4 ms·

Remember this from four years ago: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." [0] In that entire article, there's not a single mention of HBO G

Remember this from four years ago: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." [0] In that entire article, there's not a single mention of HBO Go. Looks like Netflix succeeded. 0: http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster-than-hbo-can-become-us http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo...

RangerScience 10y ago
I met a then-CTO of HBO on a train once, talked for a few hours from NYC to upstate. I (digitally) followed the news about him for a bit - it seemed pretty clear from the time we spent talking, and what I saw digitally subsequently, that he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming and the web. HBO content is still amazing, and HBO isn't bad, but... It's certainly not as good as Netflix. It occurs to me that it's a lot easier for Netflix to become HBO, than for HBO to become Netflix - You don't need to build up a tech base, or a talent pool, to make an amazing show - it's all rented or hired per thing, so if you can pay for the talent, it's available, and can start making magic immediately. Not trying to imply the creation of amazing content is easy, more that the lead time is waaay less than for the creation of tech like Netflix's.
- chetanahuja 10y ago
  It's more like there was always a lot of pent-up supply of amazing content available. The reason the supply was not finding an outlet was because of the problem that such content doesn't have the mass appeal required to be a hit show on non-premium cable (or, god forbid, a theatrical release movie). So the outlets were limited. HBO was one such premium outlet but it was always limited by the number of primetime hours in the day because of the cable based business model (still is). Netflix comes along and starts ordering shows where they know the target audience is going to be very limited, say only 10% of all college graduates from big metro areas. That's enough for a show to be Netflix success. Some of them they contract with US production companies (House of Cards, OIT New Black etc.), others they source from non-US TV networks (Sherlock, Black Mirror etc.) If they have enough of these shows, they can cover most of their target audience and make sure that most people have at least a few original shows keeping them hooked to the $10/month subscription. There's no limit on airtime since Netflix is all on-demand. So now there are dozens (or who knows, even hundreds) of these shows and all they need for you is to get hooked on one or two of those. And a few of them have been legitimate breakout hits like House of Cards, Stranger Things, OITNB etc. Maybe individually none of those shows is as big as Game of Thrones, but combined, they're obviously doing a great job for Netflix. For HBO to truly compete with Netflix, they'll have to break their "Cable first" model and truly start thinking in terms of unlimited online hours. We'll see when they release their first online only show.
  - moomin 10y ago
    Worth noting two prongs of Netflix's strategy: proven properties (Fuller House) and swinging for the bleachers (Sense 8). The second doesn't always work, but when it does...
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      And there is no safer place to try it. When HBO launches a new series, they market to their entire viewer base and arrange/hope for more attention. When Netflix launches a new series, they know exactly what is similar to it and who watched those things, so they target those viewers first. Odds are, those viewers talk about it in their circles and word/attention spreads. If it blows up further, great! But since they knew exactly how big their starting niche was, they probably (a guess) had their ROI planning based on those. As noted in the article of the top 10 shows googled last year, 5 were Netflix Originals. They're not just winning, they're blowing away everyone else.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    I think my hope is that HBO sticks with the TV "style" - weekly episodes that drop at specific times - while Netflix keeps going with their "new bag of tricks" (binge!). Diversity is really good, and both of these methods bring something special to the table. Specifically - You're spot on with Netflix's limited audience appeal per show, and making the work. What HBO really brings to the table is a show that EVERYONE talks about - and by releasing it on a TV-style schedule, we all have time to talk about it. GoT was as much about all the hubub (re: watching twitter when readers knew Red Wedding was coming, and viewers didn't...) as the show itself. As much as I love Netflix shows, you don't "bond at the watercooler" over them nearly as much, since you have to worry about where someone is in the plot progression, and by the time we've both seen it, the moment has passed. I tell people to go watch Netflix shows, but I talk with people about HBO.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Although many people will doubtless come to Westworld later and watch it in a binge-y way, it was really a blast from the past to watch it week to week and read online discussions, etc. about it. IMO, it's a great example of a series (see also Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, etc.) that really benefit from week-by-week release even if you don't literally watch it in realtime as it's release.
- michaelt 10y ago
  he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming I think it's very difficult when you're in charge of a business with a line of business that's profitable /right now/ to knowingly cannibalise that line of business with a new model that will /make you less money/ - even if the change is vital to keep you in business in 10-20 years time. After all, if you're making $10 per customer per month, it's bound to be an uphill battle to convince people you should change to a business model that makes you $5 per customer per month.
  - pillowkusis 10y ago
    It's not just difficult, it's a bad idea for you. If you know your company will be successful enough to give you your paycheck for the entire duration you stay there (10-15yrs seems like a reasonable maximum), then you should actively defend the status quo. Why make such investments, stick your neck out, and assume extra risk when you're not going to see the payoff? This is my theory for why so many companies have outdated business models.
  - jogjayr 10y ago
    > After all, if you're making $10 per customer per month, it's bound to be an uphill battle to convince people you should change to a business model that makes you $5 per customer per month. That's something I just didn't get. Netflix has already set the bar by pricing their content at $10/month; why can't HBO do the same? HBO Go/Now (that's another thing; why two different apps?) is $15/month, but with less content, albeit most of it better than the average Netflix title. So...it's not exactly a losing proposition for them. Why is it such an uphill battle for HBO to do this exactly?
draw_down 10y ago
I would say their shows are good but definitely not touching HBO. They haven't made anything quite like Sopranos or Westworld (to name but two) yet.

RangerScience 10y ago

I met a then-CTO of HBO on a train once, talked for a few hours from NYC to upstate. I (digitally) followed the news about him for a bit - it seemed pretty clear from the time we spent talking, and what I saw digitally subsequently, that he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming and the web. HBO content is still amazing, and HBO isn't bad, but... It's certainly not as good as Netflix. It occurs to me that it's a lot easier for Netflix to become HBO, than for HBO to become Netflix - You don't need to build up a tech base, or a talent pool, to make an amazing show - it's all rented or hired per thing, so if you can pay for the talent, it's available, and can start making magic immediately. Not trying to imply the creation of amazing content is easy, more that the lead time is waaay less than for the creation of tech like Netflix's.

chetanahuja 10y ago
It's more like there was always a lot of pent-up supply of amazing content available. The reason the supply was not finding an outlet was because of the problem that such content doesn't have the mass appeal required to be a hit show on non-premium cable (or, god forbid, a theatrical release movie). So the outlets were limited. HBO was one such premium outlet but it was always limited by the number of primetime hours in the day because of the cable based business model (still is). Netflix comes along and starts ordering shows where they know the target audience is going to be very limited, say only 10% of all college graduates from big metro areas. That's enough for a show to be Netflix success. Some of them they contract with US production companies (House of Cards, OIT New Black etc.), others they source from non-US TV networks (Sherlock, Black Mirror etc.) If they have enough of these shows, they can cover most of their target audience and make sure that most people have at least a few original shows keeping them hooked to the $10/month subscription. There's no limit on airtime since Netflix is all on-demand. So now there are dozens (or who knows, even hundreds) of these shows and all they need for you is to get hooked on one or two of those. And a few of them have been legitimate breakout hits like House of Cards, Stranger Things, OITNB etc. Maybe individually none of those shows is as big as Game of Thrones, but combined, they're obviously doing a great job for Netflix. For HBO to truly compete with Netflix, they'll have to break their "Cable first" model and truly start thinking in terms of unlimited online hours. We'll see when they release their first online only show.
- moomin 10y ago
  Worth noting two prongs of Netflix's strategy: proven properties (Fuller House) and swinging for the bleachers (Sense 8). The second doesn't always work, but when it does...
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    And there is no safer place to try it. When HBO launches a new series, they market to their entire viewer base and arrange/hope for more attention. When Netflix launches a new series, they know exactly what is similar to it and who watched those things, so they target those viewers first. Odds are, those viewers talk about it in their circles and word/attention spreads. If it blows up further, great! But since they knew exactly how big their starting niche was, they probably (a guess) had their ROI planning based on those. As noted in the article of the top 10 shows googled last year, 5 were Netflix Originals. They're not just winning, they're blowing away everyone else.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I think my hope is that HBO sticks with the TV "style" - weekly episodes that drop at specific times - while Netflix keeps going with their "new bag of tricks" (binge!). Diversity is really good, and both of these methods bring something special to the table. Specifically - You're spot on with Netflix's limited audience appeal per show, and making the work. What HBO really brings to the table is a show that EVERYONE talks about - and by releasing it on a TV-style schedule, we all have time to talk about it. GoT was as much about all the hubub (re: watching twitter when readers knew Red Wedding was coming, and viewers didn't...) as the show itself. As much as I love Netflix shows, you don't "bond at the watercooler" over them nearly as much, since you have to worry about where someone is in the plot progression, and by the time we've both seen it, the moment has passed. I tell people to go watch Netflix shows, but I talk with people about HBO.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Although many people will doubtless come to Westworld later and watch it in a binge-y way, it was really a blast from the past to watch it week to week and read online discussions, etc. about it. IMO, it's a great example of a series (see also Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, etc.) that really benefit from week-by-week release even if you don't literally watch it in realtime as it's release.
michaelt 10y ago
he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming I think it's very difficult when you're in charge of a business with a line of business that's profitable /right now/ to knowingly cannibalise that line of business with a new model that will /make you less money/ - even if the change is vital to keep you in business in 10-20 years time. After all, if you're making $10 per customer per month, it's bound to be an uphill battle to convince people you should change to a business model that makes you $5 per customer per month.
- pillowkusis 10y ago
  It's not just difficult, it's a bad idea for you. If you know your company will be successful enough to give you your paycheck for the entire duration you stay there (10-15yrs seems like a reasonable maximum), then you should actively defend the status quo. Why make such investments, stick your neck out, and assume extra risk when you're not going to see the payoff? This is my theory for why so many companies have outdated business models.
- jogjayr 10y ago
  > After all, if you're making $10 per customer per month, it's bound to be an uphill battle to convince people you should change to a business model that makes you $5 per customer per month. That's something I just didn't get. Netflix has already set the bar by pricing their content at $10/month; why can't HBO do the same? HBO Go/Now (that's another thing; why two different apps?) is $15/month, but with less content, albeit most of it better than the average Netflix title. So...it's not exactly a losing proposition for them. Why is it such an uphill battle for HBO to do this exactly?

draw_down 10y ago

I would say their shows are good but definitely not touching HBO. They haven't made anything quite like Sopranos or Westworld (to name but two) yet.