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

The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

theatlanticwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

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

#101

Post by jcampbell1 »

kmfrk wrote: post #82
quaunaut wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for posting that. It seems they were more interested in enhancing the dialog by adding rhythmic lilt rather than being concerned about producing something that is authentic.

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

#102

Post by apendleton »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #92
apendleton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why should you care who makes Game of Thrones? Isn't that immaterial to you as a consumer; you just want to watch Game of Thrones, right? Why must we choose certain producers of content and not just choose the content? If shows were more competitively priced, say .99 for rentals, 9.99 for season passes, this would all be a non-issue.

Maybe, maybe not. What's interesting about the HBO/Showtime/etc. model is that it specifically encourages programming diversity, as the original article discusses at least a bit. Many people are willing to pay the surplus on their cable bill just to follow their one or two favorite shows, and few of the audience watches all eight (or however many). What this means is that whereas when a network adds a new show, they're trying to maximize its viewership on its own to maximize ad revenue, HBO only cares about adding new viewers that aren't already a part of their audience -- if a new show is only of interest to people already in the target demographic of an existing show and, therefore, probably already subscribers, nobody new will subscribe and the show won't pay for itself. As an audience member of their content, then, you're not expected to watch all of the shows, but you get the opportunity to watch a few that are probably more-narrowly-tailored to your interests than would be expected of network programming.

So yes, I would like to just be able to buy Game of Thrones, but I'd also, personally, like to be able to just buy Deadwood or (on Showtime) Queer as Folk, and I think if every show had to justify itself to network executives on raw viewership numbers instead of on audience-broadening power, those shows would never get made; their audiences are too niche compared to their production costs. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to see at least some content that's not aimed primarily at 18-35-year-old straight men.

Of course, this is the kind of reasoning that justifies 100-channel cable packages instead of a-la-carte cable channels, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But I think the expectation that a-la-carte show purchasing could really work, economically, is probably not realistic (and this without even getting into the issue that it'd be tough to pay for a $75-million Game of Thrones season at a dollar an episode).

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

#103

Post by Encosia »

shmerl wrote: post #65
Encosia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather they use Silverlight forever instead? Without some form of DRM on playback, there is no Netflix (or Hulu or any other legit web-based streaming for premium content).

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…

I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own. Netflix streams are rentals, not content that you have rights to retain or re-purpose as you see fit. DRM is perfectly appropriate in that situation, just like any other licensing solution for any other product/service that you only pay for temporarily.

I fully agree that DRM is hard to swallow on content that you've purchased outright though. I actively avoid purchasing things that I don't truly own after having purchased it.

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

#104

Post by alaskamiller »

GFischer wrote: post #99
InclinedPlane wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A bit tangential, but I really hope some service solves the "couch potato" use case for streaming - I love Netflix, but I miss cable tv's channel jumping. 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 featur…

Like a MTV VJ.

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

#106

Post by brownbat »

guelo wrote: post #74
brownbat wrote: post #69

I would have preferred they spent a few hundred million per year on lobbying and amicus briefs to urge Congress and the Courts to adopt compulsory licensing. Then Netflix would be able to stream HBO shows without HBO's permission for a reasonable fixed fee. So could Amazon, and Hulu, and Google Play. All of them could compete on service, rather than in backroom negotiations. Instead, consumers should look forward to…

Lobbying against the MPAA would not be cheap and would take many years to be successful, years that Netflix doesn't have.

Building a content brand isn't going to be cheap or short term either.

And the MPAA isn't so formidable an enemy. They lose on issues like SOPA that receive any sort of public attention, because they don't have a populist message. Both sides of the aisle* have basically abandoned them looking for the next grassroots internet issue.

And this isn't that high of a hurdle. We already secured similar compulsory distribution rights for radio and cable without any concerted lobbying effort, because it's a really common sense solution that benefits consumers and producers. There's not as much legislative or judicial inertia on these issues as it might seem.

As to cost, Netflix is spending $100 M per show and doing 5 shows a year (maybe the others are significantly less?). But for just 0.3% of one show per year, you get a top lobbying firm. I'd be willing to bet other distributors would pitch in to defray the cost.

That's more pressure than this issue has ever seen, and it's an issue that's already been won in other domains. Given that history, I don't think it'd take more than two years of effort. Maybe five?

While Netflix is seeing revenues of just under a billion dollars a quarter, they'll be fine for a while.

Pricing: http://lobbying101.wordpress.com/about-lobbyists/how-much-do...

*UPDATE: I should have said "some individuals from both sides of the aisle," I didn't mean to claim the MPAA has lost all support, just that cracks are starting to show.

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

#107

Post by shmerl »

Encosia wrote: post #103
shmerl wrote: post #65

Earlier 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…

I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own. Netflix streams are rentals, not content that you have rights to retain or re-purpose as you see fit. DRM is perfectly appropriate in that situation, just like any other licensing solution for any other product/service that you only pay for temporarily. I fully agree that DRM is hard to swallow on content that you've pur…

>I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own.

Simple. See all arguments presented above. In short - it's unethical practice of preemptive policing which severely degrades usability and achieves nothing positive. It's based on implicit insulting treating users as potential criminals. Users naturally should be hostile to such disrespectful treating, and surely this should not become any kind of Web standard.

And just to note - a concept of a "stream that you don't own" is a sheer nonsense in itself when the data reaches the user. User should be able to back up any data - it's within the fair use of that data.

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

#108

Post by dualboot »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #45
geuis wrote: 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…

> 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…

Grew up in the south. His accent is wonderful.

There are thousands of accents in that portion of the country just like anywhere else.

For me it's a wonderful departure from Kevin Spacey being "Kevin Spacey" in just about everything else I've seen him in.

House of Cards is delightful.

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

#109

Post by Encosia »

shmerl wrote: post #107
Encosia wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own. Netflix streams are rentals, not content that you have rights to retain or re-purpose as you see fit. DRM is perfectly appropriate in that situation, just like any other licensing solution for any other product/service that you only pay for temporarily. I fully agree that DRM is hard to swallow on content that you've pur…

>I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own. Simple. See all arguments presented above. In short - it's unethical practice of preemptive policing which severely degrades usability and achieves nothing positive. It's based on implicit insulting treating users as potential criminals. Users naturally should be hostile to such disrespectful treating, and surely this s…

There's nothing unethical or insulting about preemptive loss prevention unless you go out of your way to read that into it. When I lock my front door, that doesn't mean I'm implying that my mailman is a thief. There's no benefit in over-dramatizing the situation.

If you demand ownership of any data that comes over your connection, all you're doing is fostering an environment where we can't have nice things like Netflix and Hulu offering on-demand streaming of their immense libraries of content for a few dollars a month (much less spending 9 figures on creating original content). If you agree to the terms of service that Netflix provides their video under, the content you stream from them absolutely and undeniably is not something that you own -- no more than you own the rights to re-broadcast premium content that you receive via subscription cable or satellite and no more than you own the copyright to the content of a website just because you download it into your browser.

You mention degraded usability, which I've never experienced when using Netflix. If anything, Silverlight's "smooth streaming" is (by far) the best HD-over-the-wire experience I've seen still to this day. However, I've read that Linux users have a relatively awful time with Silverlight and Netflix. The latter are a perfect example of those who would benefit from accepting the real-world reality that DRM is necessary for premium content to be distributed online, and thus we ought to go ahead and make that a first class experience in raw HTML. Everyone would benefit from codifying that as a standard.

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

#110

Post by PagingCraig »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #45
geuis wrote: 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…

> 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…

The accent is good.
Post reply on HN