This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.
Lots of people will write smart things about Amazon’s strategy with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the movie studio that Amazon said it would purchase for $8.45 billion. But I want to ask a more basic question: Why?
Not why is Amazon buying MGM, which owns the rights to James Bond and “RoboCop.” Presumably, Amazon will use it to mine ideas for fresh series and movies for its Prime Video streaming entertainment service. No, I’m asking, Why does Amazon have a streaming video service at all?
Is video a valued perk for Prime members or a multibillion dollar vanity project for Amazon?
On the rare occasions that Amazon executives have discussed their goals for Prime Video, they have focused on the power of loyalty. They say that including a video service in Prime is one more reason for people to stick with Amazon’s membership program and feel as if they’re getting good value from both package shipping at no added cost and “Bosch” on demand. My colleague reported that households with Prime memberships typically spend $3,000 a year on Amazon, more than twice as much as what households without the membership spend, according to Morgan Stanley.
Amazon has said that people who use Prime Video are more likely to renew their memberships each year or pay up if they’re on free trial programs, and they buy more products from Amazon. But in his new book about Amazon, the journalist and author Brad Stone suggests this might not be entirely true.
He writes that some Amazon employees who worked in the entertainment division analyzed how many Prime members watched shows and then extended their Prime memberships or signed up. “There was little evidence of a connection between viewing and purchasing behavior,” Stone writes. “The truth was this: Bezos wanted Amazon to make TV shows and films.”
The divergence between the stated goals of Prime Video and the perhaps more pedestrian reality highlights a dichotomy of Amazon and other technology superpowers. They are so rich and successful in some areas that they can afford to flail in others.
Amazon’s success in online shopping and cloud computing — and, importantly, the belief among both fans and detractors that the company is a powerful and disruptive genius — has papered over Amazon’s questionable strategies in groceries and in streaming. And it has reduced the urgency to fix a clunky online shopping experience that we can’t always trust and that feels as if it hasn’t been updated since the 1990s.
Facebook’s and Google’s wildly profitable advertising businesses prop up their inability to figure out what to do with … well, almost everything else that those companies are involved in, including Facebook’s fumbles to turn WhatsApp into a business and Google’s years of struggles in online shopping. I don’t know whether to find it comforting or scary that these companies are simultaneously crazy smart and at times stumbling in the dark.
In Prime Video, we don’t hear Amazon executives justifying the expense or pitching its value to Prime members. The lure of fast and no-cost shipping might be enough. Or would Prime members be more loyal if the company offered different perks — say, free internet service, online fitness classes, access to personal shoppers or more Kindle books? Walmart’s version of Prime throws in discounts at some gas stations.
I don’t know if any of these are compelling alternatives, but I also don’t know that video is an alluring add-on to Prime. Only Amazon knows, really, and it isn’t telling.
There’s a chance Amazon is playing a very long game with Prime Video. I can envision a future in which Amazon uses ads on Prime Video and its other online video sites to get us interested in new products and then sells them to us, too. Amazon would encompass the entire life span of shopping from “huh, that looks interesting” to clicking buy. (Stone suggested that possibility in a recent newsletter.)
Or maybe I’m falling into the trap of assuming that there must be a grand design behind what Amazon and other superstar companies do. Perhaps making movies is just kinda cool.
Before we go …
-
This year in India is a string of internet face-offs. On Wednesday, WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, sued the Indian government over new internet rules requiring “traceable” messages that WhatsApp says violate India’s constitution. The party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi also lashed out at Twitter for adding a warning label to party leaders’ tweets that included forged documents intended to smear opposition politicians.
Related: Russia is pressuring Google, Twitter and Facebook to squash posts that the government considers illegal or to restore pro-Kremlin material, Adam Satariano and Oleg Matsnev reported. As with India, Poland and Turkey, Russia’s campaign is an example of the way governments test how far they can go to control online speech.
-
Cybersecurity companies’ zeal to promote their services alerted criminals. A ProPublica investigation found that by publicizing flaws in criminal gangs’ software, cybersecurity firms might be unwittingly contributing to ransomware attacks, including the one that recently hit the East Coast’s largest fuel pipeline.
-
Artificial intelligence software is not smarter than people but … machines did beat archaeologists in the tedious task of categorizing pottery fragments, my colleague Heather Murphy wrote.
Hugs to this
Otters in a hot tub. (OK, it’s actually more like a cold pool, but this webcast of otters is included in Twitch’s “hot tub” category.) Read more from Polygon about this Vancouver marine mammal rescue center and its livestream on Twitch.
We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.
If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.
