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

Netflix now bigger than HBO

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#51

Post by filmgirlcw »

dbcooper wrote: post #14

It would've been nice if that article compared revenue and profit numbers, rather than just how many subscribers each service had ...

Well that would have ruined the whole point of the article. HBO accounts for 25% of all of Time Warner's profits. That's significantly more than what Netflix can offer. And it would also be useful if they did the revenue per user figure -- but again, that wouldn't be a tweet-worthy and sexy headline. (It would have also required the author to understand the content business but I digress).

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#52

Post by apendleton »

supercanuck wrote: post #9
eurleif wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just released another Netflix-original series, Hemlock Grove. After watching through it, I'm not that impressed. The reviews I've read also seem to be on the negative side.

Me too. But my wife really likes it. It is right in her wheel house which makes me think this kind program is definitely geared to a specific audience in mind. I'm sure the production budget reflects that

Yeah, that's the key, I think. Netflix has a huge amount of viewing-habit data at their disposal, and it's tough to imagine that they didn't target their content acquisitions based on detailed information about their viewers. House of Cards was for the HBO/West Wing set, and Hemlock Grove clearly isn't, but they must know that there's a dedicated audience of schlocky TV-horror enthusiasts in their viewership.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#53

Post by filmgirlcw »

thezilch wrote: post #50
filmgirlcw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5). Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absol…

I'm pretty sure people consistently pay $8/mon, despite the original content. You literally need only stay out of my way, be easy to use on multiple devices, and only entertain me 2-4hrs/mon to keep me coming back.

No, by consistently I mean without churn.

See, what happens with Netflix, HBO, Showtime -- even regular cable -- is that subscriber churn happens. It's often cyclical. One of the reasons HBO staggers its release schedule for its programming is to try to get people to pay year-round (it's also why they introduced HBO Go -- in essence they gave up their home video revenue, or greatly limited it -- in exchange for keeping people subscribed year-round because of all the content they could get anytime).

Netflix's own figures show that they can jump and fall by the millions per quarter.

If you want people to continue to subscribe every month -- and not cancel after they see the show they like -- you have to have a constant swath of new and original programming.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#54

Post by chatmasta »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #45
colkassad wrote: post #4

I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5). Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absol…

But what's stopping Netflix from replicating this success? To what extent is the success of HBO purely a function of the capital they invest? i.e. what non-financial assets does HBO provide that contribute to the success of its shows? What does HBO bring to the table that Netflix can't?

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#55

Post by tnuc »

arjn wrote: post #8
colkassad wrote: post #4

I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.

Yeah, House of Cards with Spacey is excellent. I started and liked it so much I finished watching all episodes in 2 days. Its really good to see companies like HBO and Netflix giving the traditional TV media houses a run for their money. BTW, if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones.

>... if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones.

Is there anyone on hn who hasn't checked out Game of thrones?

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#56

Post by MatthewPhillips »

chatmasta wrote: post #54
filmgirlcw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5). Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absol…

But what's stopping Netflix from replicating this success? To what extent is the success of HBO purely a function of the capital they invest? i.e. what non-financial assets does HBO provide that contribute to the success of its shows? What does HBO bring to the table that Netflix can't?

HBO is already a premium brand, Netflix is not. Although nothing is stopping from Netflix from becoming one, getting over that hump is not easy.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#57

Post by brndn »

untog wrote: post #3

I think that HBO are quietly positioning themselves to prosper when the cable bubble finally bursts, though- HBOGO is great. Compare that to Showtime, for example, whose app offerings are widely panned.

Showtime has a similar offering called Showtime Anytime.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#58

Post by filmgirlcw »

chatmasta wrote: post #54
filmgirlcw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5). Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absol…

But what's stopping Netflix from replicating this success? To what extent is the success of HBO purely a function of the capital they invest? i.e. what non-financial assets does HBO provide that contribute to the success of its shows? What does HBO bring to the table that Netflix can't?

Two things:

Scale -- HBO is significantly larger when it comes to production capacity. HBO can also have far more shows in production at one time. That scale is partially a product of capital, but also one of point number 2:

Experience -- This one can't be underestimated. HBO first started toying around with original content and series in the early 1990s but it wasn't until Larry Sanders that the show really started to resonate beyond the periphery. Even then, the established TV world didn't start to pay serious attention to HBO until the late 1990s, when you had a swath of hits become bonafide cultural phenomenons (Sex and the City and The Sopranos were hits of a massive global scale beyond anything that cable, let alone premium cable, had seen up to that point).

Netflix has had to start from ground zero. They are essentially right now where HBO was in 1997, when HBO started to shift from acquiring content to paying for original content (Larry Sanders) to making the content in-house (Oz).

Now, granted the current world moves faster -- and Netflix is already potentially approaching the 1997 spot in just two and a half years with this strategy -- BUT content is also now more expensive (The Sopranos and Sex and the City were not $100m shows for a total of 26 episodes like House of Cards is), competition is fiercer than ever and the overall economics of television are not as advantageous as they once were.

I would also say that a third advantage is cable. Yes, cable is an advantage. Why? Because cable often serves as free (or nearly free) advertisements for HBO shows and the bundling of HBO for 3 months free or half-off or whatever is a huge driver in subscribers. Now, Netflix can replicate this, but they'll need to do it at a price and obviously they'll need to assess if giving the cable companies 30% of their monthly revenue is worth the advantages of being bundled.

None of this is insurmountable, but just as starting a movie studio from scratch is hard -- pivoting from a pure distributor into an original content creator/distributor is hard too.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#59

Post by jfb »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #47
philipwalton wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The same issues would be there for music, but those apps all offer it. As long as you can only watch it from within their app (so they can keep stats), it shouldn't matter whether it's online or offline.

It's absolutely licensing. When content is licensed, there are different licenses that are distributed based on who pays and what the service is: * First-run -- you get to broadcast it first * Syndication -- you get to broadcast second * Digital -- you can also show the product on a digital platform (this was how Netflix was able to do their loophole with Starz back in the day, Starz sold the digital license and stre…

There are more and crazier ones: exclusive windows for airplanes, hotel PPV, &c.

When you're frustrated by some lacuna in a video service's offering, 99% of the time the feature is missing, the reason is "licensing". Content ownership is going to devolve into small offices of tens of attorneys and support staff, managing these licensing deals. Universal Studios et al will simply be licensees of Jaws properties for their theme parks.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#60

Post by CamperBob2 »

lotso wrote: post #26
CamperBob2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBO has a bullheaded insistence on distribution through cable operators, though. I can watch Netflix without a cable connection but HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. It's reminiscent of Sony's attempt to keep their content studios and product groups under the same tent. Any company whose business model is based on running unstoppable forces into immovable objects is always go…

> HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. And you know this how? I'm pretty sure the execs at HBO have run the numbers. Why HBO Can't Afford To Offer A Stand-Alone Streaming Service http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/11/why-hbo-cant...

I know it because I actually read the article you linked to.

Funny, Netflix seems to 'afford' it just fine.

Post reply on HN