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

What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

about.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 354 posts

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#341

Post by nomel »

stubish wrote: post #134
nomel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, to look at it another way, they're giving their paying customers what they want.

Or, to look at it another way, they are giving the profitable customers what they want. It is clear Netflix don't want me as a paying customer, and that makes sense. At least in the short term.

That's not another way, that's the same way. ;)

Although, technically, the most profitable customer is the one that has low view time, but still subscribes. The most stable customer is probably one with high view time, but they're also probably the least profitable, unless they're naturally helping promote the service.

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#342

Post by pcthrowaway »

thebradbain wrote: post #219
oefrha wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s okay to ask, does Netflix only pay a fixed sum (they have to disclose numbers if there are view-based royalties, right)? Is that normal?

View-based streaming royalties (“residuals”) were also something won in the strikes. They previously didn’t exist for streaming in the same way they did for cable tv or theatrical releases— no matter how successful the show. That’s part of the reason streamers didn’t want to release numbers in the first place. There were still a lot of other factors then and now when it came to payment—mainly due to the fact the mini…

I wonder if royalty agreements will affect which content the distribution platforms choose to promote.

If Netflix pays the creators of show A $X per 1000 views, and of show B 2*$X per 1000 views, I can see them choosing to display A more prominently than B

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#343

Post by nomel »

nomel wrote: post #338
watwut wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix also displayed the ratings as 5-star "adjusted ratings for the viewer", which already took your preferences into account. It was not adjusted to your preferences. It was adjusted by algorithm to ... something that has nothing to do with my enjoyment.

Netflix, famously, had a public contents to try to improve the recommendation system, with very little success. [1] That system was a demonstrably good system, that maximizes preference, but only if you rate a bunch of content. I'm not aware if it's still in use. But, I've rated many hundreds of shows/movies, and the rating is very accurate, for me. Very biased and scaled, but completely predictable/reliable. In my c…

0 means it wasn't worth the time. Negative means I disliked it.

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#344

Post by jb1991 »

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #337
jb1991 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you still need to get the DVDs from somewhere and most people don't want to buy a movie just to watch it, and renting DVDs is a thing (mostly) of the past.

Your local public library is a great source for these--they even have Blu-Rays! I used to take out disks all the time, until my kids came along

I think that’s highly regional, and probably limited lifespan. Enjoy it while it lasts. Here in Europe, I haven’t seen a DVD or a CD in a library in many years.

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#345

Post by MerManMaid »

kombookcha wrote: post #310
globular-toast wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like insisting on eating exclusively vitamin gruel because it's optimized for nutrition per minutes. That is actually a thing and perhaps a growing industry called "meal replacements". It's not surprising given that meals for many people are already just plastic wrapped matter heated in a microwave and slurped up from their laps on the couch. Part of it is politicians who seem insistent on treating productivity as…

The "meal replacement" industry is exactly what I am thinking about. I know some of them are marketed as essentially premade low-caloric meals, that theoretically make it easy to do calorie-counting. At least that has some kind of niche application that I get the use-case for. But those other ones, are freaky - the ones that are designed to be allround [food] for humans, in the same way that a dog can eat exclusively…

I'm definitely a niche, but as someone who has never been a super big eater and has lost most of my sense of taste, this kind of product seems great.

That said, for me it has nothing to do with productivity. I just want a single meal I could repeatably consume to maintain a healthy diet. (Ideally, with as little effort as possible on my part because it all taste the same to me)

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#346

Post by mavhc »

kombookcha wrote: post #286
globular-toast wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with being unproductive. We should totally rest and enjoy life once we've covered our needs for the day. This thing about productivity being a goal of society is stupid. Who says being productive leads to happiness? I actually like to be productive, and I suspect you do too. But if people don't, that's fine too. I do wonder if we might be addicted to productivity, though.

HN is a site where you hear people unironically talk about how they listen to audiobooks and podcasts at higher speed to optimize how many they can take in. Thinking about what that implies about how these people engage with art is kind of wild. It's like speedwalking through an art gallery to see more paintings per hour. There's something about that optimization/productivity mindset that seems strangely pathological…

Depends on the quality of the art. Drama: 1x, comedy news show: 1.7x, non fiction podcast: 2.3x

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#347

Post by Hasnep »

rezonant wrote: post #273
rr808 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs new content? Kinda sad to see the most popular shows being Friends, Suits, Breaking Bad, the walking dead etc.

That's just how it goes, though. I'm sure if we had music numbers, we'd see well known classics up the charts too. That doesn't mean that viewers don't want new content to watch- likely you would see classics go up when there isn't new content to watch [just throw on an episode of Friends!]. I'm actually excited to see non-Netflix shows on these charts, because this is a signal to Netflix to maintain access to non-Ne…

> I'm sure if we had music numbers, we'd see well known classics up the charts too.

We do have that, don't we? The music charts are literally a chart of the most popular music.

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#348

Post by olyjohn »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #335
olyjohn wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude. It blows my mind there are over 25 episodes per season of most of the older series. I know most of the series had rough starts, but they really get good in the later seasons. I tried to tell someone to just watch it, and tell them how in Season 3 or 4 it gets really good. That means, you just gotta watch 50-75 episodes to get to the good stuff. LOL. That doesn't seem to convince anybody. I mean, personally I lo…

Dude. You realize you can skip the earlier seasons, right? Like just jump to season 3 or 4. So don't watch the first three or four seasons of M A S*H. Just jump to the seasons when Sherman Potter is ther.e

What a rude reply. I was just sharing something I thought was funny, since most shows today only have like 8-10 episodes per season. To get through 2 seasons of TNG is like going through 10 seasons of a modern show.

Re: What We Watched: A Netflix engagement report

#349

Post by Mindwipe »

thebradbain wrote: post #325
antientropic wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote left out "subject to a confidentiality agreement". Streamers are not obliged to make this information public, and I don't expect companies like Amazon to do so since they're extremely secretive about viewership numbers.

Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members! I.E. They do not have to release the numbers publicly, but they’re not really b…

> Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members!

No, the Guild would assemble an audit committee of likely three people or a third party auditor would be appointed. It absolutely wouldn't be shared with the entire membership. It would be extremely easy to find the source of a leak, and they'd be subject to ruinous penalties.

This is existing practice in a few areas.

Post reply on HN