3 ms·

So the argument is that level of hit-making is unsustainable? Would Apple's practice of coming out with market-defining new products be another example of this

So the argument is that level of hit-making is unsustainable? Would Apple's practice of coming out with market-defining new products be another example of this hit-making practice? Perhaps the strategy to "reliably keep a Game Of Thrones or True Blood in the pipeline" isn't viable long term? Eventually, everyone is going to miss a beat then go bankrupt.

tptacek 8y ago
I don't think it's unsustainable at all. But HBO used to have buffers for this stuff: a captive audience of cross-subsidized cable subscribers that were paying for HBO as a part of their TV package, and a competitive status as basically the king of the hill for prestige scripted television. They could take flyers on John From Cincinnati and Carnivale and wait for the next tentpole --- the next Game of Thrones or Sopranos or True Blood. But both of those buffers are going away. Cable TV packages are going the way of Blockbuster Video. If you want subscribers, you're going to have to get them to sign up, in a crowded market, and bill them directly. And HBO isn't even close to the only game in town for prestige television. Even Hulu is competitive here; arguably, The Handmaids Tale has done as well as any non-GoT property HBO has launched in the last couple years. To me, what this suggests is that for HBO to be competitive, their model is going to have to look more like Netflix's: they're going to need to fund and develop a lot more properties, rolling the dice more often until they can find a bunch more tentpole shows. Which is all the article really says, too.
- MBCook 8y ago
  HBO is powerful enough right now that I think they might be able to continue to do big series, drop the price, and get rid of a lot of the expensive movies they license. If they did that they may be able to sell themselves quite well to people. It’s much easier to pay $8 dollars a month for a couple fantastic serious than $15 a month for a couple fantastic series and tons of also ran movies. But paying $10 a month for a “throw stuff at the wall“ approach of TV? Why not just subscribe to Hulu.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    What power does HBO have? Make a list of the 10 most important TV dramas in the past 4-5 years. How many of them were HBO shows? Answer: not many. Meanwhile: if "throw stuff at the wall" is Netflix's model, go look at Netflix's numbers. They're not hurting. Their model works; they stand on their own two feet. We actually don't know if HBO's model works: they're cross-subsidized not just by cable companies, but also by their corporate owners. They were one of the most important players in the old TV model. It remains to be seen how important they'll be in the new model. I think it would be hard to argue that Netflix was less important than HBO in the modern TV marketplace.

tptacek 8y ago

I don't think it's unsustainable at all. But HBO used to have buffers for this stuff: a captive audience of cross-subsidized cable subscribers that were paying for HBO as a part of their TV package, and a competitive status as basically the king of the hill for prestige scripted television. They could take flyers on John From Cincinnati and Carnivale and wait for the next tentpole --- the next Game of Thrones or Sopranos or True Blood. But both of those buffers are going away. Cable TV packages are going the way of Blockbuster Video. If you want subscribers, you're going to have to get them to sign up, in a crowded market, and bill them directly. And HBO isn't even close to the only game in town for prestige television. Even Hulu is competitive here; arguably, The Handmaids Tale has done as well as any non-GoT property HBO has launched in the last couple years. To me, what this suggests is that for HBO to be competitive, their model is going to have to look more like Netflix's: they're going to need to fund and develop a lot more properties, rolling the dice more often until they can find a bunch more tentpole shows. Which is all the article really says, too.

MBCook 8y ago
HBO is powerful enough right now that I think they might be able to continue to do big series, drop the price, and get rid of a lot of the expensive movies they license. If they did that they may be able to sell themselves quite well to people. It’s much easier to pay $8 dollars a month for a couple fantastic serious than $15 a month for a couple fantastic series and tons of also ran movies. But paying $10 a month for a “throw stuff at the wall“ approach of TV? Why not just subscribe to Hulu.
- tptacek 8y ago
  What power does HBO have? Make a list of the 10 most important TV dramas in the past 4-5 years. How many of them were HBO shows? Answer: not many. Meanwhile: if "throw stuff at the wall" is Netflix's model, go look at Netflix's numbers. They're not hurting. Their model works; they stand on their own two feet. We actually don't know if HBO's model works: they're cross-subsidized not just by cable companies, but also by their corporate owners. They were one of the most important players in the old TV model. It remains to be seen how important they'll be in the new model. I think it would be hard to argue that Netflix was less important than HBO in the modern TV marketplace.