4 ms·
They chose quantity/cheaper over quality/expensive. The problem with this approach is that people don't stick around for low quality shows. It would have been
by nowherebeen 4y ago
They chose quantity/cheaper over quality/expensive. The problem with this approach is that people don't stick around for low quality shows.
It would have been more expensive for the immediate term to spend more on shows and earn less profits. But now, they spend less and lose even more.
Once they are on this downward spiral, its going to be really hard to compete with Disney. Netflix may really go the Blockbuster way.
- prawn 4y agoDo they know off the cuff which will be quality? The commission-in-bulk strategy reminds me a bit of YC expanding the startups in each batch, to maximise their chances of unearthing diamonds. And might be hard to avoid when you are increasingly targeting multiple continents.
- nowherebeen 4y ago> maximise their chances of unearthing diamonds By diamonds, I am assuming you mean popular shows. Quality and popular tend to be correlated, but not always. Bad quality scripts can sometime be successful (e.g. Fast and Furious / Transformers, but these are not cheap either), but I think those are usually the exception and not the norm. Given 1 high quality script vs 2 low quality scripts with the same total price, I would rather fund the high quality one. Although the high quality script has equals less choices for the customers, I know there is higher likelihood they might like it and would come back to watch again and again. There is almost certainly not the case with low quality scripts. The script writing is the only variable that they can control. So why give it up just to throw a bunch of shows on the wall and see what sticks? You already know the script is not good, even if it is cheap. What are the chances your customers will like it?