4 ms·

It's not really a comment on value-add, more on content consumption habits. All I know for sure is that exclusive content is the biggest factor in lowering chur

It's not really a comment on value-add, more on content consumption habits. All I know for sure is that exclusive content is the biggest factor in lowering churn and showing it up front in a catalog is the best way to get people to know it exists. And if you keep them on your platform, they're not going to even think about typing a query into a browser to find out what to watch next - you've already told them.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> And if you keep them on your platform, they're not going to even think about typing a query into a browser to find out what to watch next - you've already told them. It is sad to me that this is how you consider your fellow human beings. Putting aside how disrespectful this assumption is to your users, I don't think it's true for all your users. It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing, but I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch, that some significant number of them are going to go elsewhere. Some of those who leave will go pirate the content they want. Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive, and harmful to users, so it shouldn't be surprising that some users are looking outside platforms for their content.
- holy_city 7y ago
  I don't personally think that (nor do I work for any of those businesses directly), that's just the design goal of streaming platforms. They're hyper optimized to keep users subscribed, and whether or not natural viewing/discovery habits play into that and are exploited is up for debate. >It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing It's really impossible to say since everyone's numbers are biased and no one shares them. But what I was getting at originally was that the use case highlighted by OP was not the common case. Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content, they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, where the twisted incentives come into play is when a user finishes the content and the platform tries to keep them hooked. >I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch I mean that's fair, but also a bad characterization. There are certainly bad incentives at play when you want to do everything to keep content discovery in a feedback loop, but there's not exactly an alternative when the people you need to license content from are your streaming competitors. >Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive I get the arguments for that, and I agree with some of them. But right now services compete on the merits of content itself, and as a result we have more content being created that's more diverse and at lower prices. When HBO Max and Disney+ go up we'll see how massive back catalogs affect the space, but right now the prevailing wisdom is to throw money at content creators - and I appreciate that as a content consumer. If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content This is a very black and white statement, and as such I can directly say it is wrong because I do this. If you meant "most users", I'd like to see what the breakdown is. Even if "most" is true, if a significant portion don't, then a significant portion has an incentive to pirate because streaming services don't fit their use case. > they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, Following what they were watching previously is looking for a specific piece of content... It's a fairly simple case to solve, but it also breaks when the streaming service you're subscribed to no longer licenses the show you were watching--again, going back to the problem of needing multiple streaming services to gain access to all content. > If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability Huh? Yes they do. Maybe at one time people went to the movies and just saw whatever was playing, but now people look up what's showing online, and if there isn't anything they want to see, they don't go. It would be inconvenient not to, because you might show up at a time when no movies are starting and have to wait. > - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years. There are a lot of confounding factors here.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> And if you keep them on your platform, they're not going to even think about typing a query into a browser to find out what to watch next - you've already told them. It is sad to me that this is how you consider your fellow human beings. Putting aside how disrespectful this assumption is to your users, I don't think it's true for all your users. It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing, but I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch, that some significant number of them are going to go elsewhere. Some of those who leave will go pirate the content they want. Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive, and harmful to users, so it shouldn't be surprising that some users are looking outside platforms for their content.

holy_city 7y ago
I don't personally think that (nor do I work for any of those businesses directly), that's just the design goal of streaming platforms. They're hyper optimized to keep users subscribed, and whether or not natural viewing/discovery habits play into that and are exploited is up for debate. >It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing It's really impossible to say since everyone's numbers are biased and no one shares them. But what I was getting at originally was that the use case highlighted by OP was not the common case. Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content, they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, where the twisted incentives come into play is when a user finishes the content and the platform tries to keep them hooked. >I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch I mean that's fair, but also a bad characterization. There are certainly bad incentives at play when you want to do everything to keep content discovery in a feedback loop, but there's not exactly an alternative when the people you need to license content from are your streaming competitors. >Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive I get the arguments for that, and I agree with some of them. But right now services compete on the merits of content itself, and as a result we have more content being created that's more diverse and at lower prices. When HBO Max and Disney+ go up we'll see how massive back catalogs affect the space, but right now the prevailing wisdom is to throw money at content creators - and I appreciate that as a content consumer. If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content This is a very black and white statement, and as such I can directly say it is wrong because I do this. If you meant "most users", I'd like to see what the breakdown is. Even if "most" is true, if a significant portion don't, then a significant portion has an incentive to pirate because streaming services don't fit their use case. > they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, Following what they were watching previously is looking for a specific piece of content... It's a fairly simple case to solve, but it also breaks when the streaming service you're subscribed to no longer licenses the show you were watching--again, going back to the problem of needing multiple streaming services to gain access to all content. > If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability Huh? Yes they do. Maybe at one time people went to the movies and just saw whatever was playing, but now people look up what's showing online, and if there isn't anything they want to see, they don't go. It would be inconvenient not to, because you might show up at a time when no movies are starting and have to wait. > - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years. There are a lot of confounding factors here.