Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Flexes

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 177 posts

Re: Netflix Flexes

#61

Post by pishpash »

assblaster wrote: post #45
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder when people start noticing. For me their content is just mediocre. When you think about it, creating a real masterpiece is very hard and requires a combination of talent, taste, luck, investment and so on. It doesn't happen just by pushing something as "recommended".

Here's the secret to Netflix: A "masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder. A masterpiece to some is not to another. Roma is one example: it clearly is masterfully done. Film critics love it. I loved it and it resonated with me. Have you seen it yet? Maybe you think it's "mediocre". I liked Bird Box because it was apocalyptic and dealt with the downfall of society, a common theme in this genre. I don't care if anyon…

That's exactly it, they can exploit the efficiencies of personalized masterpieces. Theaters and other pre-packaged distribution channels can't.

Netflix only has to make a crap load of content available to cover all the content space. The average quality according to any particular user doesn't have to be good if their recommendation engine can find your niche. Think what the average quality of YouTube is.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#62

Post by mostlysimilar »

assblaster wrote: post #45
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder when people start noticing. For me their content is just mediocre. When you think about it, creating a real masterpiece is very hard and requires a combination of talent, taste, luck, investment and so on. It doesn't happen just by pushing something as "recommended".

Here's the secret to Netflix: A "masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder. A masterpiece to some is not to another. Roma is one example: it clearly is masterfully done. Film critics love it. I loved it and it resonated with me. Have you seen it yet? Maybe you think it's "mediocre". I liked Bird Box because it was apocalyptic and dealt with the downfall of society, a common theme in this genre. I don't care if anyon…

I agree. I'm always surprised by the number of people I encounter who have negative opinions of Netflix's original content, both online and in discussions in person.

I've been very happy with Netflix's originals and think they're top-notch. They have actually solidified my subscription--if they continue to produce shows at the rate and quality they have been, they have a customer for life in me.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#63

Post by baddox »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

I don’t think I buy this analysis. In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?” Only Netflix can know the impact the film made on their bottom line, and even that internal analysis is difficult to do, especially in the short term.

In other words, I’m saying that yes, Netflix can fairly easily promote a film and get millions of people to watch it, but that doesn’t mean they have a magical sustainable model. If they were to consistently flex this muscle with content people don’t like, it’s pretty obvious things will turn out badly for them.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#64

Post by deathanatos »

orev wrote: post #6
iambateman wrote: post #2

I’ve said this before, but I expect Netflix to continue to flex their muscle until they have an average subscription cost of $35-40/month. There’s so much room in the entertainment market for them to save customers $50/mo, offer them more, and increase their revenue.

The market is on its way to fragmentation as more content producers move to have their own apps instead of going through an intermediary. And they all want $10-$15 a month. It won’t be long before people refuse to pay for more apps, as the total cost of both the Internet connection and all app subscriptions surpasses the price they used to pay for cable. That is what limits the price any one app can charge.

Perhaps. But we just recently tried CBS's streaming service, and it was terrible. AFAICT, only 720p, and the encoder they used appears to have had the quality set to "potato" (blurry, tons of what look like interlacing jaggies during rapid motion). It made me really appreciate how good of a job Netflix is doing on the technical side of things.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

> instant box office smash

How is a film with literally $0 at the box office and “instant box office smash”.

Sure, if as many people as watched it paid for full-time tickets at a theater it would have been a stunning box office, but all that proves is that more people will pay a $0 marginal cost than the cost of theater tickets. Which we already knew.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#66

Post by mavhc »

dasil003 wrote: post #52

Having dedicated nearly a decade of my life to a startup competing in this space, the OA is right about Netflix's superior strategy when it comes to user experience and content production. Netflix surged ahead of the pack because they focused relentlessly on the quality of the streaming experience while all the legacy players were focused on deal-making. In other words, while Netflix was building a solid video delive…

The OA is also a good Netflix show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OA

Re: Netflix Flexes

#67

Post by general8bitso »

adwf wrote: post #57
justsomedood wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Disney kids TV shows are on Netflix right now, yes. There are a lot of those shows that appeal to toddlers up to the tween age ranges. They have a very large amount of content besides just movies

Thanks for the info, had a quick look but couldn't work out which were Disney. So it really becomes a question of whether people are buying Netflix just for their kids content and will cancel one for t'other if Disney pull all their content, or whether they're happy to buy both. If they only want to buy one, then maybe they'll switch. If they're happy with both, then it actually helps Netflix bottom line as they no l…

You also have to consider people living with their parents, who will move out, and start their own family.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#68

Post by maksimum »

mattnewport wrote: post #30
chinathrow wrote: post #3

"Netflix is so confident in its position it is effectively stating that if customers choose to watch TV, they will choose Netflix." That is, until they stop choosing Netflixt. I cancelled my Netflix account a week ago after finally realizing what a huge time suck it has become in my life. I know I'm just one data point but I'm pretty sure others will come to that conclusion eventually.

I was an early Netflix adopter and evangelist to family and friends. I canceled my account months ago last time they had a price increase and haven't missed it. I got sick of spending more time scrolling through uninspiring content looking for something to watch than actually watching enjoyable content. I see a flaw in a lot of subscription models in that they lead to companies optimizing for "engagement" rather than…

> I see a flaw in a lot of subscription models in that they lead to companies optimizing for "engagement" rather than maximizing the value of my time as a consumer

This is really interesting. I suppose the question is how do you measure value delivered?

Typically people show that they value something by paying for it. Normally you pay for goods with money, but many subscription services and F2P games are happy for you to pay with time. I feel like using "time paid" is a valid proxy for how much value customers get from the service. What doesn't make sense to me is why it appears that so many people value their (free) time so lowly.

Perhaps if Netflix offered a second PPV service its recommendation engine would have different incentives. With that model you also have payment friction and discovery friction. But honestly I'm not sure why they don't do it -- Amazon has been for a while.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#69

Post by autokad »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

> "...if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself."

birdbox isn't the first promoted original content. it certainly drives success, but ultimately to get 45 million views, probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever), is big.

I did think the movie was kinda derivative, a mix of the happening and vanishing on 7th street, but its still a must watch if you are into horror.

every game in town is 2nd guessing their models, because they are extremely outdated. Comcast's (NBC etc) entire model is based around market share - broadcast television. Hollywood is around big box office high spending action movies to make global sales. These is fine in some senses, but it means there are types of content we havent seen much, and while Netflix could satisfy niche customers, it was generally thought that it couldn't compete with large budget content producers. Now maybe it can, and that requires content providers to re-think.

>"The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing."

for the longest time, ironically this has been hbo, especially with game of thrones. i feel like they must be paying reporters lots of money to go on about it so much, because its not really watched by that many people - compared to how much its talked about.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#70

Post by ericmcer »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

It was almost amazing how popular and terrible that movie was. What’s gonna be next, a monster where if you smell it you die? It was just another blatant example of how you can get people to mainline the kool-aid with social media, marketing, and Fear of missing the current big thing.
Post reply on HN