4 ms·
In regards to content scaling, that seems right on the face of it. But, Netflix had been pushing the idea of "Amortization of Content" in that content once crea
by deepzn 4y ago
In regards to content scaling, that seems right on the face of it. But, Netflix had been pushing the idea of "Amortization of Content" in that content once created has an extremely long lifecycle, and essentially a long tail. As people will always watch older content. And a lot of times people would miss it, and things start trending later on. However, quality of content matters. If you're spending money on poor quality content. People won't watch it once, let alone multiple times across time. I feel that's what Netflix had been doing lately. And lost their competitive edge, as competitors increased the quality of their shows.
- ghaff 4y agoPeople do watch at least certain types of older content. They watch movies from the earlier part of last century. But I'm not sure how much money is in there, especially for a subscriber service--which mostly justifies licensing costs by retaining or gaining subscribers. I'd also observe that Netflix has allowed their back disc catalog to deteriorate. Which suggests a fairly comprehensive back catalog doesn't necessarily pay the bills.
- deepzn 4y agoYeah the author suggests as such..."it turns out, though, that Netflix gets and keeps customers with new shows that people talk about, while most of its old content is ignored", again lies the difficulty in churning out new hits with new IP.