3 ms·

> GoT is a tentpole show with a rabid audience but it's not especially good (it's no The Wire). Deadwood and the Sopranos are from a different era of TV. Veep i

by mbesto 8y ago

> GoT is a tentpole show with a rabid audience but it's not especially good (it's no The Wire). Deadwood and the Sopranos are from a different era of TV. Veep is great, but True Detective, True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Enlightened, and The Newsroom would all be in the middle of the pack at Netflix. As The Dude once said "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" Objectively speaking, there isn't a single Netflix-original TV show rated over 9 on IMDB: https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/netflix/tv-shows?rating_imdb=9 https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/netflix/tv-shows?ratin... Compared to 7 titles on HBO: https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/hbo-now/tv-shows?rating_imdb=9 https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/hbo-now/tv-shows?ratin... But I think your point is that when we're talking about "The Wire" level production, others have caught up (AMC, FX, etc) and Netflix can simply license those titles. But, there's notable downsides to that (you have to wait, there's a significant cost to purchase, etc). Also, AMC, FX, etc have yet to establish a long-term credibility for consistently creating high quality content...until they do, HBO as the "premium offering" in light of others is still there. At the end of the day we're talking about whether HBO's content can sustain the justification of paying $15/month. You just need rabid audiences for that to happen, not "one dude on the internet thinks The Wire is greatest thing ever created".

Retric 8y ago
How many of those HBO titles are more than 5 years old? Because, comparing 45 years of programming to 5 is completely missing the point. GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. Recently HBO’s actual original content has been lacking. Their library is enough to get people to sign up and binge watch old content, but they need to pay for a lot of 3rd party content and or high volume production like Netflix to keep people paying 15$ a month. In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. And the economics of that are going to be brutal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > How many of those HBO titles are more than 5 years old? Because, comparing 45 years of programming to 5 is completely missing the point. No, having 45 years of exclusive back catalog is a real and concrete competitive advantage. > GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. I'm not sure I agree; I mean, I get why it seems like they in retrospect, but the history of genre fiction jumping from print to film (whether big screen or small) is littered with dozens of corpses of failures of conversions of “great source material” for every even modest success. > Their library is enough to get people to sign up and binge watch old content, but they need to pay for a lot of 3rd party content and or high volume production like Netflix to keep people paying 15$ a month. I pay for both HBO Now and Netflix, and I pay of HBO Now largely because it has fairly consistent if low volume high quality new original exclusive content, unlike Netflix's high-volume firehose of stuff I have no interest in that occasionally produces something of value, which even with their supposedly personalized recommendations is still hard to find and identify among the sea of mediocrity. > In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. So did premium TV. HBO is more focussed on providing very high quality to a more focussed audience while Netflix is running a scattershot content approach; the latter probably has less value per customer but can perhaps support a larger customer base; or it's a consciously unsustainable model that only lasts until they figure out what their target audience really is. EDIT: however, AT&T seems to want to try something closer to the Netflix strategy with HBO, which I think is likely to be a disaster, but possibly one that gets recognized in time to turn around.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I don't think that last argument is true. Yes, Netflix has a shotgun approach to picking content. But Netflix has core prestige series that hold their own against HBO, and HBO has middling series that go nowhere; the only difference is that Netflix has more stuff.
  - Retric 8y ago
    HBO was mostly showing Movies aka 3rd party content. Their original content was largely differentiation so people had a reason to pay for HBO over Stars becase they both had movies but only HBO had the Sopranos. In that context having a small number of very high quality shows works well. But, exclusive high quality moves are really expensive. Over the next 45 years AT&T does not want to produce a lot of content, they simply can’t stay competitive without a lot of new content.
- mbesto 8y ago
  > HBO titles are more than 5 years old? 5 years since their first season or since they discontinued content? If the former, why does that matter? 4 of those 7 are still all actively creating content/seasons... > GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. Recently HBO’s actual original content has been lacking. So because GoT came from a book, it's not "truly original"? The Wire is arguably sourced from Simon's "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" and several books/dissertations on crime in inner cities. Not sure what your real point is there....regardless of whether it's "truly original" (whatever that means) doesn't matter as long as people show up to pay. > In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. Again, 4 of those 7 shows have new content. You don't necessarily need a variety of content to do so. In fact, I would argue Netflix dilutes it's original content by having too much of it. Paradox of choice and all... I think the scarier thing is HBO has no clear "anchor" going forward. Sopranos, The Wire, and GoT have all been that, but GoT is on its way out.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It matters both to compare models and for consistency going forward. Continuing a hit series is a lower risk in the short term, but you need constant pipeline as shows eventually die off. In terms of GoT they need to pay a 3rd party money reducing profits and their is a limited amount of such content which they need to compete for. They also paid for the the True Blood novels and created less compelling content. This both hurts their bottom line and creates real risk if they can’t find any affordable content to base their next series off of. PS: The other issue with long running content is anyone who does not like the series will write off HBO for the next 5+ years when it’s running unless they have other high quality content.
tptacek 8y ago
That's not a great metric. Here's a much better one: Metacritic will give you an aggregate score for every TV show made during a year, and also does a year-end Pazz-and-Jopp-style roundup of critic top 10 lists; here's 2018's: https://www.metacritic.com/feature/critics-pick-the-top-10-best-tv-shows-of-2018 https://www.metacritic.com/feature/critics-pick-the-top-10-b... (You can edit the URL to go back to 2015). The actual critic roundups tell as much a story of FX's dominance of prestige TV as HBO's. And if you want a popular opinion instead, the ratings have a much bleaker story about HBO. While I think Netflix does just fine as an original producer lined up against HBO, it's not a central part of my argument that they're better than HBO. My core argument is that HBO doesn't host enough prestige series for it to command a premium over all the other series available across other platforms.
- mbesto 8y ago
  > and also does a year-end Pazz-and-Jopp-style roundup of critic top 10 lists; here's 2018's: A ranking based on how many paid-for critics are talking about a TV show? Huh? That's like saying "this startup is better than another because they've gotten more press on TechCrunch/Wired/WSJ/etc". IMDB is imperfect, but it's a better proxy for what consumers enjoy.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    No, that's critics selecting shows for year-end best lists. If you're looking for what consumers enjoy, look at the ratings, where HBO also does not fare especially well.

by mbesto 8y ago

Retric 8y ago

How many of those HBO titles are more than 5 years old? Because, comparing 45 years of programming to 5 is completely missing the point. GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. Recently HBO’s actual original content has been lacking. Their library is enough to get people to sign up and binge watch old content, but they need to pay for a lot of 3rd party content and or high volume production like Netflix to keep people paying 15$ a month. In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. And the economics of that are going to be brutal.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> How many of those HBO titles are more than 5 years old? Because, comparing 45 years of programming to 5 is completely missing the point. No, having 45 years of exclusive back catalog is a real and concrete competitive advantage. > GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. I'm not sure I agree; I mean, I get why it seems like they in retrospect, but the history of genre fiction jumping from print to film (whether big screen or small) is littered with dozens of corpses of failures of conversions of “great source material” for every even modest success. > Their library is enough to get people to sign up and binge watch old content, but they need to pay for a lot of 3rd party content and or high volume production like Netflix to keep people paying 15$ a month. I pay for both HBO Now and Netflix, and I pay of HBO Now largely because it has fairly consistent if low volume high quality new original exclusive content, unlike Netflix's high-volume firehose of stuff I have no interest in that occasionally produces something of value, which even with their supposedly personalized recommendations is still hard to find and identify among the sea of mediocrity. > In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. So did premium TV. HBO is more focussed on providing very high quality to a more focussed audience while Netflix is running a scattershot content approach; the latter probably has less value per customer but can perhaps support a larger customer base; or it's a consciously unsustainable model that only lasts until they figure out what their target audience really is. EDIT: however, AT&T seems to want to try something closer to the Netflix strategy with HBO, which I think is likely to be a disaster, but possibly one that gets recognized in time to turn around.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I don't think that last argument is true. Yes, Netflix has a shotgun approach to picking content. But Netflix has core prestige series that hold their own against HBO, and HBO has middling series that go nowhere; the only difference is that Netflix has more stuff.
- Retric 8y ago
  HBO was mostly showing Movies aka 3rd party content. Their original content was largely differentiation so people had a reason to pay for HBO over Stars becase they both had movies but only HBO had the Sopranos. In that context having a small number of very high quality shows works well. But, exclusive high quality moves are really expensive. Over the next 45 years AT&T does not want to produce a lot of content, they simply can’t stay competitive without a lot of new content.
mbesto 8y ago
> HBO titles are more than 5 years old? 5 years since their first season or since they discontinued content? If the former, why does that matter? 4 of those 7 are still all actively creating content/seasons... > GoT was low hanging fruit with great source material. Recently HBO’s actual original content has been lacking. So because GoT came from a book, it's not "truly original"? The Wire is arguably sourced from Simon's "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" and several books/dissertations on crime in inner cities. Not sure what your real point is there....regardless of whether it's "truly original" (whatever that means) doesn't matter as long as people show up to pay. > In the end streaming needs new content to keep people paying every month. Again, 4 of those 7 shows have new content. You don't necessarily need a variety of content to do so. In fact, I would argue Netflix dilutes it's original content by having too much of it. Paradox of choice and all... I think the scarier thing is HBO has no clear "anchor" going forward. Sopranos, The Wire, and GoT have all been that, but GoT is on its way out.
- Retric 8y ago
  It matters both to compare models and for consistency going forward. Continuing a hit series is a lower risk in the short term, but you need constant pipeline as shows eventually die off. In terms of GoT they need to pay a 3rd party money reducing profits and their is a limited amount of such content which they need to compete for. They also paid for the the True Blood novels and created less compelling content. This both hurts their bottom line and creates real risk if they can’t find any affordable content to base their next series off of. PS: The other issue with long running content is anyone who does not like the series will write off HBO for the next 5+ years when it’s running unless they have other high quality content.

tptacek 8y ago

That's not a great metric. Here's a much better one: Metacritic will give you an aggregate score for every TV show made during a year, and also does a year-end Pazz-and-Jopp-style roundup of critic top 10 lists; here's 2018's: https://www.metacritic.com/feature/critics-pick-the-top-10-best-tv-shows-of-2018 https://www.metacritic.com/feature/critics-pick-the-top-10-b... (You can edit the URL to go back to 2015). The actual critic roundups tell as much a story of FX's dominance of prestige TV as HBO's. And if you want a popular opinion instead, the ratings have a much bleaker story about HBO. While I think Netflix does just fine as an original producer lined up against HBO, it's not a central part of my argument that they're better than HBO. My core argument is that HBO doesn't host enough prestige series for it to command a premium over all the other series available across other platforms.

mbesto 8y ago
> and also does a year-end Pazz-and-Jopp-style roundup of critic top 10 lists; here's 2018's: A ranking based on how many paid-for critics are talking about a TV show? Huh? That's like saying "this startup is better than another because they've gotten more press on TechCrunch/Wired/WSJ/etc". IMDB is imperfect, but it's a better proxy for what consumers enjoy.
- tptacek 8y ago
  No, that's critics selecting shows for year-end best lists. If you're looking for what consumers enjoy, look at the ratings, where HBO also does not fare especially well.