Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The story behind Netflix’s $100 million ‘Friends’ deal

Netflix wanted it. So did Hulu. And WarnerMedia wants it back, soon. Probably. Here’s what that means.

Cast of ‘Friends’ on the ‘Tonight Show with Jay Leno’
Cast of ‘Friends’ on the ‘Tonight Show with Jay Leno’
Paul Drinkwater / NBC via Getty Images
Peter Kafka
Peter Kafka covered media and technology, and their intersection, at Vox. Many of his stories can be found in his Kafka on Media newsletter, and he also hosts the Recode Media podcast.

How do you value a sitcom that hasn’t been on TV for 14 years?

Easy: You tell Netflix you’re going to take it away, and see how much they pay.

The answer, as we all know by now, is $100 million. Which is what Netflix is going to pay AT&T* for the right to stream “Friends” next year.

But the answer is also a bit more complicated, for a few reasons. To find out why, let’s go over some deal terms and history, some of which you haven’t read before.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Joe Flint reported yesterday, AT&T’s WarnerMedia, which owns “Friends,” has extended a deal that gives Netflix exclusive streaming rights to all 10 seasons of the show through 2019. And WarnerMedia is likely to want access to the show for its own streaming service, which is supposed to launch sometime next year.

And, as the New York Times’ Edmund Lee reported today, Netflix is paying $100 million (give or take) to stream the show next year.

But Netflix wasn’t the only streamer interested in “Friends.” Other bidders for the show included Hulu, the streaming service currently owned by Disney, Fox, NBCU and … WarnerMedia, as well as Apple, which doesn’t have a streaming service yet, but also plans on launching one next year.

I’m told that Apple, which is spending a lot of money commissioning its own shows, but has yet to buy a library of existing ones, ended up pulling its bid for “Friends.”

I’m also told that Hulu, which is very likely to end up solely owned by Disney/Fox once those two companies consummate their merger, tried hard to land “Friends.” At the very least, Hulu’s interest in the show ended up pushing the price up well beyond the $30 million a year Netflix was already paying for it.

But the real issue isn’t just what “Friends” is worth for a streaming service next year, but in the years following. WarnerMedia will almost certainly want to include “Friends” in its yet-to-launch service. But it hasn’t decided whether it will want exclusive rights to the show, or whether it will be willing to share it.

In part that’s because there’s some chicken-and-egg going on here: “Friends” is a valuable asset, so WarnerMedia would naturally want that asset in its own service instead of someone else’s ... unless that WarnerMedia service ends up being a flop, in which case stashing “Friends” there means it is a wasted asset.

So here’s the hedge WarnerMedia has ended up with**: After 2019, WarnerMedia has the ability to pull “Friends” from Netflix altogether and keep the show as an exclusive. Or it can let Netflix stream the show, as well, at a discount of about 25 percent. Which means there’s a scenario where WarnerMedia can get another $75 million a year from Netflix and still use the show as a key part of its own streaming service.

Is that a good idea? People who work for AT&T will tell you it is. For a contrarian view, I can direct you to former Amazon exec Matthew Ball, who has an excellent tweetstorm you can read right now. For free!

And if you’re the kind of person who finds all of this entertaining, I have good news for you: You’re likely to see a repeat of this plot sometime in the near future, when Comcast’s NBCUniversal*** has to think about what it wants to do with “The Office,” which it currently streams on Netflix but will most likely want to keep for its own, yet-to-be-announced streaming service that it will likely launch once it sells its stake in Hulu.

NBCU execs say Netflix has told them “The Office” generates more viewing hours than anything else on the service. Which means Jim and Pam may end up getting more money than Ross and Rachel.

* Some people who are involved in this transaction would like you to know that the number isn’t actually $100 million, but something less than that. But feel free to round up.

** The deal isn’t actually finalized, but people familiar with the negotiations say it is pretty far along.

*** NBCU owns a minority stake in Vox Media, which owns this site. Haven’t typed that in a while. Feels good to get it going again.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh