4 ms·

> Netflix already lets series run on too long Says who ? I mean, you do realize their goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to mak

by nolok 8y ago

> Netflix already lets series run on too long Says who ? I mean, you do realize their goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to make the content that the most people would want to watch and be willing to keep their subscription active for ? If they let their series run that long, it's because it makes sense for them. Most people have a few thing we like where, when it turned to crap quality wise, we're still following along because we love it too much to let go. How many people have kept reading the Dune sequels when they were published despite the clear fall of quality and lack of focus compared to the original book ? It isn't different. (not that I'm not answering with your two other phrases, with which I agree, but to that one only)

bicubic 8y ago
> goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to make the content that the most people would want to watch and be willing to keep their subscription active for That is dangerous due to second-order effects. Initially, this strategy will work and be quite effective at maxing revenue. But over time, consumer perception will shift to 'Netflix makes shows that run too long' just like GP post demonstrated. This reduces the perceived value of netflix content and makes consumers less likely to start watching future netflix content.
- clubm8 8y ago
  Also, grandparent is assuming a bad season/sequel doesn't tarnish the original. For example, my perception of House of Cards has been diminished by the subpar later seasons.
  - wild_preference 8y ago
    I don’t think they are assuming any more than you are, that your experience is shared to the point where it matters. The challenge in these discussions is how subjective this stuff is. If you didn’t like the season, it “went on too long.” If you did, then it didn’t. The volume of anecdotes in HN threads show how useless that information is. We like to think we’re all art critics, but that’s not how people watch television.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chc 8y ago
> I mean, you do realize their goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to make the content that the most people would want to watch and be willing to keep their subscription active for ? That "shouldn't" is doing a lot of work here, and I don't think the rest of the comment is supporting it. Unless your assumption is "making the most money in the short term is the greatest good," I don't see why you'd think that aiming for a broadly inoffensive mediocrity is something they should do. That sounds like creative failure to me.

by nolok 8y ago

bicubic 8y ago

> goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to make the content that the most people would want to watch and be willing to keep their subscription active for That is dangerous due to second-order effects. Initially, this strategy will work and be quite effective at maxing revenue. But over time, consumer perception will shift to 'Netflix makes shows that run too long' just like GP post demonstrated. This reduces the perceived value of netflix content and makes consumers less likely to start watching future netflix content.

clubm8 8y ago
Also, grandparent is assuming a bad season/sequel doesn't tarnish the original. For example, my perception of House of Cards has been diminished by the subpar later seasons.
- wild_preference 8y ago
  I don’t think they are assuming any more than you are, that your experience is shared to the point where it matters. The challenge in these discussions is how subjective this stuff is. If you didn’t like the season, it “went on too long.” If you did, then it didn’t. The volume of anecdotes in HN threads show how useless that information is. We like to think we’re all art critics, but that’s not how people watch television.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

chc 8y ago

> I mean, you do realize their goal isn't and shouldn't be to make the best content possible, but to make the content that the most people would want to watch and be willing to keep their subscription active for ? That "shouldn't" is doing a lot of work here, and I don't think the rest of the comment is supporting it. Unless your assumption is "making the most money in the short term is the greatest good," I don't see why you'd think that aiming for a broadly inoffensive mediocrity is something they should do. That sounds like creative failure to me.