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

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Netflix Flexes

#91

Post by dasil003 »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #85
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…

>video games are video games, Netflix doesn't know shit about them, and if you ask me they are better off focusing on their core competency versus trying to build a moat with a gimmicky concept. The point wasn't that they should compete with video games, or enter the space. The point was that in the war for attention and engagement, netflix sees better competition from non-tv streaming services than it sees from othe…

Go re-read the whole paragraph instead of taking things out of context. Netflix Interactive content is the gimmick I was talking about, not literal game development.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#92

Post by dasil003 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #80
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…

I agree Netflix is trending towards failure, but I couldn’t disagree more about why and the path leading them there. Netflix is and has been the least attractive of these services for a long time, specifically because other platforms have far expanded inventory and integrate the ability to instantly rent or buy additional content not directly included. Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay f…

You have some good points, but I'm not sure 100% a la carte at prevailing industry prices is really what people want across the board. It gets expensive very quickly, and a lot of times people do just want something free to veg out on. The perceived value of a subscription has to do with what is actually in the bundle, and this is where we can both agree Netflix is behind the curve.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#93

Post by PretzelFisch »

jVinc wrote: post #21

My takeaway from Birdbox is the old adage: "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." Sure it got tons of views because of all the advertisement and the tons of focus on viral media advertisement on every single platform. But the reaction from people watching it before me when asked if it was good was "Well I mean, I did watch it to the end, but i…

>" And I get that this is an important thing for them to do, but it's in no way sustainable or valuable either to them or their viewers."

If you were a director, would you sign with netflix after seeing those view numbers? If this helps Netflix get high quality creative talent then I think that is a value to the subscribers.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#94

Post by IkmoIkmo »

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…

> they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself.

Yes they can do it but, not without consequences. I thought Bird Box was pretty lame and given a dozen experiences like these, it'd completely destroy their reputation for putting out decent content for me, and I'd unsubscribe in a world where non-original content was an important factor. (and looking at the media landscape, with content companies creating their own platforms, or publishing on competing platforms, that world is becoming more and more a reality).

It's a bit like saying that Apple can create a big software hype by pushing an iOS 13, just by pushing it as a notification on 1.3 billion iOS devices. But if iOS 13 is complete rubbish, they can only perform that 'trick' a few times before they lose customers.

That plus, one can wonder if they can actually do it. Bird Box indeed took on meme status, me and my gf only watched it because it showed up as a joke on our feeds about 20 times and we had nothing better to do one night while eating food and decompressing from work. There's plenty of netflix content that pretty much bombed, despite showing up for weeks on end on the Netflix front page whenever I logged in. This felt more like the Flappy Bird of movies, a gimmick, a meme, not the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones that turns people into long-lasting fans of your content.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#95

Post by notatoad »

baddox wrote: post #63
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…

>In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?”

the article you're commenting on makes a pretty thorough case for why it is a box office hit.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#96

Post by ryanwaggoner »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #80
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…

I agree Netflix is trending towards failure, but I couldn’t disagree more about why and the path leading them there. Netflix is and has been the least attractive of these services for a long time, specifically because other platforms have far expanded inventory and integrate the ability to instantly rent or buy additional content not directly included. Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay f…

Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content, never bundled, never subscription-based.

I 100% do not want this. I want to pay for one subscription to get all the media I want (music, tv shows, movies, books, etc). And I don’t care at all about ownership. I’d pay $50-100/month for this subscription, and we’re getting close if you don’t mind cobbling together a half dozen subscriptions and using a bunch of different apps.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#97

Post by majewsky »

adwf wrote: post #51
jdietrich wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney are much, much bigger than you seem to think. They own Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. They already own a large chunk of the US cable TV market, including ABC and ESPN. They have just gained regulatory apprival to buy 21st Century Fox. They aren't newcomers to streaming, because they have a 30% stake in Hulu, which will increase to 60% after the Fox deal is completed. They also own BAMTech Media, which pr…

The sport is probably the most interesting out of all of those mentioned. There will always be a market for sports subscriptions, so they could have a very competitive offering there that Netflix aren't even involved in. Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. I'm still not seeing it. Two or three movies a year that I can pick up on DVD/Bluray cheaper. And that's if they're even worth buying on DVD after having watched them once in…

> Marvel movies have been wearing fairly thin

Outside of your bubble, Infinity War is the highest-grossing film of all time. (With Black Panther following in 2nd or 3rd place if I'm not mistaken.)

Sure, Marvel does not particularly contribute to the pantheon of cinema, but it's nowhere near "wearing thin" commercially. Quite the contrary actually.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#98

Post by happybuy »

All the signs indicate that Netflix has become a user hostile company that is prioritising ongoing user engagement and stickiness over their users needs.

It's starting to remind me of another company which at one point in their evolution prioritised user engagement over everything else – Facebook. Once this occurs, it is a long slippery slope which leads to a series of user hostile internal decisions which ultimately leads to the user and their privacy becoming the product.

When you actually pay for Netflix and this is their modus operandi it leaves a large opening for a competitor with a more user-focused approach to come in and gain marketshare.

A few examples of how Netflix is prioritising engagement over their users:

- Auto-playing shows once a show has finished (this leads lazy users unnecessarily watching more Netflix)

- Promoting Netflix shows above third party content, irrespective of quality. This prioritises what's best for Netflix instead of promoting the best content for the user.

- Algorithmically modifying the poster frames / thumbnails of shows to be more appealing to users. Again promoting engagement and misleading users of the true content of the show.

- Removing the ability to easily see the complete catalogue via comprehensive categories, which enhances the reliance users have on algorithmic suggestions

I'm sure all of this has been tested in Netflix and they can show that these approaches increase stickiness and engagement. Stickiness and engagement is not what is in the users best interest however and over the medium and long term I think it will be detrimental to a better measurement which is user satisfaction.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#99

Post by general8bitso »

notatoad wrote: post #13
general8bitso wrote: post #9

I have been a Netflix subscriber for over 5 years now, but seldom use it anymore. Most streaming is via Hulu (commercial free) or Prime in our house nowadays. I don’t have children, but I could see how having the Disney catalog would be enticing to parents of young children. Also, strange the article did not mention Fortnight, by name, as a competitor.

The article did mention Fortnite by name. It's at the end.

Thank you. Not sure why I missed that.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#100

Post by mc32 »

happybuy wrote: post #98

All the signs indicate that Netflix has become a user hostile company that is prioritising ongoing user engagement and stickiness over their users needs. It's starting to remind me of another company which at one point in their evolution prioritised user engagement over everything else – Facebook. Once this occurs, it is a long slippery slope which leads to a series of user hostile internal decisions which ultimately…

While the psychology field is rife with poorly done studies, unreplicated studies etc., they have a decent idea regarding addiction and the mind.

It would be tremendous good will if Netlifx took insight from psychology and applied it to their customer's mental health _rather_ than for the opposite, in the form or binge watching and engagement. Otherwise their motive is not distinguishable from that of opioid merchants.

Post reply on HN