3 ms·

The promise of Netflix was "the long tail": an ultimate video library of all but perhaps the very latest content. I'm not interested in "Netflix originals". Fo

The promise of Netflix was "the long tail": an ultimate video library of all but perhaps the very latest content. I'm not interested in "Netflix originals". Focus on the core competency of archiving & delivery; let others make the content. I've worked at IBM, Smith Corona, Kodak, CNN, AT&T, others - a major takeaway is: businesses which don't stick to their core competency/purpose die.

josefresco 10y ago
Netflix has had several identities. I'm old enough to remember the DVD-by-mail service. Then for a period because they were small and growing, it was "long tail" content, and older content that has already been monetized. For me, the new "original content" Netflix is a logical evolution - why did you get stuck in the second identity? If Netflix stuck to it's core DVD mailing service it would be dead - why is this second evolution the wrong move?
- ctdonath 10y ago
  My take is their DVD service was in recognition that they were an overly early mover: streaming content would be the dominant delivery service eventually, intended as their core competency, but they couldn't get there AND assure having a massive customer base without starting the (rather profitable, can't sneeze at that) DVD mailing service to get people on-board and ready to switch to streaming when the technology finally caught up. Methinks that's why they tried to sever the DVD service when streaming finally "arrived" - it's not what they wanted to do originally, it was just a means to an end. Netflix getting into the moviemaking business is like the Post Office getting into the magazine business.
throwaway729 10y ago
That's a surprising take-away for Kodak. As far as I understand, they died mostly because their core competency (film) became obsolete in a huge fragment of the market. I'm not saying that they could have successfully pivoted to digital, of course. But inability to pick up a new competency doesn't mean that the business won't die anyways... in which case, might as well try. IBM under-went a similar "try or die" evolution away from various computing technologies (punch card machines, then some number of generations of main frames) over the last century, with more success than Kodak. AT&T seems to be doing pretty well.
- Tostino 10y ago
  I think the issue with Kodak was not realizing that the market they were in was "photography" instead of "film".
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    This - and the fact that button-pushers were the actual customers. I realized the end was nigh when told Kodak wouldn't dive into the digital market because retailers didn't want that move disrupting their film & processing sales. (If Kodak had pivoted fast to digital, retailers threatened to retaliate by dropping Kodak film products entirely, killing the main revenue source).
mixmastamyk 10y ago
Netflix is at the whim of content producers, blame them for removing their content. I've enjoyed Netflix content, and it gives them a library all around the world.
- max_ 10y ago
  >I've enjoyed Netflix content, and it gives them a library all around the world. In my country most of the "library" is not available.
lhnz 10y ago
You are wrong because in fact focusing on "the long tail" is exactly what they are doing. They are in the business of reducing the cost of "the long tail" of content and ensuring that it is fixed and controlled by them. If it weren't for "Netflix originals" the content producers can just increase the cost at which they sell content to Netflix to destroy their profit margin. You can't scale a company into profitability if your costs are not fixed and are instead raised to maximally consume your profits.
toephu2 10y ago
Just because you're not interested in Netflix originals doesn't mean millions of other people aren't. I'm surprised that after working at so many different companies you haven't figured out that companies which don't adapt to change also die. Some Netflix originals have been very successful (House of Cards, Narcos, etc) so I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

josefresco 10y ago

Netflix has had several identities. I'm old enough to remember the DVD-by-mail service. Then for a period because they were small and growing, it was "long tail" content, and older content that has already been monetized. For me, the new "original content" Netflix is a logical evolution - why did you get stuck in the second identity? If Netflix stuck to it's core DVD mailing service it would be dead - why is this second evolution the wrong move?

ctdonath 10y ago
My take is their DVD service was in recognition that they were an overly early mover: streaming content would be the dominant delivery service eventually, intended as their core competency, but they couldn't get there AND assure having a massive customer base without starting the (rather profitable, can't sneeze at that) DVD mailing service to get people on-board and ready to switch to streaming when the technology finally caught up. Methinks that's why they tried to sever the DVD service when streaming finally "arrived" - it's not what they wanted to do originally, it was just a means to an end. Netflix getting into the moviemaking business is like the Post Office getting into the magazine business.

throwaway729 10y ago

That's a surprising take-away for Kodak. As far as I understand, they died mostly because their core competency (film) became obsolete in a huge fragment of the market. I'm not saying that they could have successfully pivoted to digital, of course. But inability to pick up a new competency doesn't mean that the business won't die anyways... in which case, might as well try. IBM under-went a similar "try or die" evolution away from various computing technologies (punch card machines, then some number of generations of main frames) over the last century, with more success than Kodak. AT&T seems to be doing pretty well.

Tostino 10y ago
I think the issue with Kodak was not realizing that the market they were in was "photography" instead of "film".
- ctdonath 10y ago
  This - and the fact that button-pushers were the actual customers. I realized the end was nigh when told Kodak wouldn't dive into the digital market because retailers didn't want that move disrupting their film & processing sales. (If Kodak had pivoted fast to digital, retailers threatened to retaliate by dropping Kodak film products entirely, killing the main revenue source).

mixmastamyk 10y ago

Netflix is at the whim of content producers, blame them for removing their content. I've enjoyed Netflix content, and it gives them a library all around the world.

max_ 10y ago
>I've enjoyed Netflix content, and it gives them a library all around the world. In my country most of the "library" is not available.

lhnz 10y ago

You are wrong because in fact focusing on "the long tail" is exactly what they are doing. They are in the business of reducing the cost of "the long tail" of content and ensuring that it is fixed and controlled by them. If it weren't for "Netflix originals" the content producers can just increase the cost at which they sell content to Netflix to destroy their profit margin. You can't scale a company into profitability if your costs are not fixed and are instead raised to maximally consume your profits.

toephu2 10y ago

Just because you're not interested in Netflix originals doesn't mean millions of other people aren't. I'm surprised that after working at so many different companies you haven't figured out that companies which don't adapt to change also die. Some Netflix originals have been very successful (House of Cards, Narcos, etc) so I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.