"it could turn around and sell syndication rights to networks and overseas." Very unlikely since Netflix is planning to further expand abroad and the key in their business is exclusivity... The math in this post is bogus since it's only based on incremental revenue brought by new subscribers. Getting more exclusive content does not only bring new subscribers, it also increases retention. I think the real news is not…
The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
91–100 of 114 posts
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the analogy and see the value in it, but I'll point out where the TV isn't like a book: 1. Books are obviously composed of text, and, when you read, you're also imbibing the rhythms of the language you're reading (see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071... for more on this). 2. Related to number one, many more of us need to write than need to shoot and edit videos. Reading skill is rela…
I'll defend. 1. House of Cards was 13 "chapters" that have definite rhythm and flow. Every hour was a mini three act play and it would make sense considering at the end of the day, video is just scripts brought to life by an accomplished playwright, accomplished director, accomplished talent, and accomplished cast. 2. We don't live in that world anymore. We're a civilization on an escalating need for input stimulatio…
I wasn't attacking anything.
Numbers 1, 3, and 4 have nothing to do with what I wrote. Number 2 sort of does, and, if you think we don't live in a text-based world anymore, look at blogs, essays, this site, code as text, etc. There is a large portion of the population is aliterate, but that's a loss.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather them not use DRM at all. I don't use them precisely because of their DRM proliferation. But it's not the point - the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether, and making it a Web standard is nonsensical. It's not different from proposing to make Flash or Silverlight a Web standard, when the whole Web is shifting to move to pure HTML. That's besides the mere fact that DRM is unethical and goes against…
DRM isn't dead, and its not going away any time soon. Although iTunes dropped it for music, they still use it for all video contents and of course apps. Spotify uses DRM for their content as well. I'll be honest, I used to be a DRM hater, like you, but for subscription services DRM doesn't even get in the way... The experience is just that much better, and I don't mind at all... I don't even think about it. So, it se…
You are saying that some DRM doesn't get in the way, how is it exactly? DRM prevents users from using their system of choice, since DRM is practically never cross platform, and DRM stands in the way of copying (that's what it's created for) i.e. in a way of copying for legitimate purpose such as format and time shifting, backups, accessibility and various other applications of fair use. To put it practically - can you use Netflix on Linux let's say? Not without jumping through some weird hoops. Can you make backups from Netflix content? No. So I'd challenge that it's transparent and doesn't get in the way.
> It's a necessary evil, I fear.
No, it's an unnecessary evil. And there will be online content without DRM - content creators just need to come to grips with reality and do the right thing. DRM doesn't add any value - it only degrades it for legitimate users.
Content creators have two ways forward. First is dropping all DRM, which makes experience better for end users, and respects paying customers. It doesn't stop piracy, but it provides incentive to buy from those who treat customers with respect. Second way is pushing DRM, degrading the experience of paying customers and treating them as potential criminals by default. This way doesn't stop piracy as well, but such disrespect towards legitimate paying users doesn't create any incentive to deal with content creators and distributors who treat people this way, and artificial limitations which degrade the experience and flexibility of such content reduce the incentive even more (guess what incentive they increase? Exactly - for piracy).
Music industry realized that DRM doesn't offer them any benefits (and only offers disadvantages) so they dropped pushing it. Other industries are still catching up with the idea, but they'll come to it. DRM as a trend is dying, though in many areas DRM free distribution channels are still a minority. You can get more and more DRM free e-books, DRM free distributors like GOG and Desura show that it's not needed at all for gaming. What's really dragging behind is video distribution. Besides DVDs where DRM is trivially removable, there are virtually no DRM free channels especially for streaming. But I don't see any conceptual difference between music, books, games or videos and etc. In any of these cases DRM offers nothing positive to end users (totally on the contrary) as well as doesn't prevent piracy. So as a trend - it's dying but it will take time for it to be gone forever.
My whole point was - it doesn't make sense to make a Web standard out of a dying trend which on top is unethical and user hostile. Therefore Netflix is doing a really bad thing with pushing DRM into HTML standard.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather them not use DRM at all. I don't use them precisely because of their DRM proliferation. But it's not the point - the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether, and making it a Web standard is nonsensical. It's not different from proposing to make Flash or Silverlight a Web standard, when the whole Web is shifting to move to pure HTML. That's besides the mere fact that DRM is unethical and goes against…
It's dying in some contexts, and perfectly alive in others. Netflix is stuck dealing with big, slow lumbering companies who'll be saying "We'll license, if you have DRM". Protecting content isn't particularly unethical, it's just annoying.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather them not use DRM at all. I don't use them precisely because of their DRM proliferation. But it's not the point - the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether, and making it a Web standard is nonsensical. It's not different from proposing to make Flash or Silverlight a Web standard, when the whole Web is shifting to move to pure HTML. That's besides the mere fact that DRM is unethical and goes against…
> the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Steam, Microsoft, Sony and Spotify all disagree with you. DRM isn't dying, the goalposts have just moved. I think people are starting to become more educated on what is and isn't acceptable DRM. If it's handled transparently then most people don't care. If it is handled poorly (I'm looking at you Installshield) then it's the nightmare we imag…
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#97I 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…
IMO, licensing and aggregation are the "hard" problems, not UI or streaming or whatever.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather them not use DRM at all. I don't use them precisely because of their DRM proliferation. But it's not the point - the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether, and making it a Web standard is nonsensical. It's not different from proposing to make Flash or Silverlight a Web standard, when the whole Web is shifting to move to pure HTML. That's besides the mere fact that DRM is unethical and goes against…
> the point is that DRM is a dying trend altogether Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Steam, Microsoft, Sony and Spotify all disagree with you. DRM isn't dying, the goalposts have just moved. I think people are starting to become more educated on what is and isn't acceptable DRM. If it's handled transparently then most people don't care. If it is handled poorly (I'm looking at you Installshield) then it's the nightmare we imag…
As you said, we should be more pragmatic about it. I don't accept DRM on my e-books or music either, but I'm willing to compromise on movies and some games.
Sticker price is, as you mention, a big point as well.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#99Earlier 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.
This is a different behavior entirely. In the "couch potato" case people are just spending all day watching whatever is on, which might become a fundamental feature of their life. In the "netflix enthusiast" case people are spending chunks of free time consuming entire TV series, and often it's a thing that they'll do occasionally instead of continuously. This has very different consequences in the impact such behavi…
I want someone to curate and select shows for me, and show them in a channel, so I can just browse (an improved Cable Tv experiencie, hopefully ad-free, but probably not :P ).
I also miss live (or slightly delayed but current) sports - that would be a killer feature for Netflix.
Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the Hollywood/TV crooks What a load of crap. Hollywood/TV doesn't have a lot of leverage because they're crooks. They have a lot of leverage because they sell a non-fungible product. People don't just want to watch a show about advertisers with a lot of sexist banter--they want to watch Mad Men. They don't to watch a movie with some random hot guy, they want a movie with Channing Tatum. It's the same market dynamic…
> other swords and sorcery movies aren't fungible with LOTR. I'd pay for more Legend of the Seeker, or for someone to do a Mistborn series. I'd pay to see Game of Thrones.
http://www.brandonsanderson.com/blog/1074/Mistborn-Movie-Upd...