Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

theatlanticwire.com

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#81
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about barter deals? Could Netflix 'trade' the show to AMC for the next season of The Walking Dead?

Not only this would be a distraction but I don't think it makes business sense for them. In my opinion exclusivity is key to their long term strategy in a streaming world. They already have the best distribution channel you can think of why would they need to licence their content?

Yes I think you are right about exclusivity. I think what they paid for House of Cards is significantly more than what they pay for other shows. That is really my questioning about the model. But yes, they paid the premium to not only show it, but for exclusivity. If you are right they could license it outside the US.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. I like the show, but Kevin Spacey's southern accent is so terrible it is distracting. I normally wouldn't care, but my I grew up in the Carolinas and he sounds nothing like any person or politician from the area. He needs to drop the accent as it takes away from the rest of his performance. If they wanted a correct southern accent they should have hired Kyle Ch…

There's a lot more than one southern accent. Someone from the Carolinas sounds wholly different from Floridian which sounds different from Texan which sounds different from Oklahoma which sounds different from Louisiana and I think you're getting the picture. I've heard more than one person with that accent of his.

They modelled the accent on the writer/producer's father: http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/house-of-cards-sta....

I obviously can't speak to how well they nailed it, but there was a very specific accent in mind.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#83
The article assumes that half a million customer will pay for 2 years. I don't get how allowing a customer to watch all episodes in 1 month will help recurring revenues. Sure, people might get hooked on Netflix after that but I fear that past the initial "wow, Netflix can produce stuff too!" excitement, it will end up being just another show available.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#84

Netflix accomplished two things: 1. They muscled into the "prestige television" club for $100MM. It may be overpriced, or it may be underpriced, either way it's very good for consumers. 2. They validated television is the new book. You gorge on 13 hours of good television the same way you gorge on 13 chapters of a good book. This is very good for show creators. A triple win aligning interests while getting to say f-y…

On the 2nd, wasn't that validated by the 1960s at the latest? That was a common perception at the time, anyway.

Only to a limited degree. Yes, there were soaps and other serials that had long-running narrative arcs, but not with the kind of sophistication contemporary writers are using.

Let's call it the 'Post-Buffy' school of thought, where character nuance, motivation, back-story, plot and sub-plot are all delivered with a kind of attention to detail formerly only used by novelists. There may be a few examples from the 60's -- The Prisoner comes to mind -- but even that can't really touch the narrative layers we've seen in the last decade: The Wire, Lost, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones (TV as novel if there ever was one), Six Feet Under, Dexter, Band of Brothers, and so forth. These aren't just books, they're novels.

This I think is partially the result of the ability of viewers to sit down and spend concentrated time with a series when they come out on DVD. The first time my wife and I did this was maybe 10 years ago with Buffy and Angel, and it was the most fun I'd ever had with television. This was a new experience. We'd lose 4 or 5 hours late on a Friday just chaining one after another, like the Battlestar Galactica skit on Portlandia.

What I think Netflix is doing, and probably what it has massive amounts of data to back up (I watched Buffy through Netflix, come to think of it), is that this new type of viewer engagement -- long sessions of series "gorging" -- has completely transformed the way we experience television. I think this is why they released the House of Cards episodes all at once. This is also probably why they're not releasing viewing numbers -- the new experience context of contemporary viewers has very little to do with the old Nielsen ratings arc, and would be a poor measure of the show's success, from Netflix' own point of view.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't? I totally would. Seems like a cable package that includes premium content (HBO, etc.) runs at least $100 per month. If I could ditch the cable and instead get 11 HBO-quality content providers (which is much better than I get from cable), that would be a no-brainer. More likely, I would get half as many, and end up with more solid content than I have time to watch, for much less money.

I want to pay for content, not brands. This is just a different version of the problem we have with cable. You're forgetting that most of the content HBO, Showtime, etc. show is not original content, and it overlaps with each other (and Netflix, and Amazon Prime), so you'd be paying for the same content many times over.

No, I don't think I'm forgetting that. Netflix is talking about doing five original scripted series per year. HBO does... seven or eight, maybe? (Off the top of my head from the last year, Game of Thrones, Girls, True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Newsroom, and Treme; that list isn't complete). That content is all not only original but, at least initially, exclusive. Showtime is at about the same level of volume, so this isn't unique.

You're right that in terms of a fraction of hours of content per month, most of what they show is not first-run original content, but I don't watch TV 24 hours a day, so I don't care. Like I said, if I got that amount of original content from four or five different providers (let alone 10), that would be more television than I have time to watch. The fact that they mostly show movie reruns is immaterial.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#86
post #58
post #18

I'm not a fan of political shows. That said, I decided to watch House of Cards last night. It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. There's a good cast of supporting actors too. The writing is a bit mundane, but not terrible. I know the show is somewhat of a remake of a BBC show from a while back, but I never watched it so my take is purely on this experience. I plan on watching the rest of it. It was i…

I watched the first 4 episodes of HoC this weekend and am quite disappointed. Production is very good, acting is quite good (although Spacey simply plays "high status" all the time with a rigid upper lip and not much nuance). For me there are two problems - The two main characters are cynical people who are obsessed with power and just plain mean... and they win every time. I don't care for them; at this point I woul…

Just finished the rest of the season after my previous post. It gets a lot better in the last 5 episodes. Some of the issues you mention that made it boring all tie together very well. Things start coming to an interesting peak towards the end, and Underwood stops winning so easily as he does in the beginning. Now looking forward to the next season.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#87

I don't think its just a matter of economics, Netflix doesn't have a choice if they have to survive long-term. Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and they risk turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can choose to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO be…

Netflix's big long-term advantage is buying power.

They have 30 million users spending $100/yr. Assume they spend half their income on content. That's $1.5bn/yr. That's a huge amount of money, and it's only going to get bigger as they grow and expand into new territories.

Increasingly, Netflix revenue is so high that it will seem inconceivable for content owners to turn them down in a gamble to go it alone and increasingly hard for anyone to compete.

I am extremely bullish on Netflix. I think they have a sound business model with huge upsides and the downsides are hugely overstated.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the 2nd, wasn't that validated by the 1960s at the latest? That was a common perception at the time, anyway.

Only to a limited degree. Yes, there were soaps and other serials that had long-running narrative arcs, but not with the kind of sophistication contemporary writers are using. Let's call it the 'Post-Buffy' school of thought, where character nuance, motivation, back-story, plot and sub-plot are all delivered with a kind of attention to detail formerly only used by novelists. There may be a few examples from the 60's…

Right, if you mean to watch in one sitting, that wasn't something you could do in the '60s. But it's something that seems like it's been common since the '90s, since the advent of the "DVD Box Set". People would get box sets and watch these long-narrative-arc series in marathon weekends, or socially in parties. There was a period in the 1990s when seemingly everyone I knew was organizing Twin Peaks parties, and it seems like it fits the description of long-running experimental novel. People did that with the X-Files too, though admittedly it was a more coherent experience if you cut the "monster-of-the-week" episodes from the sequence (but hey, leave them in, and make it a gigantic, sprawling novel with disconnected subplots, of the Alexandre Dumas variety). Or Dawson's Creek, for that matter, or Buffy as you mentioned. In my circle of friends it seemed everyone was gorging themselves on Babylon 5, Star Trek, Black Adder, and Monty Python box sets as well; I don't know if I'd describe those as narratively complex, but there are lighter novels, too.

But in any case, I could believe the numbers are different. Perhaps box sets were not as major a part of 1990s/2000s TV-watching as I had thought?

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#89
post #22

I don't think its just a matter of economics, Netflix doesn't have a choice if they have to survive long-term. Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and they risk turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can choose to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO be…

"...they risk turning into a dumb pipe". That's their problem, they don't own the pipes either. They don't own the pipes and they don't own the content (before House of Cards). Up to now they provided...well...a useful cute little UI, but it's hard to make a lot of profit for a prolonged period of time on that. So they either go into pipe building or content building. Content building has the better leverage to the l…

Their infrastructure is valuable, especially the code they have which determines what quality of video they can send you without stuttering or buffering which was better than anything else at the time. That was what got them my money.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#90
post #73
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Netflix owns the content, their marginal costs per subscriber are near zero -- essentially just bandwidth and compute fees.

But out of those new subscribers, you need to filter out people who would have subscribed even if Netflix didn't have House of Cards

surely they have the tech to query up the number of new users that watched house of cards?
Post reply on HN