4 ms·
Because Netflix can't fund infinite shows, and needs to allocate their resources that will attract and retain customers. It's not as if the crappy show producer
by greedo 8y ago
Because Netflix can't fund infinite shows, and needs to allocate their resources that will attract and retain customers. It's not as if the crappy show producers will let Netflix keep the shows for free.
- greggarious 8y agoBut maybe Netflix's advantage over a traditional TV channel like HBO is that it can offer ten shows 1 million people will watch instead of one show 10 million will watch? Traditional channels have limited slots. Obviously there's costs to produce shows, but making 10 small budget shows that attract 10 different types of viewer might be a better way to lock in subscriptions than a small number of "prestige" shows.
- ghaff 8y agoPossibly. But there's also a dynamic on Netflix (and HBO, etc.) of must-see-TV shows (to steal a term from an earlier era) that pull someone over the hump of signing up and then staying. You need the "filler" (which isn't really intended to be disparaging) too. But a large number of shows which are OK/fine doesn't get people to pull the trigger. Game of Thrones, House of Cards (originally), Man in the High Castle, Orange is the New Black, etc. do.
- ascagnel_ 8y agoMore to the point: Netflix can't fund infinite shows, and since it's relying on total subscribers vs. ad impressions, they need to make sure they're getting as little audience overlap in their programming as possible. They can have big, expensive hits, or they can have niche programming. The model falls down at the decently-viewed, but broad appeal, shows because they won't attract a specific audience but also aren't popular enough to be destination viewing.
- chucksmash 8y agoThat's an interesting way to think about it - similar to β and α in the portfolio analysis sense. I don't know how well that model holds up in practice though. To use HBO Now as an example: when Game of Thrones was the only show I was interested in, I would sub for 3 months to watch a new season live and then cancel. Once I caught the Westworld bug I was that much less likely to cancel my subscription during the down time.
- ghaff 8y agoDefaults are powerful too. I admit that I signed up for HBO for GoT though also watch other things (esp. Westworld). I could probably optimize month-on/month-off but I don't bother.
- chucksmash 8y agoIn general I agree (see: Linodes and D.O. droplets, domains for possible side projects) but I'm pretty quick to cancel extraneous streaming services now that every media company is trying to get their own $10/mo IP silo off the ground.
- ghaff 8y agoYeah, I'm pretty conservative about signing up for new entertainment services--especially given how few hours per week I actually watch/listen.
- ascagnel_ 8y agoHBO's model actually somewhat aligns with Netflix's, only it's far more focused (and tends to be less ambitious). They want a single big hourlong prestige drama as a tentpole (Game of Thrones, Westworld; in the past, True Blood, The Sopranos, The Wire), and a pair of highly-regarded and experimental comedies as more niche programming (Veep, Insecure, Girls). Keep subscribing to watch the big tentpole, and maybe get hooked enough on one of the niche shows that follow it to keep your subscription running in the times when the big shows are off. A show like Brooklyn 99 wouldn't survive very long on HBO, only because its style of comedy isn't catering to a specific niche (compared to something like Silicon Valley or Veep) and at the same time doesn't have a broad enough appeal to act as a tentpole.