21–30 of 51 posts
This is not a part of their core competency. I don't see how this is a good move. If they had bought 10-20 shows, that's a different story...
Can someone explain to me how netflix is in a good position when all major broadband providers are looking at throttling and/or caps? When all the major ISPs are also selling their own video content, how can Netflix continue to compete?
If ISPs target netflix specifically, there will be PR disaster for them, possible anti-trust investigation from the government and a likely lawsuit.
ISPs are not even a blip on the radar when it comes to selling video content so today Netflix has a clear value proposition: it's a cheap (about 10x cheaper than cable) access to a lot of online video. Netflix's strength is that it's content producer-agnostic. ISPs that are also cable providers can at best offer ability to view via internet their cable programming. Except they're not doing it, it would still be 10x more expensive, they cannot offer anything else that is not part of the cable subscription and probably they can't even offer time-shifting (without re-negotiating contracts with content providers).
If anyone at Netflix is listening: BUY FIREFLY AND MAKE NEW EPISODES. I would gladly play an extra $4 a month (or more) on top of streaming just for access to new weekly/biweekly episodes of that.
This is not a part of their core competency. I don't see how this is a good move. If they had bought 10-20 shows, that's a different story...
I don't get it- you are right, this isn't part of their core competency. And, that's why they were smart to only buy one show, with two big names attached to it. They are reducing their risk and seeing if they can play in the content game. If yes, they will likely buy a few more shows and grow that competency.
Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils.
Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either.
I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of folks to subscribe. But for myself, I would put it near 12 or so.
If Netflix wanted to reduce their risk, they should have targeted niches that are not so expensive. Mainstream entertainment is not a good idea to start with. Something like History channel or World Travel is.
But going with low risk niches, would not generate so much publicity for them. Would not make the studios and cable companies take notice. Netflix is in a fight with them - and so this is a strategic move to get noticed. Not a risk reduction move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it- you are right, this isn't part of their core competency. And, that's why they were smart to only buy one show, with two big names attached to it. They are reducing their risk and seeing if they can play in the content game. If yes, they will likely buy a few more shows and grow that competency.
Actually they are not reducing their risk by keeping the number of shows low. Here is why: Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils. Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either. I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it- you are right, this isn't part of their core competency. And, that's why they were smart to only buy one show, with two big names attached to it. They are reducing their risk and seeing if they can play in the content game. If yes, they will likely buy a few more shows and grow that competency.
Actually they are not reducing their risk by keeping the number of shows low. Here is why: Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils. Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either. I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of f…
The "risk" to which he was referring to is the risk of the show failing completely by some metric (e.g. no one currently subscribed to netflix is watching it), and all that money being effectively flushed down the drain.
It's the risk of going overbudget. Or the risk of actors and directors having a falling out.
There's dozens of factors that go into making a show successful and this test is to see how Netflix as a company can handle them--either directly or by proxy. If this test is reasonably successful then maybe in the future, they will make a play to have original content garner them more subscribers as a competitor/partner to say HBO or Showtime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually they are not reducing their risk by keeping the number of shows low. Here is why: Upto 211 degrees, nothing happens. At 212 degrees, water boils. Similarly, will 1 good show make a lot of people subscribe to Netflix? Even if the show is orgasmic - I doubt it. There is no momentum here. No tipping point. 2 shows won't do it either. I don't know what the minimum number of new shows is that would get a lot of f…
Netflix is not trying to grow their subscription base. The "risk" to which he was referring to is the risk of the show failing completely by some metric (e.g. no one currently subscribed to netflix is watching it), and all that money being effectively flushed down the drain. It's the risk of going overbudget. Or the risk of actors and directors having a falling out. There's dozens of factors that go into making a sho…
You've listed down 3 risks.
- Risk of no one watching.
- Risk of going over budget.
- Risk of actors or directors having a fall out. (Or something else occurring that makes episodes not coming out on time if at all.)
And you make a good point that thats why Netflix is trying with 1 show and not 10.
But aren't all these risks you listed further minimized by experimenting with a $10 million show than a $100 million show?
My thinking is: Netflix does not care about risk at all. If they wanted to minimize risk, they would have gone with lower priced shows. Or they would have gone with a lot more shows. The only reason they have gone after a high priced mainstream show is as a negotiation tactic. To make a stand against studios and cable companies. "Play ball with us. Because if we can't play together, we will compete together."
I won't mind as long as there is no tricking you to select stuff that costs more vs the all-you-can-eat stuff.
This is why Chris Albrecht (the new CEO at Starz) is pushing for original content. They've tried a couple shows so far (Spartacus, now a show about Camelot) and continue to be moving ever increasingly in that direction.
To those of you who are complaining about it only being one show or that it is going to be too narrow of an audience, sure. But to me this is Netflix just dipping their toes in the original content game.
They're gonna need a lot more than one show if they're going to try to use original programming as a reason to buy Netflix - 13 episodes a year means weekly for 3 months. They're going to need at least 3 shows to do yearly coverage (they can have breaks in between). If the original programming is the reason you buy Netflix, you won't pay year-round if they don't have year-round programming, you'll just binge on TV si…
First of all, people don't often cancel once they are getting something. That's why those CD-of-the-month club things worked in the 90s, and book-of-the-month before them. But I'm not even sure that's important. I don't think the goal here is to directly make money on new subscriptions. This is a massive strategic move. It sends a signal to content providers that Netflix, if need be, can cut them out of the picture,…