6 ms·

I've liked some of netflix's original content - house of cards was the first - but a LOT of it is trash too. I don't doubt they have numbers that lead them to c

I've liked some of netflix's original content - house of cards was the first - but a LOT of it is trash too. I don't doubt they have numbers that lead them to create these shows... but i question the scale of it sometimes. Of the netflix originals, i've only enjoyed a handful. Meanwhile, I've enjoyed a number of "low-budget" shows they've had (like ice pilots) and a number of the kung-fu movies they have available. But to be fair, a LOT of the low-budget stuff they have is trash too. It's clear (to me) that there is some effort to pad their content, to seem like they have a fuller collection, even if it's only a collection a raccoon would love. This, taken with the idea they tote of "having only the best performing people" displays a mismatch in cultural ideas and actual output. For me, I want netflix to succeed because another content producer is a welcome addition to the scene, and i hope they stay independent and don't get bought up by disney. I know in a few years they'll have a collection of original content to rival the older players.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
> Of the netflix originals, i've only enjoyed a handful. > It's clear (to me) that there is some effort to pad their content OR, they're just targeting demographics that don't include you. "I don't enjoy [thing] therefore it's padding" seems like kind of an ego-centric worldview to me. Haven't they even talked about how not having a fixed number of viewing hours means they can more easily target niche audiences?
- nickonline 10y ago
  They've talked about making content for $100k that a small number watch and making content for $5M that a number 500x that watch. They know exactly what they're doing and every comment on this article in HN right now shows you that. One person says they hate something and it's crap and the next person tells them that they're wrong. Entertainment is subjective netflix has numbers to back up their spends.
shawabawa3 10y ago
Bear in mind that 90% of "regular" TV is trash (to me), but a huge number of people enjoy it. They aren't just padding their content, they're also catering to a wide audience, which means lots of people will hate lots of their content, but lots of people will also like some of their content
- trendia 10y ago
  Take a look at soap operas or telenovelas. To some, it looks cheesy and the acting is over the top. But that's not why people watch them -- they watch them because the shows are a microcosm of real life.
- VLM 10y ago
  Actually, no, a huge number of people do not enjoy regular TV. The highest viewership series last year "The Big Bang Theory" had over 90% of the population uninterested in watching a free show. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/more-tv-news/the-20-highest-rated-shows-of-2016-the-walking-dead-and-the-big-bang-theory-win-the-year/ http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/more-tv-news/the-20-highest... Its at the point where if you meet someone and you're a fan of a non-top tier TV show, unless you met in an echo chamber, the odds of someone being your astrological symbol or in some cases having the same birthday are higher than them being a fan of your pet show. TV is no longer culturally relevant, not like it was decades ago. Nobody watches that stuff.
izacus 10y ago
IMO the fact that they can record "trash" is what will make them ultimately successful - their shows can target very limited demographics while still making profit. While on network TV your prime-time show MUST cater to as wide audience , Neflix doesn't have to. They can make Sense 8, Jessica Jones, Kimmy Schmidt, cooking shows, etc. etc. Each of those will only appeal to a part of audience, but because of that it can be more targeted and creative than watered down inoffensive prime-time schlock. The fact that they're pretty much the only ones (with the exception of Amazon Prime lately which is shooting themselves in the food for not providing apps for Android TV and other platforms) that are open to world-wide audiences, they're in for a huge success. Meanwhile, HBO and others still rather show "Not available in your country" than collect 10EUR/month from several TENS of millions of subscribers outside US.
- aeleos 10y ago
  It seems that they can make trash and as long as it convinces more people to subscribe to netflix it ends up meeting their bottom line. And I guess they have figured out that that is what works, as unlike a normal tv station per show ratings don't matter if it is more shows that brings people in.
- mattferderer 10y ago
  I agree strongly with this. I lost all interest in Big Bang Theory when they started appealing to a wider audience. Also we have Amazon Prime but rarely use it for the videos. It's a pain to watch except on our one tv with a computer hooked up to it. It's also the only video app we have that we can't stream to Chromecast. Is that $20 device really worth losing viewers over?
  - rosege 10y ago
    you can but you have to send the who screen/device rather than the usual chromecasting. You use the home app
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  You're right. It's all about the long tail. Netflix (and amazon) are in a powerful position to analyze and understand what people really want in a way that cable and networks (remember those) simply can't match. Providing "hits" to relatively small demographics over and over again, I think, might make more business sense than going up against the more experienced competition for mass-appeal. "Stranger Things" is a good example, it was a pitch-perfect, nuanced thriller series. I dare say it was an 80's period piece. That's niche. Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but damn it was cool. By appealing to the long tail, Netflix can make smaller demographics VERY HAPPY with their product, one demographic at a time. This is perhaps better than trying to please everyone at once with a blockbuster hit.
xutopia 10y ago
House of Cards was not the first. Lilyhammer was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Lilyhammer is prototypical of what I now expect from Netflix originals -- a good hook and solid first season, followed by hours upon hours of the same thing dragged out ad infinitum.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    I'm really disappointed it ended. I was really enjoying it. I admit it wasn't as good at the end as it was at the start but it was still good enough to keep me watching and entertained. I'm still holding out hope of a return.
  - blawson 10y ago
    You could say the same thing for just about any show. Granted maybe you get farther than season 1 (Game of Thrones up to season 3 for me, for example) but TV very much fits with "die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain."
rmc 10y ago
> I've liked some of netflix's original content - house of cards was the first Erm.... House of Cards (on Netflix) is an American remake of the British show of the same name that was shown on the BBC in 1990? Not exactly "original content" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)
- dazc 10y ago
  The original House of Cards was also a mini-series of just 4 episodes; Netflix would have done well to understand why that was such a good idea.
  - tyleregeto 10y ago
    There was three parts with 4 episodes each, for a total of 12 episodes. All very good. Sounds like you may have missed the next two, definitely worth watching.
- dagw 10y ago
  Have you actually watched both versions of the show? Sure they share a basic theme and a few plot points from the original are used in the first season of the US version, but the US version quickly becomes its entirely own thing and calling it a remake is simply inaccurate. That being said I do feel the US version has very much overstayed its welcome.
  - rmc 10y ago
    Yes, I have watched the UK one(s), and the first season of the US one. The US first season is very similar to the UK one. Some "localisation" changes are to be expected, and it's still called a "remake" in that sense, at least at the start.
- fullshark 10y ago
  Original means "produced by Netflix" in this context.
sudhirj 10y ago
Think the word you're looking for is long tail. Rounding up to $10 a person subscription, Netflix can comfortably spend a million dollars on a show even if it thinks only 100,000 people, and no one else ever, are going to enjoy it. When they have almost a 100 million subscribers, they can basically make 1000 shows, each of which will be thought of as "great" by 0.1 million people and "trash" by 99.9 million people.
- bobbyi_settv 10y ago
  That only works if you have a great way to help people find just the stuff they'll like and hide the rest. If they hundreds of series that are "trash" to me and a handful that are "great" to me, I'll probably end up watching a few of the trash ones first and then canceling the service.
Ensorceled 10y ago
> It's clear (to me) that there is some effort to pad their content I used to think reality TV was padding too. Maybe these kinds of shows just are not meant for us?
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> but a LOT of it is trash too. That's true, and the bad is stuff is unusually bad, but at the same time my monthly fee stays the same. Meanwhile, at a movie theater a bad movie costs me and my wife about $100 with babysitting, parking, and modest concessions like a soda and a box of raisenettes. Netflix-style services simply are more forgiving because of the small monthly flat-fee. Bad content is easy to skip and you're not being punished financially as long as good stuff is still being created to offset the bad. I won't fault a 25% fail rate. Hollywood as a whole, or even if we look at individual well-funded studios, must be shooting at an 75% fail rate here.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> Of the netflix originals, i've only enjoyed a handful. > It's clear (to me) that there is some effort to pad their content OR, they're just targeting demographics that don't include you. "I don't enjoy [thing] therefore it's padding" seems like kind of an ego-centric worldview to me. Haven't they even talked about how not having a fixed number of viewing hours means they can more easily target niche audiences?

nickonline 10y ago
They've talked about making content for $100k that a small number watch and making content for $5M that a number 500x that watch. They know exactly what they're doing and every comment on this article in HN right now shows you that. One person says they hate something and it's crap and the next person tells them that they're wrong. Entertainment is subjective netflix has numbers to back up their spends.

shawabawa3 10y ago

Bear in mind that 90% of "regular" TV is trash (to me), but a huge number of people enjoy it. They aren't just padding their content, they're also catering to a wide audience, which means lots of people will hate lots of their content, but lots of people will also like some of their content

trendia 10y ago
Take a look at soap operas or telenovelas. To some, it looks cheesy and the acting is over the top. But that's not why people watch them -- they watch them because the shows are a microcosm of real life.
VLM 10y ago
Actually, no, a huge number of people do not enjoy regular TV. The highest viewership series last year "The Big Bang Theory" had over 90% of the population uninterested in watching a free show. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/more-tv-news/the-20-highest-rated-shows-of-2016-the-walking-dead-and-the-big-bang-theory-win-the-year/ http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/more-tv-news/the-20-highest... Its at the point where if you meet someone and you're a fan of a non-top tier TV show, unless you met in an echo chamber, the odds of someone being your astrological symbol or in some cases having the same birthday are higher than them being a fan of your pet show. TV is no longer culturally relevant, not like it was decades ago. Nobody watches that stuff.

izacus 10y ago

IMO the fact that they can record "trash" is what will make them ultimately successful - their shows can target very limited demographics while still making profit. While on network TV your prime-time show MUST cater to as wide audience , Neflix doesn't have to. They can make Sense 8, Jessica Jones, Kimmy Schmidt, cooking shows, etc. etc. Each of those will only appeal to a part of audience, but because of that it can be more targeted and creative than watered down inoffensive prime-time schlock. The fact that they're pretty much the only ones (with the exception of Amazon Prime lately which is shooting themselves in the food for not providing apps for Android TV and other platforms) that are open to world-wide audiences, they're in for a huge success. Meanwhile, HBO and others still rather show "Not available in your country" than collect 10EUR/month from several TENS of millions of subscribers outside US.

aeleos 10y ago
It seems that they can make trash and as long as it convinces more people to subscribe to netflix it ends up meeting their bottom line. And I guess they have figured out that that is what works, as unlike a normal tv station per show ratings don't matter if it is more shows that brings people in.
mattferderer 10y ago
I agree strongly with this. I lost all interest in Big Bang Theory when they started appealing to a wider audience. Also we have Amazon Prime but rarely use it for the videos. It's a pain to watch except on our one tv with a computer hooked up to it. It's also the only video app we have that we can't stream to Chromecast. Is that $20 device really worth losing viewers over?
- rosege 10y ago
  you can but you have to send the who screen/device rather than the usual chromecasting. You use the home app
crispyambulance 10y ago
You're right. It's all about the long tail. Netflix (and amazon) are in a powerful position to analyze and understand what people really want in a way that cable and networks (remember those) simply can't match. Providing "hits" to relatively small demographics over and over again, I think, might make more business sense than going up against the more experienced competition for mass-appeal. "Stranger Things" is a good example, it was a pitch-perfect, nuanced thriller series. I dare say it was an 80's period piece. That's niche. Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but damn it was cool. By appealing to the long tail, Netflix can make smaller demographics VERY HAPPY with their product, one demographic at a time. This is perhaps better than trying to please everyone at once with a blockbuster hit.

xutopia 10y ago

House of Cards was not the first. Lilyhammer was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer

throwaway729 10y ago
Lilyhammer is prototypical of what I now expect from Netflix originals -- a good hook and solid first season, followed by hours upon hours of the same thing dragged out ad infinitum.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I'm really disappointed it ended. I was really enjoying it. I admit it wasn't as good at the end as it was at the start but it was still good enough to keep me watching and entertained. I'm still holding out hope of a return.
- blawson 10y ago
  You could say the same thing for just about any show. Granted maybe you get farther than season 1 (Game of Thrones up to season 3 for me, for example) but TV very much fits with "die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain."

rmc 10y ago

> I've liked some of netflix's original content - house of cards was the first Erm.... House of Cards (on Netflix) is an American remake of the British show of the same name that was shown on the BBC in 1990? Not exactly "original content" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)

dazc 10y ago
The original House of Cards was also a mini-series of just 4 episodes; Netflix would have done well to understand why that was such a good idea.
- tyleregeto 10y ago
  There was three parts with 4 episodes each, for a total of 12 episodes. All very good. Sounds like you may have missed the next two, definitely worth watching.
dagw 10y ago
Have you actually watched both versions of the show? Sure they share a basic theme and a few plot points from the original are used in the first season of the US version, but the US version quickly becomes its entirely own thing and calling it a remake is simply inaccurate. That being said I do feel the US version has very much overstayed its welcome.
- rmc 10y ago
  Yes, I have watched the UK one(s), and the first season of the US one. The US first season is very similar to the UK one. Some "localisation" changes are to be expected, and it's still called a "remake" in that sense, at least at the start.
fullshark 10y ago
Original means "produced by Netflix" in this context.

sudhirj 10y ago

Think the word you're looking for is long tail. Rounding up to $10 a person subscription, Netflix can comfortably spend a million dollars on a show even if it thinks only 100,000 people, and no one else ever, are going to enjoy it. When they have almost a 100 million subscribers, they can basically make 1000 shows, each of which will be thought of as "great" by 0.1 million people and "trash" by 99.9 million people.

bobbyi_settv 10y ago
That only works if you have a great way to help people find just the stuff they'll like and hide the rest. If they hundreds of series that are "trash" to me and a handful that are "great" to me, I'll probably end up watching a few of the trash ones first and then canceling the service.

Ensorceled 10y ago

> It's clear (to me) that there is some effort to pad their content I used to think reality TV was padding too. Maybe these kinds of shows just are not meant for us?

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> but a LOT of it is trash too. That's true, and the bad is stuff is unusually bad, but at the same time my monthly fee stays the same. Meanwhile, at a movie theater a bad movie costs me and my wife about $100 with babysitting, parking, and modest concessions like a soda and a box of raisenettes. Netflix-style services simply are more forgiving because of the small monthly flat-fee. Bad content is easy to skip and you're not being punished financially as long as good stuff is still being created to offset the bad. I won't fault a 25% fail rate. Hollywood as a whole, or even if we look at individual well-funded studios, must be shooting at an 75% fail rate here.