10 ms·

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regar

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a derivative film with a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's a huge "flex". Big studios could pump hundreds of millions into a decent film and still have it flop. Netflix can take a B-movie and make it a sensation with relative ease. No wonder every game in town is trying to break into this model. Why invest millions on a potential flop when you can engineer one with 75% accuracy whenever you wish? (though maybe I'm being just a bit too paranoid here. I have to admit some of the Bird Box magic stems from its intriguing concept. guerilla marketing doesn't work so well if what you're selling doesn't seem too interesting) edit: people are debating the idea of "box office smash" here. I didn't use that phrase to emphasize direct earnings as a result of the film (which is "free" to watch if you pay for a subscription). The article addresses this: > Secondly, and relatedly, Netflix is counting on subscription revenue. To that end, producing a piece of content that 58% of its subscriber base viewed in a single month is by definition a triumph (and yes, worth ~$700 million). The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing.

baxtr 8y ago
Yes, I agree, but you can’t do that too often. People will eventually stop trusting your recommendations. I experienced something similar with their B-series that they highly promote. I stopped after watching 1-2 episodes. Now, I don’t even care to start anymore.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- alexis_fr 8y ago
  My takeaway from Netflix: - None of the blockbusters are available, - Instead, you’ll find a pale B-series copy, oftentimes with plain cringy actors. Seeing memes on facebook/9Gag, this impression is quite popular in teenagers too. And that’s a very, very bad reputation to have.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
I wonder when people start noticing. For me their content is just mediocre. When you think about it, creating a real masterpiece is very hard and requires a combination of talent, taste, luck, investment and so on. It doesn't happen just by pushing something as "recommended".
- assblaster 8y ago
  Here's the secret to Netflix: A "masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder. A masterpiece to some is not to another. Roma is one example: it clearly is masterfully done. Film critics love it. I loved it and it resonated with me. Have you seen it yet? Maybe you think it's "mediocre". I liked Bird Box because it was apocalyptic and dealt with the downfall of society, a common theme in this genre. I don't care if anyone else liked it or didn't, the film was made for me. I see Netflix just released Kingdom. I have loved it so far. I could list dozens of shows and movies that I have been extremely thrilled with. Will everyone else? I. Don't. Care. As long as Netflix keeps pumping in the fantastic content, people will continue to subscribe. I think you just need to look harder in Netflix. Try some British shows like Marcella or The Bodyguard.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    That's exactly it, they can exploit the efficiencies of personalized masterpieces. Theaters and other pre-packaged distribution channels can't. Netflix only has to make a crap load of content available to cover all the content space. The average quality according to any particular user doesn't have to be good if their recommendation engine can find your niche. Think what the average quality of YouTube is.
  - mostlysimilar 8y ago
    I agree. I'm always surprised by the number of people I encounter who have negative opinions of Netflix's original content, both online and in discussions in person. I've been very happy with Netflix's originals and think they're top-notch. They have actually solidified my subscription--if they continue to produce shows at the rate and quality they have been, they have a customer for life in me.
40acres 8y ago
If you look closely enough you can see a clear trend regarding Netflix's content strategy. They will continue to make movies like Bird Box, B-style movies and "cult classics" that they can draw big numbers to via their reach and marketing. Oscar contenders like Roma and Beast of No Nation (a bit early for it's time if you ask me). Partnerships with foreign content makers to act as an international distributor (BBC produced, Golden Globe Winner, The Bodyguard for example). Top quality original TV: The Crown for example, fueled by contracts with big name show-runners and writers to produce them (Shonda Rhymes). And finally, high value syndication targets (Friends, Mad Men, The Office). Netflix's content allocation seems pretty clear, the next few years will be optimization at the margins.
- gh02t 8y ago
  Netflix has also been pushing anime/anime-style originals. I think this is a pretty interesting strategy, anime is relatively cheap to produce and is niche but has a huge fanbase worldwide.
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    And some of them are pretty damn good depending on your interest. Theres a few decent mecha ones at least. I am sure they will eventually land the rights to a solid winner. I do like the end result too lots of subs in different languages and I feel like they dub it in different languages too. The best of both worlds for any type of anime fan.
    - nojvek 8y ago
      Any good Anime you recommend ? I loved Violet Evergreen. It was very well done as an animation. The others are “your lie in April”. That legit made me sob. I usually don’t get that emotional. (Although not a Netflix original).
      - mayoff 8y ago
        Death Note was fantastic. Much better than I expected after reading a synopsis of the premise.
namdnay 8y ago
To be fair, big studios have to convince you to pay to go see a film, Netflix just have to convince you to watch it “for free”
- scarface74 8y ago
  Well, with our AMC stubs pass my wife and already pay monthly to see up to three movies a week. We are just as likely or not likely to go see a movie as we are to watch it on Netflix. The cost is just our time either way.
FreeKill 8y ago
What I also find interesting is the fact that Netflix doesn't necessarily even need the "flex" to succeed. Their push on bird box could have failed miserably, and they really wouldn't have suffered greatly, whereas Disney's push of A Wrinkle in Time probably hurt, since the movie ultimately flopped and their only chance to recoup costs was after the huge investment. Netflix's goal is quite distinct from much of its competition. In simplistic terms, their goal is to release enough compelling content to keep existing subscribers subscribed and then hopefully entice new users to sign up more than old users quit. These "flexes" I would assume are primarily for the second category. If you make something enough of an event, with subscribers talking about it all the time, maybe non-subscribers will think they are missing out and take the plunge. If that fails, however, they only really lose out on the marketing costs, since it's very unlikely to affect the existing subscriber base at all.
- lsc 8y ago
  Yeah... I mean, when this switch occurred (away from having a wide selection of classics towards being more of a cable channel with their own custom content) I canceled my subscription. I switched to amazon video... I can't say I'm always thrilled with the video quality, but amazon video usually has what I want to watch, and they make watching it low effort (They usually charge me a few dollars to watch it, but if I'm going to take two hours to watch something, a few dollars is the least of the cost.) I mean, one could argue that I'd be better served by the netflix disk service, but I can't reliably predict what I'm going to want to watch ahead, and I don't have a convenient device for watching disks in the gym. (I know they exist, and I used to have one. But the kindle fire is a lot more convenient.)
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Amazon video has some nice content but their streaming quality is dogshit. For first 10 mins I get pixelated video and then it catches up with SD. Proper HD is a hit and a miss. Also their App for vizio TVs is so bloated that it crashes the TV after a couple of episodes. Netflix on the other hand has their tech together. Beautiful streaming and lightweight responsive app. Please Amazon, pay your Engineers well and make an app that doesn’t crash at the least.
baddox 8y ago
I don’t think I buy this analysis. In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?” Only Netflix can know the impact the film made on their bottom line, and even that internal analysis is difficult to do, especially in the short term. In other words, I’m saying that yes, Netflix can fairly easily promote a film and get millions of people to watch it, but that doesn’t mean they have a magical sustainable model. If they were to consistently flex this muscle with content people don’t like, it’s pretty obvious things will turn out badly for them.
- trevyn 8y ago
  There’s a difference between content people “don’t like” and content with a mediocre, but broadly acceptable level of quality. It seems like the real magic is the capability to make a particular piece of content the “thing that prople talk about”, and so you watch it just so that you’re able to talk about it in conversation, because it’s part of the social consciousness.
- notatoad 8y ago
  >In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?” the article you're commenting on makes a pretty thorough case for why it is a box office hit.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> instant box office smash How is a film with literally $0 at the box office and “instant box office smash”. Sure, if as many people as watched it paid for full-time tickets at a theater it would have been a stunning box office, but all that proves is that more people will pay a $0 marginal cost than the cost of theater tickets. Which we already knew.
autokad 8y ago
(SPOILERS AHEAD) > "...if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself." birdbox isn't the first promoted original content. it certainly drives success, but ultimately to get 45 million views, probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever), is big. I did think the movie was kinda derivative, a mix of the happening and vanishing on 7th street, but its still a must watch if you are into horror. every game in town is 2nd guessing their models, because they are extremely outdated. Comcast's (NBC etc) entire model is based around market share - broadcast television. Hollywood is around big box office high spending action movies to make global sales. These is fine in some senses, but it means there are types of content we havent seen much, and while Netflix could satisfy niche customers, it was generally thought that it couldn't compete with large budget content producers. Now maybe it can, and that requires content providers to re-think. >"The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing." for the longest time, ironically this has been hbo, especially with game of thrones. i feel like they must be paying reporters lots of money to go on about it so much, because its not really watched by that many people - compared to how much its talked about.
- lawlorino 8y ago
  I agree with your comment in general but just wanted to be nitpicky over this part (this is HN after all) > probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever) I don't think that's an accurate measure for GoT as it's probably the most pirated TV show ever, that 16 million figure you quoted is people watching on HBO only. Those of us outside of the US either watch it on a different network (e.g. Sky in the UK) or just pirate it.
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    GoT would have a huge figure if hbo did international releases via Netflix. DC released Titans on Netflix international. I saw heaps of people streaming it on their phones via Netflix on the train. If GoT was on Netflix I suspect piracy would drop a lot (not completely cos people will always pirate)
ericmcer 8y ago
It was almost amazing how popular and terrible that movie was. What’s gonna be next, a monster where if you smell it you die? It was just another blatant example of how you can get people to mainline the kool-aid with social media, marketing, and Fear of missing the current big thing.
- DanBC 8y ago
  It wasn't a terrible movie. It was reasonably well constructed and hit most of the right beats. But for middle-brow entertainment it's a perfectly good example of a monster movie. You may be getting bored of this trope (DON'T USE THIS SENSE OR YOU DIE) but that doesn't make the individual films terrible.
  - V-2 8y ago
    It was mediocre and ridden with plot-holes, even by the (very forgiving) genre standards.
- throwaway415415 8y ago
  It was a great movie.
duxup 8y ago
>All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency Slip it in? I feel like Netflix beats me over the head with their own content even when I'm looking for something else.....
jammygit 8y ago
Its not fair imho to underplay the movie itself. Maybe it wouldn't have done as well if it wasn't marketed as hard, but I didn't tell my friends about it because Netflix made me. Bird Box was one of the best horror movies I've ever seen.
- goostavos 8y ago
  I'm going to be really, _really_ smug here, but you should probably branch out in your movie watching if Bird Box was the best horror movie you've ever seen.
  - jammygit 8y ago
    This is the most troll comment I've ever seen on hn
phs318u 8y ago
> Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film What definition of 'coerce' are you using? I'm a Netflix subscriber. I saw this thing popup in my feed. Had a glance. Read some articles about it. Doesn't sound overwhelmingly compelling to me. I've added it to 'My List' but keep finding other stuff to watch ahead of it. I suspect it will end up getting removed from my list without having been watched. I guess I'm in the other half of Netflix users?
- throwaway415415 8y ago
  You should watch it if you liked a quiet place. It's good.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
> they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. Yes they can do it but, not without consequences. I thought Bird Box was pretty lame and given a dozen experiences like these, it'd completely destroy their reputation for putting out decent content for me, and I'd unsubscribe in a world where non-original content was an important factor. (and looking at the media landscape, with content companies creating their own platforms, or publishing on competing platforms, that world is becoming more and more a reality). It's a bit like saying that Apple can create a big software hype by pushing an iOS 13, just by pushing it as a notification on 1.3 billion iOS devices. But if iOS 13 is complete rubbish, they can only perform that 'trick' a few times before they lose customers. That plus, one can wonder if they can actually do it. Bird Box indeed took on meme status, me and my gf only watched it because it showed up as a joke on our feeds about 20 times and we had nothing better to do one night while eating food and decompressing from work. There's plenty of netflix content that pretty much bombed, despite showing up for weeks on end on the Netflix front page whenever I logged in. This felt more like the Flappy Bird of movies, a gimmick, a meme, not the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones that turns people into long-lasting fans of your content.
- achillesheels 8y ago
  From an investor’s perspective, this is principally why I have never liked Netflix’s content creation binge. How much of what they are producing has any long-tail value for their subscribers? The same can be said for the studios, and I suppose we live in a world now where content creators need to stream, but why not develop the tech and seek monopoly rents from Disney, Paramount, et al when they need to stream? Is digital content streaming that simple that there is no value in creating defensible IP? Or is it more a function of dumb data pipes which do not favor the smartest content distribution so there’s no need for that investment?
rajacombinator 8y ago
Netflix can push trash to all their viewers, but eventually if you push too much trash you lose your viewers. Their current model can’t work long term.
dylan604 8y ago
I'm much more likely to give an unknown movie a chance sitting on my couch than I am making an effort to go to a theater. I will pretty much give anything a chance for 15-20 mins streaming, and have no qualm turning it off if I just don't like it. I have found some decent things this way, and just stop watching stinkers (more than I've enjoyed). I believe this is has a huge portion of Netflix's ability to get tons of people to watch their content. Fish in a barrel, trapped audience, whatever cliché you prefer. Of course I agree with the hype machine and self-promo within their apps as you've described as well. Combined together, it's a powerful marketing/promotion result.
iamgopal 8y ago
Indian Netflix and Amazon prime are making originals that are border line porn with no story or acting or what so ever. They know one simple thing. Sex sells.
- throwaway415415 8y ago
  They just released Polar which is just a sequence of torture and gore scenes. Nothing else.
- aviraldg 8y ago
  Do you have specific examples in mind? I've really liked most of their original content so far, like Sacred Games, Mirzapur, Rajma Chawal, Selection Day, etc.
- wewake 8y ago
  What are those originals? I haven't come across such content made specifically for Indian viewers as you imply.
throwaway415415 8y ago
Are you implying that bird box was not a good movie? Because it was great.
- bronco21016 8y ago
  I think the implication is that it was a copy of ‘A Quiet Place’ which was a great movie. If you saw ‘A Quiet Place’ first ‘Bird Box’ was not great and left you wondering what all the hype was about.
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    People keep saying this, but I don't think it's particularly true, at least for me. I thought A Quiet Place was one of the dumbest movies I've seen, and that the weakness of the monsters would have been obvious once it was determined how they hunted, if not found completely incidentally through normal attempts at fighting them. It wasn't possible for me to suspend my disbelief because the movie outright uses the very thing I was saying "Seems like X would be effective on them, since they hunt using sound" about 30 seconds into the movie. Even ignoring that, A Quiet Place is about the monsters having mastery over a sense that we share. Conversely, Bird Box is about robbing us of one of our senses. In one movie, you have to be quiet - you are robbed of a form of expression. But you can still see, you can still hear, you are attempting to hide. In the other, there is no attempt to hide, at least from the monsters or force or whatever you want to call it. You just have to deny yourself one of your most important senses to be safe. They're both set in a post-apocalyptic world, or at least partially so, but that's hardly unique to them or something A Quiet Place invented. I thought A Quiet Place was a bad movie with a flawed premise that prevented suspension of disbelief due to just how ridiculous the premise was, and then totally failing to subvert the ridiculousness. I saw it long before I saw Bird Box. I didn't think Bird Box was a great movie, but I did think that it was significantly more enjoyable than A Quiet Place.
talltimtom 8y ago
They did more than just “a little reddit/facebook”, there where more posters in busses/metros/buildings than for any other single movie everywhere. They went big on all types of add spending, in addition to pushing it on their own platform.
rospaya 8y ago
> The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. How is this different from any other Netflix show/film? They can pay for marketing and force it to be recommended for all users, but that's about it. The difference is that Bird Box had a lot of viral potential and turned into a meme because of its content, not external factors.

baxtr 8y ago

Yes, I agree, but you can’t do that too often. People will eventually stop trusting your recommendations. I experienced something similar with their B-series that they highly promote. I stopped after watching 1-2 episodes. Now, I don’t even care to start anymore.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alexis_fr 8y ago
My takeaway from Netflix: - None of the blockbusters are available, - Instead, you’ll find a pale B-series copy, oftentimes with plain cringy actors. Seeing memes on facebook/9Gag, this impression is quite popular in teenagers too. And that’s a very, very bad reputation to have.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

I wonder when people start noticing. For me their content is just mediocre. When you think about it, creating a real masterpiece is very hard and requires a combination of talent, taste, luck, investment and so on. It doesn't happen just by pushing something as "recommended".

assblaster 8y ago
Here's the secret to Netflix: A "masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder. A masterpiece to some is not to another. Roma is one example: it clearly is masterfully done. Film critics love it. I loved it and it resonated with me. Have you seen it yet? Maybe you think it's "mediocre". I liked Bird Box because it was apocalyptic and dealt with the downfall of society, a common theme in this genre. I don't care if anyone else liked it or didn't, the film was made for me. I see Netflix just released Kingdom. I have loved it so far. I could list dozens of shows and movies that I have been extremely thrilled with. Will everyone else? I. Don't. Care. As long as Netflix keeps pumping in the fantastic content, people will continue to subscribe. I think you just need to look harder in Netflix. Try some British shows like Marcella or The Bodyguard.
- pishpash 8y ago
  That's exactly it, they can exploit the efficiencies of personalized masterpieces. Theaters and other pre-packaged distribution channels can't. Netflix only has to make a crap load of content available to cover all the content space. The average quality according to any particular user doesn't have to be good if their recommendation engine can find your niche. Think what the average quality of YouTube is.
- mostlysimilar 8y ago
  I agree. I'm always surprised by the number of people I encounter who have negative opinions of Netflix's original content, both online and in discussions in person. I've been very happy with Netflix's originals and think they're top-notch. They have actually solidified my subscription--if they continue to produce shows at the rate and quality they have been, they have a customer for life in me.

40acres 8y ago

If you look closely enough you can see a clear trend regarding Netflix's content strategy. They will continue to make movies like Bird Box, B-style movies and "cult classics" that they can draw big numbers to via their reach and marketing. Oscar contenders like Roma and Beast of No Nation (a bit early for it's time if you ask me). Partnerships with foreign content makers to act as an international distributor (BBC produced, Golden Globe Winner, The Bodyguard for example). Top quality original TV: The Crown for example, fueled by contracts with big name show-runners and writers to produce them (Shonda Rhymes). And finally, high value syndication targets (Friends, Mad Men, The Office). Netflix's content allocation seems pretty clear, the next few years will be optimization at the margins.

gh02t 8y ago
Netflix has also been pushing anime/anime-style originals. I think this is a pretty interesting strategy, anime is relatively cheap to produce and is niche but has a huge fanbase worldwide.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  And some of them are pretty damn good depending on your interest. Theres a few decent mecha ones at least. I am sure they will eventually land the rights to a solid winner. I do like the end result too lots of subs in different languages and I feel like they dub it in different languages too. The best of both worlds for any type of anime fan.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Any good Anime you recommend ? I loved Violet Evergreen. It was very well done as an animation. The others are “your lie in April”. That legit made me sob. I usually don’t get that emotional. (Although not a Netflix original).
    - mayoff 8y ago
      Death Note was fantastic. Much better than I expected after reading a synopsis of the premise.

namdnay 8y ago

To be fair, big studios have to convince you to pay to go see a film, Netflix just have to convince you to watch it “for free”

scarface74 8y ago
Well, with our AMC stubs pass my wife and already pay monthly to see up to three movies a week. We are just as likely or not likely to go see a movie as we are to watch it on Netflix. The cost is just our time either way.

FreeKill 8y ago

What I also find interesting is the fact that Netflix doesn't necessarily even need the "flex" to succeed. Their push on bird box could have failed miserably, and they really wouldn't have suffered greatly, whereas Disney's push of A Wrinkle in Time probably hurt, since the movie ultimately flopped and their only chance to recoup costs was after the huge investment. Netflix's goal is quite distinct from much of its competition. In simplistic terms, their goal is to release enough compelling content to keep existing subscribers subscribed and then hopefully entice new users to sign up more than old users quit. These "flexes" I would assume are primarily for the second category. If you make something enough of an event, with subscribers talking about it all the time, maybe non-subscribers will think they are missing out and take the plunge. If that fails, however, they only really lose out on the marketing costs, since it's very unlikely to affect the existing subscriber base at all.

lsc 8y ago
Yeah... I mean, when this switch occurred (away from having a wide selection of classics towards being more of a cable channel with their own custom content) I canceled my subscription. I switched to amazon video... I can't say I'm always thrilled with the video quality, but amazon video usually has what I want to watch, and they make watching it low effort (They usually charge me a few dollars to watch it, but if I'm going to take two hours to watch something, a few dollars is the least of the cost.) I mean, one could argue that I'd be better served by the netflix disk service, but I can't reliably predict what I'm going to want to watch ahead, and I don't have a convenient device for watching disks in the gym. (I know they exist, and I used to have one. But the kindle fire is a lot more convenient.)
- nojvek 8y ago
  Amazon video has some nice content but their streaming quality is dogshit. For first 10 mins I get pixelated video and then it catches up with SD. Proper HD is a hit and a miss. Also their App for vizio TVs is so bloated that it crashes the TV after a couple of episodes. Netflix on the other hand has their tech together. Beautiful streaming and lightweight responsive app. Please Amazon, pay your Engineers well and make an app that doesn’t crash at the least.

baddox 8y ago

I don’t think I buy this analysis. In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?” Only Netflix can know the impact the film made on their bottom line, and even that internal analysis is difficult to do, especially in the short term. In other words, I’m saying that yes, Netflix can fairly easily promote a film and get millions of people to watch it, but that doesn’t mean they have a magical sustainable model. If they were to consistently flex this muscle with content people don’t like, it’s pretty obvious things will turn out badly for them.

trevyn 8y ago
There’s a difference between content people “don’t like” and content with a mediocre, but broadly acceptable level of quality. It seems like the real magic is the capability to make a particular piece of content the “thing that prople talk about”, and so you watch it just so that you’re able to talk about it in conversation, because it’s part of the social consciousness.
notatoad 8y ago
>In what sense is Bird Box a “box office smash?” the article you're commenting on makes a pretty thorough case for why it is a box office hit.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> instant box office smash How is a film with literally $0 at the box office and “instant box office smash”. Sure, if as many people as watched it paid for full-time tickets at a theater it would have been a stunning box office, but all that proves is that more people will pay a $0 marginal cost than the cost of theater tickets. Which we already knew.

autokad 8y ago

(SPOILERS AHEAD) > "...if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself." birdbox isn't the first promoted original content. it certainly drives success, but ultimately to get 45 million views, probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever), is big. I did think the movie was kinda derivative, a mix of the happening and vanishing on 7th street, but its still a must watch if you are into horror. every game in town is 2nd guessing their models, because they are extremely outdated. Comcast's (NBC etc) entire model is based around market share - broadcast television. Hollywood is around big box office high spending action movies to make global sales. These is fine in some senses, but it means there are types of content we havent seen much, and while Netflix could satisfy niche customers, it was generally thought that it couldn't compete with large budget content producers. Now maybe it can, and that requires content providers to re-think. >"The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing." for the longest time, ironically this has been hbo, especially with game of thrones. i feel like they must be paying reporters lots of money to go on about it so much, because its not really watched by that many people - compared to how much its talked about.

lawlorino 8y ago
I agree with your comment in general but just wanted to be nitpicky over this part (this is HN after all) > probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever) I don't think that's an accurate measure for GoT as it's probably the most pirated TV show ever, that 16 million figure you quoted is people watching on HBO only. Those of us outside of the US either watch it on a different network (e.g. Sky in the UK) or just pirate it.
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  GoT would have a huge figure if hbo did international releases via Netflix. DC released Titans on Netflix international. I saw heaps of people streaming it on their phones via Netflix on the train. If GoT was on Netflix I suspect piracy would drop a lot (not completely cos people will always pirate)

ericmcer 8y ago

It was almost amazing how popular and terrible that movie was. What’s gonna be next, a monster where if you smell it you die? It was just another blatant example of how you can get people to mainline the kool-aid with social media, marketing, and Fear of missing the current big thing.

DanBC 8y ago
It wasn't a terrible movie. It was reasonably well constructed and hit most of the right beats. But for middle-brow entertainment it's a perfectly good example of a monster movie. You may be getting bored of this trope (DON'T USE THIS SENSE OR YOU DIE) but that doesn't make the individual films terrible.
- V-2 8y ago
  It was mediocre and ridden with plot-holes, even by the (very forgiving) genre standards.
throwaway415415 8y ago
It was a great movie.

duxup 8y ago

>All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency Slip it in? I feel like Netflix beats me over the head with their own content even when I'm looking for something else.....

jammygit 8y ago

Its not fair imho to underplay the movie itself. Maybe it wouldn't have done as well if it wasn't marketed as hard, but I didn't tell my friends about it because Netflix made me. Bird Box was one of the best horror movies I've ever seen.

goostavos 8y ago
I'm going to be really, _really_ smug here, but you should probably branch out in your movie watching if Bird Box was the best horror movie you've ever seen.
- jammygit 8y ago
  This is the most troll comment I've ever seen on hn

phs318u 8y ago

> Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film What definition of 'coerce' are you using? I'm a Netflix subscriber. I saw this thing popup in my feed. Had a glance. Read some articles about it. Doesn't sound overwhelmingly compelling to me. I've added it to 'My List' but keep finding other stuff to watch ahead of it. I suspect it will end up getting removed from my list without having been watched. I guess I'm in the other half of Netflix users?

throwaway415415 8y ago
You should watch it if you liked a quiet place. It's good.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago

> they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. Yes they can do it but, not without consequences. I thought Bird Box was pretty lame and given a dozen experiences like these, it'd completely destroy their reputation for putting out decent content for me, and I'd unsubscribe in a world where non-original content was an important factor. (and looking at the media landscape, with content companies creating their own platforms, or publishing on competing platforms, that world is becoming more and more a reality). It's a bit like saying that Apple can create a big software hype by pushing an iOS 13, just by pushing it as a notification on 1.3 billion iOS devices. But if iOS 13 is complete rubbish, they can only perform that 'trick' a few times before they lose customers. That plus, one can wonder if they can actually do it. Bird Box indeed took on meme status, me and my gf only watched it because it showed up as a joke on our feeds about 20 times and we had nothing better to do one night while eating food and decompressing from work. There's plenty of netflix content that pretty much bombed, despite showing up for weeks on end on the Netflix front page whenever I logged in. This felt more like the Flappy Bird of movies, a gimmick, a meme, not the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones that turns people into long-lasting fans of your content.

achillesheels 8y ago
From an investor’s perspective, this is principally why I have never liked Netflix’s content creation binge. How much of what they are producing has any long-tail value for their subscribers? The same can be said for the studios, and I suppose we live in a world now where content creators need to stream, but why not develop the tech and seek monopoly rents from Disney, Paramount, et al when they need to stream? Is digital content streaming that simple that there is no value in creating defensible IP? Or is it more a function of dumb data pipes which do not favor the smartest content distribution so there’s no need for that investment?

rajacombinator 8y ago

Netflix can push trash to all their viewers, but eventually if you push too much trash you lose your viewers. Their current model can’t work long term.

dylan604 8y ago

I'm much more likely to give an unknown movie a chance sitting on my couch than I am making an effort to go to a theater. I will pretty much give anything a chance for 15-20 mins streaming, and have no qualm turning it off if I just don't like it. I have found some decent things this way, and just stop watching stinkers (more than I've enjoyed). I believe this is has a huge portion of Netflix's ability to get tons of people to watch their content. Fish in a barrel, trapped audience, whatever cliché you prefer. Of course I agree with the hype machine and self-promo within their apps as you've described as well. Combined together, it's a powerful marketing/promotion result.

iamgopal 8y ago

Indian Netflix and Amazon prime are making originals that are border line porn with no story or acting or what so ever. They know one simple thing. Sex sells.

throwaway415415 8y ago
They just released Polar which is just a sequence of torture and gore scenes. Nothing else.
aviraldg 8y ago
Do you have specific examples in mind? I've really liked most of their original content so far, like Sacred Games, Mirzapur, Rajma Chawal, Selection Day, etc.
wewake 8y ago
What are those originals? I haven't come across such content made specifically for Indian viewers as you imply.

throwaway415415 8y ago

Are you implying that bird box was not a good movie? Because it was great.

bronco21016 8y ago
I think the implication is that it was a copy of ‘A Quiet Place’ which was a great movie. If you saw ‘A Quiet Place’ first ‘Bird Box’ was not great and left you wondering what all the hype was about.
- cthalupa 8y ago
  People keep saying this, but I don't think it's particularly true, at least for me. I thought A Quiet Place was one of the dumbest movies I've seen, and that the weakness of the monsters would have been obvious once it was determined how they hunted, if not found completely incidentally through normal attempts at fighting them. It wasn't possible for me to suspend my disbelief because the movie outright uses the very thing I was saying "Seems like X would be effective on them, since they hunt using sound" about 30 seconds into the movie. Even ignoring that, A Quiet Place is about the monsters having mastery over a sense that we share. Conversely, Bird Box is about robbing us of one of our senses. In one movie, you have to be quiet - you are robbed of a form of expression. But you can still see, you can still hear, you are attempting to hide. In the other, there is no attempt to hide, at least from the monsters or force or whatever you want to call it. You just have to deny yourself one of your most important senses to be safe. They're both set in a post-apocalyptic world, or at least partially so, but that's hardly unique to them or something A Quiet Place invented. I thought A Quiet Place was a bad movie with a flawed premise that prevented suspension of disbelief due to just how ridiculous the premise was, and then totally failing to subvert the ridiculousness. I saw it long before I saw Bird Box. I didn't think Bird Box was a great movie, but I did think that it was significantly more enjoyable than A Quiet Place.

talltimtom 8y ago

They did more than just “a little reddit/facebook”, there where more posters in busses/metros/buildings than for any other single movie everywhere. They went big on all types of add spending, in addition to pushing it on their own platform.

rospaya 8y ago

> The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. How is this different from any other Netflix show/film? They can pay for marketing and force it to be recommended for all users, but that's about it. The difference is that Bird Box had a lot of viral potential and turned into a meme because of its content, not external factors.