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

Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

vulture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 491 posts

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#131

Post by [deleted] »

seibelj wrote: post #110
999900000999 wrote: post #93

>Netflix is further eroding its connection to audiences through its unwritten mandate to end the vast majority of its new shows after no more than three seasons, with only the very biggest (or most cost-efficient) scripted hits lasting longer. One of my favorite shows by far was Disjointed. It was a very silly Stoner take on Roxanne. Cancelled after 2 seasons. I get the feeling Netflix doesn't want niche shows, every…

I feel like Netflix shows / movies are written by algorithm. As much as management wants AI / data science to be drive creativity, the human soul and character simply isn’t replicable. Their original shows often feel hollow and lack depth. For example Space Force was probably the least funny thing I have ever watched and had all the elements of a show that should have been a hit, but somehow failed so spectacularly t…

[deleted]

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#132

Post by seoaeu »

seibelj wrote: post #115
seoaeu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is asked like it is some sort of gotcha, but there are clear answers for both the general proposals floating around: (a) wealth tax. Every year each household with over $XX million in net worth pays y% of the amount above the threshold in taxes. No refund if your net worth goes down in subsequent years. (b) treat unrealized capital gains as income. Each year you pay income taxes on the increase in the va…

If I’m a rich person and I’m forced to sell shares to pay the tax bill, which then harms pension funds and sovereign wealth by incessantly driving down the value of everyone’s assets, isn’t this problematic?

That sounds dangerously close to trickle down economics. In any case, your example is far less problematic than the current situation where a rich person could fund their lifestyle off loans against their portfolio while never paying capital gains taxes at all

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#133

Post by harha »

ajmurmann wrote: post #92
harha wrote: post #28

Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…

I keep hearing this $100+ argument all the time, but do you really need all the services simultaneously? As you point out, there isn't that much to watch. So just unsubscribe for a few months, let the new content build up and safe money in the meantime.

Well no, but I also don’t want to constantly be switching just to watch one or two shows. The original benefit of Netflix was that you could have a service with a decent selection, no hassle.

If I click unsubscribe, that’s more or less final.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#134

Post by lupire »

thrill wrote: post #2

The quoted "competing exec" is 100% wrong when he says Netflix is making a mistake ending shows after three seasons. Shows need to be pitched and run for three seasons max, period. Everyone has a life other than the show that's "hot" for the moment, from cast to writers to the source of money - the viewers. Shows that get dragged out inevitably suck. And yeah, go to weekly releases.

You are ignoring that "a season" can be 6 episodes or 30.

Great shows are often 6-12 episodes for 5+years.

Most streaming shows have far shorter seasons than classic TV sitcoms/dramas/soaps.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#135

Post by daenz »

seoaeu wrote: post #100
daenz wrote: post #53

>Its stock price collapsed by more than 35 percent Wednesday, erasing more than $50 billion in value in a single day. For people who want to be able to tax unrealized gains like stock, what is the plan for these kinds of events? Would stockholders receive a credit from the IRS when the valuation dips?

The question is asked like it is some sort of gotcha, but there are clear answers for both the general proposals floating around: (a) wealth tax. Every year each household with over $XX million in net worth pays y% of the amount above the threshold in taxes. No refund if your net worth goes down in subsequent years. (b) treat unrealized capital gains as income. Each year you pay income taxes on the increase in the va…

Walk me through it.

Year 1, I own 10,000 shares at $0.1 each. I'm taxed 25% of $1000, or $250. Year 2, my super smart investment pays off and I own 10,000 shares at $100 each. I'm taxed 25% of an "income" of $999,000, or $249,750. Only, I don't have enough cash to cover the bill, so I sell about a quarter of my stock, leaving me with 7,500 shares. Year 3, the stock goes bust down to $0.2 per share. I write off a loss of $997,500? Does this mean I basically never pay taxes again?

So the end result is I paid a total tax bill of $250,000 on essentially nothing?

Furthermore, what if I decided not to sell my shares when they were worth $100 each and wanted to defer the tax bill. But now the price has crashed to $0.2, and I still owe a massive bill. Is that offset by my tax write-off?

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#136

Post by tomnipotent »

dragontamer wrote: post #127
tomnipotent wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over Netflix's depreciation models Amortization - Netflix treats content as assets, and recognizes on average 90% of amortized expenses in the four years after first broadcast. Net revenue looks better, but cash flow and balance sheets are still going to reflect outlays, which can often occur before first broadcast. The "Hollywood accounting" recognizes 90% of expenses in the first year to artificially reduce net p…

> Netflix can make a case that content continues to make an impact on subscription revenue over a larger window of time, and so expenses should equally be recognized in relation to the income statement. How many people are getting Netflix subscriptions to watch Bright (2017 Will Smith+Orc movie) this year? Or from a Disney perspective, how many people are getting Disney+ to watch Coco (2017 Day of the Dead 3d cartoon…

Motivation to start a subscription is irrelevant. It's what people spend their time watching that matters, and people are still watching "Bright" and "Coco" many years after release.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#137

Post by harha »

mdasen wrote: post #104
harha wrote: post #28

Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…

I don't think you're wrong, but to over-simplify what you're saying: "Netflix took my $100/mo cable bill and $40/mo Blockbuster habit and turned it into a $10/mo fee. Now I'm not getting all that entertainment for the now $15.50/mo fee." Again, you're right: before the other players came to streaming, Netflix had an amazing value proposition. Why? Because "the other players" didn't realize that streaming would displa…

> To me, the big misstep seems to be that Netflix invested too much in low-quality filler that shows up as "viewing hours"

Reflecting on that: I’ve started to reduce my consumption all together. Bought Blu-ray’s of one or two shows I was interested in and that have been around long enough to buy at a reasonable price for all season (though I won’t bother with that anymore after relocating to a different region).

But the biggest change: turning away from the TV in the evening hours. Back to educating myself or gaming.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#138

Post by lupire »

ajmurmann wrote: post #109
carlmr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no, a lot of people say it has no contents because some stuff was pulled, but they still have a sh*load of content compared to what you got before, but people have already binged on all of it, so there's nothing new to look forward to most of the time.

Netflix also makes it super hard to find content and according to a recent Hollywood Reporter article the forces within Netflix that pushed for more middling, cheaper content over high quality content won. I think it shows. Really high quality content is imo more likely to appeal even to people who usually prefer a different genre. Netflix used to have that on the form of shows like House of Cards and even recently h…

Queens Gambit was a miniseries adapted from a book. You need a LOT of those to compete with full multi-season series.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#140

Post by lupire »

nverno wrote: post #23
thrill wrote: post #2

The quoted "competing exec" is 100% wrong when he says Netflix is making a mistake ending shows after three seasons. Shows need to be pitched and run for three seasons max, period. Everyone has a life other than the show that's "hot" for the moment, from cast to writers to the source of money - the viewers. Shows that get dragged out inevitably suck. And yeah, go to weekly releases.

I agree, milking shows usually ruins them. On the other hand, if they are great shows that last a long time you can gain a loyal audience. This seems to be how HBO has found so much success- Sopranos (never lost quality, even by the end), Curb, the Wire, etc. Although, GOT got milked out terribly. I think the hard part is just deciding which shows to drag on- and being based on a story that already has an ending help…

GOT wasn't milked. It outran the unfinished source materials and then the director/producers D&D "phoned it in" because they started working on Star Wars.

And seasons are so short that even the bad seasons weren't a lot of TV.

Post reply on HN