4 ms·

The lack of titles is the fault of the studios. Not much netflix can do about it. Which is why they are increasing production of their own content. From a UI/bu

The lack of titles is the fault of the studios. Not much netflix can do about it. Which is why they are increasing production of their own content. From a UI/business perspective many people have argued that it's always better to show a user something than nothing. "We don't have the movie you are looking for but here are some you might like" is better than "We don't have the movie you are looking for."

zatkin 11y ago
For anyone curious as to why "the studios" are not giving their titles to Netflix is because they are developing their own, independent Netflix's (i.e. Comcast is has internet TV at tvgo.xfinity.com).
- ken47 11y ago
  I genuinely wonder who has a better brand image among the general population, between Comcast and Netflix.
  - KingMob 11y ago
    Most definitely Netflix. But Comcast and other cable companies have long-standing ties to studios, and are betting that if they can secure the content rights, they can win regardless.
    - chii 11y ago
      which is why it's so important that netflix can have their own original series. House of cards, and dare devil comes to mind, but they need to do more. Once they break the strangle-hold of studios, and have their own content, they can slowly leverage their large subscriber numbers and fight the studios on even terms. I wish HBO and netflix join forces, because i see them as being more similar than different. But of course, that'd never happen...
- eikenberry 11y ago
  Comcast makes the mistake of using their online streaming as leverage to tie people to their cable subscription model. I wouldn't mind looking into subscribing to their streaming, but I'm not interested in cable TV so they're out of luck. IMO this gives Netflix the advantage for now at least.
  - timje1 11y ago
    Comcast can charge a crapload of money for cable. If they offer internet services at netflix prices and are highly successful (lots of signups) - if this allows a small fraction of their cable customers to cut ties, Comcast loses money.
rhino369 11y ago
How is just the studios fault. Do any studios refuse to license? Or is Netflix not offering the fair value. 8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to.
- bluthru 11y ago
  >8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to. In music it almost buys you every song, ever.
  - icelancer 11y ago
    Not really (plenty of artists opt out) and the big artists that remain bitch about the price. Just like the movie studios complain.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Music is vastly cheaper to produce than cinema and television.
    - justincormack 11y ago
      Perminute yes. The cost of producing all music ever has probably been higher than all movies ever just because of volume. TV is less clear would be interesting to see the numbers.
      - baddox 11y ago
        I'm not sure why total volume really matters that much. A more relevant metric would be production cost compared to sale price. A music album costs about $15 at the most, and I would imagine that the biggest pop records only cost a few million dollars at the most. A new movie costs around the same, but a few million dollars is very cheap for a movie with a wide release. Of course, I could just be way off on my estimates of producing a major pop music album.
  - anoonmoose 11y ago
    I wish, there's tons of stuff that isn't on any given streaming music service. Spotify has tons of stuff I miss, and I'm sure the rest are similar.
majormajor 11y ago
With regard to the parent's complaint about movies, the biggest factor is probably the come-for-the-movies-stay-for-the-TV-shows effect. Consider having 100 40-minute episodes of a TV show vs a collection of 50 ~90 minute movies. Few people binge watch unrelated movies for hours on end compared to TV series. And that "there's still more episodes left" hook is great for retention too. But especially in TV series, there's a lot more competition than there used to be, and so prices are being driven way up. And Netflix is devoting more of their budget to original programming as well. There's probably very little due to studio nefariousness. The studios largely want to get paid, and creators being able to choose which studios to work with is a pretty big factor in keeping them mostly honest. It's like how TV studios are willing to sell shows to other networks if they'll make a better offer than the network under the same parent umbrella -- the studio has its own bottom line and future prospects to worry about.
jebblue 11y ago
Our 8 bucks or whatever per month is hands down the best money we ever spent. I should write a blog article on cutting the cable with OTA and Roku/Netflix.
- m_st 11y ago
  Fully agree with you. What is OTA though?
  - pasbesoin 11y ago
    Over The Air (traditional broadcast TV)
tired_man 11y ago
Not entirely. Netflix can have it, but still tells you they don't because their entire streaming library is not simultaneously available. Netflix rotates their streaming content in an attempt to make old content look new. A series or movie will disappear for a year or two only to re-appear as though it's something brand new to the Netflix lineup, rather than a case of Netflix shuffling great chunks of content in and out of play. I don't mind them doing that, I can understand the improbability of supporting their entire streaming library at once, just from a management perspective. The studios do give netflix grief. It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I can't foresee any future where each of the big studios can support any ~10 a month model to show only their content. Maybe a dollar or two. But definitely no more, and it would have to be commercial-free. There will have to be an aggregate distrubtor, whether it's NetFlix or another company, or maybe just devices to access studio's streaming channels (Roku, etc.). I don't see each studio being able to maintain the revenue to make the required streaming infrastructure cost effective.
soylentcola 11y ago
The selection used to bother me until I realized it was due to treating it as a replacement for a video rental store. Makes sense since the original DVD-by-mail service aimed to compete in that space. But now I treat it more like a really cheap version of cable TV. With cable, I can turn it on at any given time and channel surf until I find something I wouldn't mind watching. The specific movie or show I want to see probably won't be on but sometimes it is and the rest of the time, I'd just flip until I found something interesting. The thing is, just a basic cable package for casual browsing and watching shows costs at least like $30-50/mo and often more. Netflix is what, $10/mo? As a replacement for "all the random channels" I find it to be quite good. I usually have a better time finding something I'd enjoy watching compared to basic cable and it costs a good deal less. For the occasional movie or newer show, there are online purchases, rentals, and more "premium" services like HBO Now. Just like cable TV, you pay extra for the new stuff. The only thing about the new Netflix website that bums me out is that it broke the "God Mode" bookmarklet that I always used. It got rid of the endless horizontal scrolling and showed several rows of titles for each category, making for much easier and faster browsing.

zatkin 11y ago

For anyone curious as to why "the studios" are not giving their titles to Netflix is because they are developing their own, independent Netflix's (i.e. Comcast is has internet TV at tvgo.xfinity.com).

ken47 11y ago
I genuinely wonder who has a better brand image among the general population, between Comcast and Netflix.
- KingMob 11y ago
  Most definitely Netflix. But Comcast and other cable companies have long-standing ties to studios, and are betting that if they can secure the content rights, they can win regardless.
  - chii 11y ago
    which is why it's so important that netflix can have their own original series. House of cards, and dare devil comes to mind, but they need to do more. Once they break the strangle-hold of studios, and have their own content, they can slowly leverage their large subscriber numbers and fight the studios on even terms. I wish HBO and netflix join forces, because i see them as being more similar than different. But of course, that'd never happen...
eikenberry 11y ago
Comcast makes the mistake of using their online streaming as leverage to tie people to their cable subscription model. I wouldn't mind looking into subscribing to their streaming, but I'm not interested in cable TV so they're out of luck. IMO this gives Netflix the advantage for now at least.
- timje1 11y ago
  Comcast can charge a crapload of money for cable. If they offer internet services at netflix prices and are highly successful (lots of signups) - if this allows a small fraction of their cable customers to cut ties, Comcast loses money.

rhino369 11y ago

How is just the studios fault. Do any studios refuse to license? Or is Netflix not offering the fair value. 8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to.

bluthru 11y ago
>8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to. In music it almost buys you every song, ever.
- icelancer 11y ago
  Not really (plenty of artists opt out) and the big artists that remain bitch about the price. Just like the movie studios complain.
- baddox 11y ago
  Music is vastly cheaper to produce than cinema and television.
  - justincormack 11y ago
    Perminute yes. The cost of producing all music ever has probably been higher than all movies ever just because of volume. TV is less clear would be interesting to see the numbers.
    - baddox 11y ago
      I'm not sure why total volume really matters that much. A more relevant metric would be production cost compared to sale price. A music album costs about $15 at the most, and I would imagine that the biggest pop records only cost a few million dollars at the most. A new movie costs around the same, but a few million dollars is very cheap for a movie with a wide release. Of course, I could just be way off on my estimates of producing a major pop music album.
- anoonmoose 11y ago
  I wish, there's tons of stuff that isn't on any given streaming music service. Spotify has tons of stuff I miss, and I'm sure the rest are similar.

majormajor 11y ago

With regard to the parent's complaint about movies, the biggest factor is probably the come-for-the-movies-stay-for-the-TV-shows effect. Consider having 100 40-minute episodes of a TV show vs a collection of 50 ~90 minute movies. Few people binge watch unrelated movies for hours on end compared to TV series. And that "there's still more episodes left" hook is great for retention too. But especially in TV series, there's a lot more competition than there used to be, and so prices are being driven way up. And Netflix is devoting more of their budget to original programming as well. There's probably very little due to studio nefariousness. The studios largely want to get paid, and creators being able to choose which studios to work with is a pretty big factor in keeping them mostly honest. It's like how TV studios are willing to sell shows to other networks if they'll make a better offer than the network under the same parent umbrella -- the studio has its own bottom line and future prospects to worry about.

jebblue 11y ago

Our 8 bucks or whatever per month is hands down the best money we ever spent. I should write a blog article on cutting the cable with OTA and Roku/Netflix.

m_st 11y ago
Fully agree with you. What is OTA though?
- pasbesoin 11y ago
  Over The Air (traditional broadcast TV)

tired_man 11y ago

Not entirely. Netflix can have it, but still tells you they don't because their entire streaming library is not simultaneously available. Netflix rotates their streaming content in an attempt to make old content look new. A series or movie will disappear for a year or two only to re-appear as though it's something brand new to the Netflix lineup, rather than a case of Netflix shuffling great chunks of content in and out of play. I don't mind them doing that, I can understand the improbability of supporting their entire streaming library at once, just from a management perspective. The studios do give netflix grief. It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I can't foresee any future where each of the big studios can support any ~10 a month model to show only their content. Maybe a dollar or two. But definitely no more, and it would have to be commercial-free. There will have to be an aggregate distrubtor, whether it's NetFlix or another company, or maybe just devices to access studio's streaming channels (Roku, etc.). I don't see each studio being able to maintain the revenue to make the required streaming infrastructure cost effective.

soylentcola 11y ago

The selection used to bother me until I realized it was due to treating it as a replacement for a video rental store. Makes sense since the original DVD-by-mail service aimed to compete in that space. But now I treat it more like a really cheap version of cable TV. With cable, I can turn it on at any given time and channel surf until I find something I wouldn't mind watching. The specific movie or show I want to see probably won't be on but sometimes it is and the rest of the time, I'd just flip until I found something interesting. The thing is, just a basic cable package for casual browsing and watching shows costs at least like $30-50/mo and often more. Netflix is what, $10/mo? As a replacement for "all the random channels" I find it to be quite good. I usually have a better time finding something I'd enjoy watching compared to basic cable and it costs a good deal less. For the occasional movie or newer show, there are online purchases, rentals, and more "premium" services like HBO Now. Just like cable TV, you pay extra for the new stuff. The only thing about the new Netflix website that bums me out is that it broke the "God Mode" bookmarklet that I always used. It got rid of the endless horizontal scrolling and showed several rows of titles for each category, making for much easier and faster browsing.