5 ms·

I mean, youtube videos have viewership numbers, and we judge youtube content accordingly all the time. I don't see why Netflix can't do the same, or why it's no

I mean, youtube videos have viewership numbers, and we judge youtube content accordingly all the time. I don't see why Netflix can't do the same, or why it's not acceptable for that data to be released for a streaming site.

dudul 11y ago
You have a point, but do Youtube views really tell the same story? It's called views, not viewers for a reason, I'm sure that behind a "100,000 views" there is maybe "20,000" viewers top. Got to say, I'm not an industry expert, but I don't know if a continuous release of ratings would work. For example, most shows have a wikipedia page with the ratings. Netflix shows don't (I only looked at 2 of them and extrapolated :)) and it makes sense. Would we update the page every week? I really see this cabal as a desperate move to go after Netflix under any pretext.
lhopki01 11y ago
You're forgetting the reason why viewership numbers exits. They're for advertisers. The only reason you need them is to have advertisers. The reasons they're public is that advertisers don't like trusting the company selling them ad space to also be the one saying how many viewers there are. That's why independent viewer number companies started. Netflix has no advertising so it doesn't need to release numbers. Youtube and TV both need viewing numbers to survive. Netflix doesn't need that data to be public.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Well it might need to release that data to convince shareholders that all the money they are spending on original content is worth the hundreds of millions a year they are spending. It's hard to tell if Netflix's growth is because 1) the huge catalog of rerun content they purchase for pennies on the dollar or 2) the original content they create for dollars on the dollar. The viewership data sheds light on that. If only three million out of 75 million watched House of Cards? Then they better stop spending 100 million dollars a year on it, because it's not worth it.
  - jeremy7600 11y ago
    Except it doesn't matter because people aren't paying for the shows with the ads they watch. They are paying directly with their subscription money and Netflix can spend it any way they want. So what if only 3 million out of 75 million watch house of cards. How many shows are watched on netflix by 100% of subscribers? Or I'll even make it more fair: how many shows are being watched by more than even 10% of subscribers? Few to any, if at all. They pick up what they can afford. It doesn't matter if no one watches it, its already been paid for. (More or less, the cost is already sunk but the revenue continues if they buy properties or not. They would be even more profitable if they didn't buy any content)
    - rhino369 11y ago
      Of course it matters to Netflix. They want to spend their money efficiently. It's possible spending on original content doesn't have a positive return on value.
      - lhopki01 11y ago
        I think currently Netflix has other priorities than spending money efficiently. They want growth first. Years from now when they're a monopoly provider like cable is they'll concentrate on spending their money wisely and we'll all be bitching about the subscription fees.
  - lhopki01 11y ago
    If they want to convince shareholders they can share the information with them. What they don't need is a separate public body. Also shareholders in general don't direct strategy. If profits are coming in they are happy and if it's a tech company if users are coming in and there are no profits they still seem to be happy. Also there's more to shows than just direct viewer numbers. Being known as the home of quality shows does amazing things for your brand even if people don't watch them as much as some reality tv.

dudul 11y ago

You have a point, but do Youtube views really tell the same story? It's called views, not viewers for a reason, I'm sure that behind a "100,000 views" there is maybe "20,000" viewers top. Got to say, I'm not an industry expert, but I don't know if a continuous release of ratings would work. For example, most shows have a wikipedia page with the ratings. Netflix shows don't (I only looked at 2 of them and extrapolated :)) and it makes sense. Would we update the page every week? I really see this cabal as a desperate move to go after Netflix under any pretext.

lhopki01 11y ago

You're forgetting the reason why viewership numbers exits. They're for advertisers. The only reason you need them is to have advertisers. The reasons they're public is that advertisers don't like trusting the company selling them ad space to also be the one saying how many viewers there are. That's why independent viewer number companies started. Netflix has no advertising so it doesn't need to release numbers. Youtube and TV both need viewing numbers to survive. Netflix doesn't need that data to be public.

rhino369 11y ago
Well it might need to release that data to convince shareholders that all the money they are spending on original content is worth the hundreds of millions a year they are spending. It's hard to tell if Netflix's growth is because 1) the huge catalog of rerun content they purchase for pennies on the dollar or 2) the original content they create for dollars on the dollar. The viewership data sheds light on that. If only three million out of 75 million watched House of Cards? Then they better stop spending 100 million dollars a year on it, because it's not worth it.
- jeremy7600 11y ago
  Except it doesn't matter because people aren't paying for the shows with the ads they watch. They are paying directly with their subscription money and Netflix can spend it any way they want. So what if only 3 million out of 75 million watch house of cards. How many shows are watched on netflix by 100% of subscribers? Or I'll even make it more fair: how many shows are being watched by more than even 10% of subscribers? Few to any, if at all. They pick up what they can afford. It doesn't matter if no one watches it, its already been paid for. (More or less, the cost is already sunk but the revenue continues if they buy properties or not. They would be even more profitable if they didn't buy any content)
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Of course it matters to Netflix. They want to spend their money efficiently. It's possible spending on original content doesn't have a positive return on value.
    - lhopki01 11y ago
      I think currently Netflix has other priorities than spending money efficiently. They want growth first. Years from now when they're a monopoly provider like cable is they'll concentrate on spending their money wisely and we'll all be bitching about the subscription fees.
- lhopki01 11y ago
  If they want to convince shareholders they can share the information with them. What they don't need is a separate public body. Also shareholders in general don't direct strategy. If profits are coming in they are happy and if it's a tech company if users are coming in and there are no profits they still seem to be happy. Also there's more to shows than just direct viewer numbers. Being known as the home of quality shows does amazing things for your brand even if people don't watch them as much as some reality tv.