. So it's great for him. It adds some competition in that market. But I don't think it materially changes the desire to have Netflix with our unique and exclusive shows.

我認為我們的業務不會受到任何影響。這是一個很好的開始。查理·厄根（Charlie Ergen）是一位偉大的企業家，我認為他看到了未來，以互聯網為中心的未來。今天它可能不是完美的產品，但每月 20 美元的價格非常有吸引力。他是一位令人難以置信的企業家，從早期的 Dish 這樣的小事開始，並將其打造成互聯網 MVPD。所以這對他來說很棒。它增加了該市場的一些競爭。但我不認為這會實​​質地改變人們對 Netflix 提供我們獨特且獨家節目的渴望。

Reed, on the MVPD integrations in Europe, are any of those material enough to have caused some of the upset we saw in this -- to your guidance in the December quarter or in the guide for the March quarter?

Reed，關於歐洲 MVPD 整合，這些資料中的任何一個是否足以引起我們在這方面看到的一些不安 - 您在 12 月季度的指導或 3 月季度的指導中？

There are deals that we work on for a long time, so they were all built into the Q4 guidance.

有些交易是我們長期致力於的，所以它們都被納入了第四季度的指導中。

Reed, you have not updated us on streaming metrics in a long time. I think Neil Hunt gave the last statistic almost a year ago, in terms of where you are now on a monthly or quarterly global basis. Some color there?

Reed，您已經很久沒有向我們更新串流媒體指標了。我認為尼爾亨特在大約一年前給出了最後一次統計數據，就目前全球每月或每季的情況而言。有什麼顏色嗎？

And then just tied to that, we got a lot of questions e-mailed in, in terms of just split -- where it stands today in terms of devices. Given the rollout of better wireless networks, how big is non-in-home usage on tablets and smartphones? And is there any color you could provide on movies versus TV, in terms of absolute amount or absolute volume of streaming?

然後與此相關的是，我們收到了很多透過電子郵件發送的問題，就拆分而言 - 它在設備方面的現狀如何。隨著更好的無線網路的推出，平板電腦和智慧型手機的非家庭使用量有多大？就串流媒體的絕對量或絕對量而言，您可以在電影與電視上提供任何顏色嗎？

There's been no remarkable changes. TV shows, watching is bigger than movies. That's been a consistent. We've said personal devices, PC, tablet, phone. That varies by markets some, 30%, 40% of viewing. And TV-based viewing being -- a large green screen share being the majority of it. No particular change in those metrics.

沒有什麼顯著的改變。電視節目，觀看量比電影更大。這一直是一致的。我們說過個人設備、個人電腦、平板電腦、手機。這因市場而異，有 30%、40% 的觀看次數。基於電視的觀看——其中大部分是大綠幕份額。這些指標沒有特別變化。

In terms of mobile networks, consumers are still, in most countries, quite conservative because of the data caps -- typically two gigabytes or five gigabytes, in terms of watching video on. So we see a lot of tablet and smartphone usage, but almost always on Wi-Fi networks. And then they're careful about how they use the cellular networks because of the caps and the fear of overages.

在行動網路方面，大多數國家的消費者仍然相當保守，因為觀看影片時的數據上限通常為 2 GB 或 5 GB。因此，我們看到大量平板電腦和智慧型手機的使用，但幾乎總是在 Wi-Fi 網路上使用。然後，由於上限和擔心超額，他們對如何使用蜂窩網絡非常謹慎。

And then, total hours?

然後，總小時數？

Total hours continue to grow. We haven't had any super sexy milestone that we've chosen to make an event about, which is when we tend to do those things. Total hours, of course that's going up. But more importantly, median hours has continued to climb in every market as we make the programming better and better.

總時間持續成長。我們還沒有選擇舉辦任何超級性感的里程碑事件，而這正是我們傾向於做這些事情的時候。總時間當然還在增加。但更重要的是，隨著我們的節目製作越來越好，每個市場的平均長度都在持續攀升。

That's the main thing that we track internally, and it's very exciting to see as devices get simpler to use, as the UI gets more personalized, as the content gets better, that we see it directly reflected in the number of median hours. And that is the closest correlator with retention and word-of-mouth. Because if you're using Netflix a lot, you're much more likely to stay with us and to recommend it to your friends.

這是我們內部追蹤的主要內容，隨著設備變得更易於使用，隨著用戶介面變得更加個性化，隨著內容變得更好，我們看到它直接反映在中位數小時數中，這是非常令人興奮的。這是與留存率和口碑最接近的相關因素。因為如果您經常使用 Netflix，您就更有可能繼續使用我們的服務並將其推薦給您的朋友。

That must mean you're closing in on two hours per subscriber per day if you've been growing consistently on a median basis?

如果您的中位數持續成長，那麼這一定意味著您每個訂戶每天的使用時間接近兩個小時？

Well, I'll leave that speculation to you. And when we get to great milestones, there's a fair amount of seasonality. We might hit numbers like that in peak times, like holiday period, but not necessarily sustain that over the whole year.

好吧，我把這個猜測留給你。當我們達到偉大的里程碑時，就會有相當多的季節性。我們可能會在假期等高峰時段達到這樣的數字，但不一定能全年維持這個數字。

I guess that Rich will have a good take on it, whatever that is. Interesting, anyway.

我想無論是什麼，里奇都會對此有很好的看法。無論如何，很有趣。

David, let me bring you back in the conversation. You talk about generating material global profits earlier than expected, but you also talk about a $1 billion debt raise. Square those comments a little bit. And then, the timing of the debt raise -- when you would expect that and why you would choose debt versus equity?

大衛，讓我帶你回到談話中。您談到了比預期更早產生實質全球利潤，但您也談到了 10 億美元的債務籌集。稍微糾正一下這些評論。然後，舉債的時機──你預期什麼時候舉債？為什麼你會選擇舉債而不是股權？

Sure, Mark. I think in terms of profits earlier than expected, it's more that we have clear line of sight, in terms of rolling out the rest of our international expansion. We mentioned that we'd have a couple of years of heavy investment. I think that's going to drive capital needs, which then leads into the conversation around the capital. And we think right now is still a good time to secure long-term, low-cost capital in the debt market. And that's why we've chosen debt. (multiple speakers) with what we've done in the prior three years, actually -- we've done a raise every year.

當然，馬克。我認為，就比預期更早實現盈利而言，更重要的是我們在進行其餘的國際擴張方面擁有清晰的視野。我們提到我們將進行幾年的大量投資。我認為這將推動資本需求，從而引發圍繞資本的對話。我們認為現在仍然是債務市場獲得長期、低成本資本的好時機。這就是我們選擇債務的原因。 （多名演講者）實際上，我們在過去三年中所做的事情 - 我們每年都會加薪。

I think your points have been that the purpose for the capital raise is largely to fund international expansion. Just want to check that, that's true.

我認為您的觀點是，籌集資金的目的主要是為國際擴張提供資金。只是想確認一下，確實如此。

And then secondly, there's a little commentary in here about expanding into China, modestly. I'm not sure what a modest expansion into China is. It sounds like it could be expensive. Are there particular limits you're going to put on that?

其次，這裡有一些關於進軍中國的評論，謙虛地說。我不確定向中國的適度擴張是什麼。聽起來可能會很貴。您對此有什麼特別的限制嗎？

It will be quite modest. And I can let others speak to that, as well. Basically, the incremental cost to launch in the rest of the globe is smaller, relative to the individual customized launches that we've done to-date in these other territories. So you'll see the level of investment for the countries that we talked about and the countries that we will talk about in 2015, be a little bit higher than the level of investment going forward for, basically, the countries that we haven't yet launched in.

這將是相當謙虛的。我也可以讓其他人談論這一點。基本上，相對於我們迄今為止在其他地區進行的單獨客製化發布，在全球其他地區發布的增量成本較小。因此，你會看到我們談到的國家以及我們將在 2015 年討論的國家的投資水平，基本上比我們尚未討論的國家未來的投資水平要高一些。尚未推出。

And back to your cash comment, it's really tough to separate the cash. When you have capital in the business, and you use $1 on content and $1 to fund international expansion, it's really tough to separate those things. Both of those things right now are requiring cash for Netflix. The international mainly because it reduces $1 of profit that we would otherwise have. And the content because we've chosen to produce more and more of our own content. And that means we have to fund the production, which has slightly more upfront characteristics than a licensing model, where we would pay a little bit more out over the life of a deal.

回到你的現金評論，分開現金確實很困難。當你擁有業務資本，並且你用 1 美元購買內容並用 1 美元資助國際擴張時，很難將這些東西分開。目前，Netflix 的這兩件事都需要現金。國際化主要是因為它減少了我們本來可以擁有的 1 美元利潤。以及內容，因為我們選擇製作越來越多自己的內容。這意味著我們必須為製作提供資金，這比許可模式具有更多的前期特徵，在許可模式下，我們會在交易期間支付更多的費用。

But you're not in markets like Japan. Or you look at India, you look at South Korea. Those would seem like very expensive markets to enter, from just a content build-up. What's the disconnect there?

但你不在日本這樣的市場。或者你看看印度，看看韓國。僅憑內容積累，進入這些市場似乎非常昂貴。那裡有什麼脫節？

Let's go back to China, and then we'll visit that. Mark, on China, what we said in the letter is that we're exploring options. We need to get a license; that's not 100% clear that we'll be able to do that. We're figuring that out. And what we said is that if we go, it will be a modest investment. Because we won't have that much content, we're going to be very cautious and feel our way along through that process, if we're able to get that license.

我們先回中國吧，再去參觀一下。馬克，關於中國，我們在信中所說的是我們正在探索選擇。我們需要獲得許可證；目前還不能 100% 清楚我們是否能夠做到這一點。我們正在解決這個問題。我們所說的是，如果我們去的話，這將是一筆適度的投資。因為我們不會有那麼多內容，所以如果我們能夠獲得許可，我們將非常謹慎並摸索整個過程。

And then, to Rich's question -- yes, there's many other high GDP markets, GDP per capita, like South Korea and Korea and Japan, and those are big investments (technical difficulty) --

然後，對於里奇的問題——是的，還有許多其他高GDP、人均GDP的市場，例如韓國、韓國和日本，這些都是巨大的投資（技術難度）——

(technical difficulty) out in, I think, somewhere in the Midwest last month. I'm curious. Are there any key take-aways that we should be thinking about that you learned or that were discussed that would be meaningful to investors?

（技術困難）我想是上個月在中西部的某個地方。我很好奇。您學到的或討論過的對投資者有意義的關鍵要點是否值得我們思考？

You know, I think the key thing is that everyone sees that Internet TV is really becoming substantial. You saw this with CBS All Access -- 15 years of shows, any episode, a really lean forward move. You see this with ESPN, both heavily investing in WatchESPN. And if you think about it from an ESPN perspective, as long as people are subscribing, whether a third of the time they're on WatchESPN and two-thirds of the time on a linear channel, or the reverse, it's all the same to them. So they're being very forward-leaning and investing in WatchESPN. And by being in the Dish bundle, making sure that they stay accessible by every home in America.

你知道，我認為關鍵是每個人都看到網路電視正在真正變得實質。你在 CBS All Access 上看到了這一點——15 年的節目，任何一集，都是一次真正的向前邁進。你可以在 ESPN 上看到這一點，兩家公司都大力投資 WatchESPN。如果你從 ESPN 的角度考慮，只要人們訂閱，無論他們三分之一的時間在 WatchESPN 上，三分之二的時間在線性頻道上，或者相反，都一樣他們。因此，他們非常具有前瞻性並投資了 WatchESPN。透過加入 Dish 捆綁包，確保美國每個家庭都可以使用它們。

So just across the board you'll see this phenomena that we described a few years ago, of channels becoming apps, people using them on the smartphone and smart TV just as easily and transparently. So the fundamental thesis is getting validated; that's great. And for us, it's both more a competition, and it's more consumers coming in the market, speeding up, because Internet TV is becoming so mainstream.

因此，您會全面看到我們幾年前描述的這種現象，即頻道變成應用程序，人們在智慧型手機和智慧型電視上使用它們同樣輕鬆且透明。所以基本論點正在驗證中；那太棒了。對我們來說，這不僅是一場競爭，而且更多的消費者正在加速進入市場，因為網路電視正變得如此主流。

Question for David on the streaming content obligations. Those rose to 9.5 billion in the quarter. What levels are you comfortable with, should these continue to rise as the sub-base rises? Is there a natural level at which (technical difficulty) what the appropriate range is for those?

問 David 關於串流內容義務的問題。本季這一數字增至 95 億。您對什麼水平感到滿意，這些水平是否應該隨著底基的上升而繼續上升？是否存在一個自然水平（技術難度），這些水平的適當範圍是多少？

There's no absolute number. But when I look at the streaming obligations and the table, and even the ones that are not estimable -- but you can put a range on those, as well, a little bit wider -- I would say that the ratio has been fairly consistent, in terms of it's scaling with our business. So you should expect them to continue to grow, especially as we launch additional international territories.

沒有絕對的數字。但是，當我查看串流義務和表格，甚至是那些不可估計的義務時 - 但你也可以在這些義務和表格上設定一個範圍，稍微寬一點 - 我會說這個比率相當一致，就其與我們業務的擴展而言。因此，您應該預期它們會繼續增長，特別是當我們推出更多國際領土時。

In the produced content side, the more we license content, the more that will grow in an obligation. The interesting thing about in the production world is, when you produce content and you own it, because you have the discretion to cancel it at any time, it doesn't show up as a content obligation.

在製作內容方面，我們許可內容越多，義務就越多。在製作世界中有趣的事情是，當您製作內容並擁有它時，因為您可以隨時取消它，所以它不會顯示為內容義務。

So if you look at some of our peers and some of our suppliers in Hollywood, you don't have the same sort of accounting when it comes to an obligation, even though you may say that there's a high probability of finishing or producing a full budget on a particular project. I would say, I think in terms of our revenue and our revenue per obligation, I think it's been trading in a tight band. It's been in a tight band, along with our scale growth.

因此，如果你看看我們在好萊塢的一些同行和一些供應商，你會發現，當涉及到義務時，你就沒有同樣的會計方法，儘管你可能會說完成或生產完整的產品的可能性很高。特定項目的預算。我想說，我認為就我們的收入和每項義務的收入而言，我認為它一直在緊張的區間內交易。隨著我們規模的成長，它一直處於緊張的區間。

Sticking on financials, can we talk about interconnections for a little bit? You signed deals with four of the large customers over the last several months. Curious how those interconnection fees add up. Is this a number where it's now adding up to north of $10.25 million?

繼續談金融問題，我們可以談談互聯嗎？在過去的幾個月裡，您與四個大客戶簽署了協議。很好奇這些互連費用是如何加起來的。這個數字現在加起來是否已超過 1025 萬美元？

And then related to that, a question for Reed, in terms of do you expect the FCC policy on Internet regulation to actually make the deal that you signed with ISPs actually invalid? Meaning you won't have to pay for interconnection going forward?

與此相關的是，里德的一個問題是，您是否認為 FCC 關於網路監管的政策實際上會使您與 ISP 簽署的協議實際上無效？這意味著您以後無需為互連付費？

That would be upside, Rich, that we would not expect, that they would trump existing contracts. But what's been great for Netflix is the general idea of the Internet as a utility, open to all, not for discriminatory use -- has really taken hold.

里奇，這將是我們沒有想到的好處，它們會勝過現有的合約。但對 Netflix 來說，最大的好處是網路作為一種實用工具、向所有人開放、不用於歧視性使用的整體理念已經真正深入人心。

Of course, the shift we've seen over the last year around perceptions on Title II is amazing to see in just 12 months. We appear to be on the edge of an Acting Title II, and generally codifying the idea that -- at least in the US -- the Internet is a utility for broad social good and wide-open access. And that, over time, if it happens, will significantly insulate us from any accelerating attacks for interconnection. So I imagine we would likely live out the current deals, and that's what's in our plan.

當然，在短短 12 個月內，我們在去年看到的圍繞第二章看法的轉變令人驚訝。我們似乎正處於《代理第二章》的邊緣，並且總體上將這樣的想法編入法典：至少在美國，互聯網是實現廣泛社會公益和廣泛開放訪問的實用工具。隨著時間的推移，如果這種情況發生，我們將大大免受任何加速互連攻擊的影響。所以我想我們可能會履行目前的協議，這就是我們的計劃。

And Reed, if I could add -- just on the financials, Rich, we don't talk about the specifics of a deal. But we continue to be very happy with the shift to managing our own CDN. The percentage of our expense that's spent on streaming delivery continues to be quite modest relative to content. Mark and Rich, why don't we hit one more question each, and then we'll wrap up.

里德，如果我可以補充一點的話，里奇，我們不會談論交易的細節，只是在財務方面。但我們仍然對管理自己的 CDN 的轉變感到非常高興。相對於內容而言，我們花在串流媒體傳輸上的費用所佔的比例仍然相當小。馬克和里奇，我們為什麼不再各自問一個問題，然後我們就結束了。

Let me throw one to Ted then. Ted, just give us an update on the Disney content. I know some Disney content will be streaming into that key Canadian market this year. But going forward, I think, is a very large library of Disney content that will be coming on. Just some color about how big that opportunity is, or how much content that is? And what kind of impact you think that could have, in terms of filling out the [pullet], or whatever, of offerings to families on Netflix?

那我就丟一個給特德吧。特德，請給我們介紹一下迪士尼內容的最新情況。我知道今年一些迪士尼內容將流入加拿大這個主要市場。但我認為，未來將會出現一個非常龐大的迪士尼內容庫。只是一些關於這個機會有多大，或者有多少內容的顏色？您認為這會在 Netflix 上向家庭提供的[小雞]或其他內容方面產生什麼樣的影響？

Unique to any other studio, we're excited about the [Pay One] opportunity with Disney. Because those movies are not just movies, they're amazing family content that gets watched over and over again, forms great loyalty with our subscribers, and it's a real trust brand for parents, as well.

與其他工作室不同的是，我們對與迪士尼合作的 [Pay One] 機會感到興奮。因為這些電影不僅僅是電影，它們還是令人驚嘆的家庭內容，可以一遍又一遍地觀看，對我們的訂閱者形成了極大的忠誠度，而且它也是父母真正信任的品牌。

So we've really been expanding our relationship with Disney, even in the Pay One window, which I've been fairly dismissive of with other studios, including coming on in Canada this year, and coming into the US next. I think that's going to be a very long-term relationship. It's as global as you get, in terms of (inaudible). We saw the success of Frozen this year all over the planet. It's very consistent with our desire to be more and more global with our programming.

因此，我們確實一直在擴大與迪士尼的關係，即使在 Pay One 窗口中，我一直對其他工作室相當不屑一顧，包括今年在加拿大推出，明年在美國推出。我認為這將是一種非常長期的關係。就（聽不清楚）而言，它是全球性的。今年我們看到了《冰雪奇緣》在全球的成功。這與我們的節目越來越全球化的願望非常一致。

Last question from us, although it will be a two-part question. The first piece coming on the DVD front. Obviously, DVD still supplies a lot of profit, David, to your financials. Just curious, given the comments that Outerwall had today that their DVD business seems to be falling pretty precipitously as they look into 2015. How do you think about the DVD business and the sustainability of those profits?

我們提出的最後一個問題，儘管這將是一個由兩個部分組成的問題。 DVD 封面上的第一首作品。顯然，大衛，DVD 仍能為您的財務帶來大量利潤。只是好奇，考慮到 Outerwall 今天的評論稱，展望 2015 年，他們的 DVD 業務似乎急劇下滑。您如何看待 DVD 業務以及這些利潤的可持續性？

And then, just the final rap question for Reed. You've been so vocal on the Comcast/Time Warner merger and the dangers it poses. Are you increasingly confident that this deal gets blocked?

然後是里德的最後一個說唱問題。您對康卡斯特/時代華納的合併及其帶來的危險直言不諱。您是否越來越有信心這筆交易會被阻止？

Well, Rich, let me take your question first. On the DVD, I continue to think it's going to have a long tail. If you look, in 2013, we lost 1.2 million of our DVD subscribers. In 2014 we lost 1.1 million, so slightly less. The margin has held steady for two years, if you look at the contribution margin for the DVD business.

好吧，Rich，讓我先回答你的問題。在 DVD 上，我仍然認為它會有很長的尾巴。如果你看一下，2013 年，我們失去了 120 萬 DVD 訂戶。 2014 年，我們損失了 110 萬，略少一些。如果你看看 DVD 業務的邊際貢獻率，這個利潤率已經穩定維持了兩年。

So it's going to continue to decline. We don't have any illusions on that. But we think that there's a lot of people -- for a lot of people in rural areas and other cinefiles where the DVD makes sense for them, and at $8 a month, it's a pretty inexpensive add-on. So we'll just continue to provide great service for those folks that really want it.

所以它會繼續下降。我們對此不抱任何幻想。但我們認為有很多人——對於農村地區和其他電影院的許多人來說，DVD 對他們來說很有意義，而且每月 8 美元，這是一個相當便宜的附加內容。因此，我們將繼續為那些真正需要的人提供優質的服務。

And Rich, the key difference with Outerwall is, Outerwall or Redbox is very new-release-centric. So it's vulnerable to the pay-per-view substitution, whereas a broad selection renter like ourself, on a stable business, is much less sensitive to that.

Rich 與 Outerwall 的主要區別在於，Outerwall 或 Redbox 非常以新版本為中心。因此，它很容易受到按次付費替代的影響，而像我們這樣擁有穩定業務的廣泛選擇的租戶對此不太敏感。

Yes, question on Comcast/Time Warner. We've been vocal on the issues that would be presented to US society. If there's one ISP that initially would be 40% of broadband households, and that as DSL fades, pretty quickly would be over 50% of US households, we think that's a tremendous amount of power in one company. We think it would be wise policy for the US to block that merger. We've been consistent on that. Whether it happens or not, we don't really have any direct sense. All we can do is advocate for what we think is great policy and see what happens.

是的，關於康卡斯特/時代華納的問題。我們一直在向美國社會提出的問題上直言不諱。如果有 ISP 最初覆蓋 40% 的寬頻家庭，隨著 DSL 的衰落，很快就會覆蓋超過 50% 的美國家庭，我們認為這對一家公司來說是一種巨大的力量。我們認為美國阻止這項合併將是明智的政策。我們在這一點上一直保持一致。無論它是否發生，我們都沒有任何直接的感覺。我們所能做的就是倡導我們認為偉大的政策，然後看看會發生什麼。

Do agree with the FCC moving what is broadband definition up to 25 megs? Does that make sense to you?

您是否同意 FCC 將寬頻定義提高到 25 兆？這對你來說有意義嗎？

Yes, absolutely. Once you've got an Ultra HD video stream, that's 15 megs just to single screen. And you are going to want video conferencing, you're going to want online learning, you're going want all kinds of different applications -- monitoring of your home, these kinds of things on video. So 25 megs is a kind of baseline for the next five years, as opposed to the past five years.

是的，一點沒錯。一旦獲得超高清視訊串流，單一螢幕的大小就為 15 兆。你會想要視訊會議，你會想要在線上學習，你會想要各種不同的應用程式——監控你的家，這些影片上的東西。因此，25 兆是未來五年（而不是過去五年）的基線。

So with that, let me thank everyone for joining us on this call. And thanks to Rich and Mark for conducting the interview. Thank you all.

因此，讓我感謝大家加入我們的這次電話會議。感謝里奇和馬克接受訪問。謝謝你們。