Tension Escalates Between Netflix and Its TV Foes (nytimes.com) 302
An anonymous reader writes: Viewership numbers are vital within the TV industry. For years, the networks have relied upon ratings to make money — higher numbers mean higher ad revenue. The most important part of the ratings system is that individual networks can't just claim whatever viewership they want; third-party companies like Nielsen control the stats. But Netflix doesn't operate by the same rulebook, and this is frustrating the networks. Execs from Netflix and various networks have started arguing about it, both at an industry event this weekend, and in media interviews. NBC had hired a firm to estimate Netflix's viewership numbers, because Netflix won't release them. Netflix says the estimate is laughably wrong, but has also suggested shows fare better on their platform than on cable or broadcast television. If true, it gives them leverage to recruit more and better talent to produce such shows. But it's impossible to refute without numbers, and the networks are increasingly annoyed they can't do that. NBC thinks the media tends to give Netflix a pass on these statements. FX chief John Landgraf said, "[Netflix's Ted Sarandos] shouldn't say something is successful in quantitative terms unless you're willing to provide data and a methodology behind those statements. You can't have it both ways."
Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
My pirating escalates as well. I don't NEED either of you, so if you're going to raise the price and/or give me less to watch, I'm going to take it for free and own it indefinitely. Your choice.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need to pay them, but you do need them to make the content. So, you need someone to pay them. Therefore, you should promote an environnement that results in at least one of them getting paid.
In conclusion, while it makes no difference whether you pay or not, it's in your interest to convince everyone else that paying is a good idea.
Just as in democracy, where voting has practically no effect but convincing many others to vote for your side can be interesting.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy choice.
He who doth not innundate me with commercials will be the one I choose to pay.
The only way I will tolerate commercials is if they are placed at the beginning or the end of the programming. I'm sure many others feel the same.
Cable / Satellite providers: You had best take that last sentence to heart if you wish to remain a choice at all.
Commercial interruption before each act (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way I will tolerate commercials is if they are placed at the beginning or the end of the programming.
Providers can accommodate the letter of your request by redefining "the programming" as a single act of the play (or screenplay or teleplay), or what would become a single chapter of the DVD, or the like, and then deeming a whole movie to become a playlist of several such "programmings". Would that satisfy you?
Re:Commercial interruption before each act (Score:4, Informative)
I always find semantics works really well for making customers happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Mmmm, I don't buy that at all.
If you explain that you "only have small, large and grande" it's pedantic to complain "you mean small, medium and large".
Or if you explain "all you can eat" doesn't mean "all you and your 5 friends can eat", fair enough.
However, if you claim that you sell a "capped price" plan and explain that "capped means the minimum amount we charge, we can and will charge you more" then only an idiot accepts that redefinition as kosher.
Re:Commercial interruption before each act (Score:4, Insightful)
Providers can accommodate the letter of your request by redefining "the programming" as a single act of the play (or screenplay or teleplay), or what would become a single chapter of the DVD, or the like, and then deeming a whole movie to become a playlist of several such "programmings". Would that satisfy you?
It would not. The same practice under a different name would just put the final nail in their own coffin.
Can you imagine how much the movie industry would suffer if they stopped the film every fifteen minutes so they can feed you ads about what medications you should be asking your doctor about ? Or why driving a $manly-vehicle in $state is manly ? No one would go. The movie industry would implode overnight.
If television wanted to emulate the movie approach where they set aside the advertising block ahead of the main show, I would be cool with that. Or, they could do it at the end of the show. Would be cool with that too.
Sprinkled within the show every ten minutes or so ? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cable and satellite doesn't insert the commercials, the network does. They just broadcast what the network gives them.
Do you guys even fucking understand basic shit?
Who inserts it is irrelevant. The point remains the same without going into micro-detail about how the damn thing works.
You want to remain a player in this game ? Then you had best rethink your strategy. I don't CARE who inserts the commercials because unless you do something about it, more and more people will move to the providers who do not.
It really is that simple.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pirating created avenues like Netflix in the first place...the goal was to put up a lot of media cheaper than the effort to pirate it.
We are soon approaching the point where pirating is better again. If people go back to pirating in droves, a new Netflix will come on to fix the problem. You can't stop pirating, but you can make your service good/cheap enough for people not to pirate.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
He created Netflix, which started as a mail order rental business with no late fees. It got popular because Blockbuster was shit and was really the only major chain renting movies at the time. Once Netflix went online, along with the rising popularity of pirated movies, it was all down hill for Blockbuster.
I for one was glad to see Blockbuster die, and I'm even happier to see cable die. Netflix is doing good with their original content and has a good selection of overall (and I'm Canadian using the Canadian Netflix). The wife and I cut our cords over a year ago now. We get a lot of content from Netflix now (mostly for our 4 yr old) and use Kodi for a few cable programs Netflix doesn't have that we enjoy. Being on the East coast I got tired of paying cable fees for the three or four shows a season we watch that were always on so late it was a struggle to decide if we stay up to watch them and be exhausted the next day or go to bed early and skip watching TV. Sleeping often won and we eventually just got rid of cable since it was expensive and we didn't use it.
The problem now is our cable provider is also our internet provider (There's only two ISPs in our area) and they're just jacking up internet prices to compensate for the drop in cable subscriptions. They'll get their money one way or the other. Eventually they'll probably charge Netflix, on top of us, to deliver their content so they'll get paid on both ends as the middle man.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll get their money one way or the other. Eventually they'll probably charge Netflix, on top of us, to deliver their content so they'll get paid on both ends as the middle man.
I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal under current laws?
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably, but I doubt a little thing like "the law" would prevent them from finding some work around.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal under current laws?
As Disney demonstrated paying to get laws changed in your favor is pretty straight forward. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Netflix originated from how shitty Blockbuster was. The creator of Netflix rented movies from Blockbuster frequently, and was often charged late fees. Even after Blockbuster "did away" with late fees. I think the anecdote goes, he returned a movie and was charged a late fee. Upon complaining to the employee, the employee said, "You can always start your own video rental store", so he did.
Netflix did a classic " eliminate the expensive low value features while adding new ones that people re willing to pay for..." strategy. They avoided the expense of a lot of brick and mortar locations that had limited catalogues by offering a large selection of DVD's by mail and turning around the orders quickly. Since they were shipping from multiple locations they could also better tailor their inventory to demand since they didn't have to stock a bunch of the latest releases, trying to accurately estimat
Re: (Score:2)
You mean already. Or if you're in around 90% of the US you would.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
The term "mail order", at least in post-1921 usage, refers to the means of product delivery, not the way that the product is ordered. We still call it "mail order", whether the ordering happens by mail, phone, or the Internet. The vast majority of mail order businesses do not take orders by mail.
So yes, the GP was completely accurate when it described Netflix as being a mail order company originally, then switching to online (streaming) delivery.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)
This knowledge was most likely gained in one of the following manners:
1. Canadian Witchcraft
2. ESP
3. A Ouija board
4. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm guessing probably number 1.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix, Amazon Prime and Comcast's "X1 on Demand" have now caught up with how I was pirating and watching shows a decade ago. I didn't even know "binge watching" was a thing, I would just get an entire series and watch it and move on to the next series. It's what I've always been asking for but Comcast said "nah, you'll watch it on our schedule". Blockbuster required me to make an additional stop in my my way home. I could queue up a movie before I left work/school and watch it that night.
The easier it has been to get new, good content for a reasonable price the less I pirate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh no I have to pay taxes, so suddenly making a million dollars for a month of work is terrible :("
Re: (Score:3)
A high school diploma will get you around $1 million over your lifetime [indiana.edu], and college degrees up the income from there. Given that about 88% of all people have high school diploma [wikipedia.org], the $1 million over your lifetime is probably a very good estimate for what most people will make.
Quick thought experiment: there are approximately 45 years of "work" for most people (assume the average start of adult work is 20). That means if you average $2000 per month over your entire 45 year career, you'll make more than
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now, just because companies gleefully pillage the public domain, doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on their government-granted monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right they add value, the point is however, you use the public domain, add some value, make some profit return added value back to the public domain. So more value can be added by someone else. Instead these companies feel that once they have added any value it now belongs to them basically for ever, ok 75 years after the artist dies, until that gets extended again.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing about software is that it doesn't wear out.
That means that we just keep on accumulating more of it. Now most of it would be in the public domain already if not for corporations corrupting the law and government. Even with that corruption, works become cheap and plentiful.
With a high lack of originality in current works, it often makes much more sense just to go back to the source material. Sometimes it's even CHEAPER even if you're paying for it.
Cheaper and better even without piracy...
How s
Sometimes adding ESPN is artifically almost free (Score:2)
Trade your cable bill for a monthly media budget and you can in relatively short order have more stuff than you can handle.
Unless your roommate is unwilling to give up Peyton Manning and LeBron James. Those are the two exact names that my roommate mentioned when I mentioned switching from cable to Netflix to save money. Or unless your ISP provider severely jacks up rates on Internet customers who don't also subscribe to the ISP's pay-TV service.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you're roommates doesn't mean you need to split everything, right? He can pay for the cable bill, and you don't touch the cable and just use whatever services you prefer.
Re: (Score:3)
Song of the South is still copyrighted. But practically, how much is that film contributing to the continued existence of The Walt Disney Company?
Re: (Score:3)
IP is an imaginary asset constructed by law, with physical assets such as buildings, and automobiles someone actually has to come and take it. But with intellectual property all they have to do is say, naa we don't think those laws are right, and your intellectual property vanishes in a puff of logic.
The US is playing a very dangerous game shifting all its actual production overseas, and relying so heavily on its ownership of intellectual property. What would happen, if tomorrow China said we don't believe
TV ratings methodology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:5, Interesting)
I know someone who was given a Nielson rating box and I have to say, they represent real tv viewers about as a much as a dog represents cats and vice versa. There are so many shows that had cult followings, canceled because of bad ratings (Bullshit bad ratings) and many bad shows saved by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, that would be much less accurate than Neilsen, How does a Comcast know who in a residence is watching TV, or even if they are at all? The only visibility they might have is when channels are changed and when the box is turned on/off. If someone turns the TV off when they go to bed but leaves the cable box on, Comcast might conclude that 3AM infomercials are extremely popular.
Re: (Score:2)
A microphone on the cable box that does nothing but listen for correlation between the cable box's audio output and the TV's might solve the "TV off but cable box on" bias, though I admit not the "fell asleep in the recliner" bias.
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nielsen ratings have never rally been without major sampling error, methodology and fallacy.
Yet probably still better than trusting a cable company to self-report how much ad revenue they should be getting.
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:5, Interesting)
In general, I prefer Netflix's system that isn't based on ad revenue but rather subscription revenue. The ad revenue system seems to encourage broadcasters to seek the lowest common denominator in their audience. Netflix has won me over with series such as Daredevil and House of Cards. Other subscription based services also seem to produce better material, the best example likely being HBO with series such as Game of Thrones. I have little sympathy for the old broadcasters. They are dinosaurs and should pass into oblivion in my opinion.
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:4, Interesting)
I will say that competition has been good for broadcast TV. They've started upping their game in the last few years. There's room for both I feel.
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. Let them compete for viewers.
The broadcasters complaints about Netflix not having to release viewership numbers is just silly. Who cares about Nielson ratings when you're not selling advertising anyway? My biggest worry about Netflix is that they're going to want to start adding commercials. I still remember when the big selling point of cable television was "it'll be commercial free because you're paying subscription fees".
How many subscribers would we lose if... (Score:2)
Ratings of subscription television answer the following questions: Which programs bring in the most subscription revenue? Which programs would make end users more likely to cancel subscriptions if they were canceled?
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, I guess it also allows HBO, FX, et al. to say they have the "most watched" $genre show. But if Netflix wants to say one of their own series is the most bestest evar, WGAF?
Skimming TFA, the beef seems suspiciously close to "Netflix makes our dicks feel small, and they sometimes get shows that we wanted
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:4, Interesting)
Netflix may not have ad revenue, but they negotiate rates with content providers based on the number of times the content is watched.
Your show sucks, and nobody watches it on Netflix? Not only will Netflix pay you less for it, when time comes to renew, they may drop it altogether unless you agree to take even less again.
Your show is awesome and everyone watches it on Netflix? Netflix will pay you more to make sure their subscribers can still come to Netflix to watch it instead of going to Amazon or whoever else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Netflix may not have ad revenue, but they negotiate rates with content providers based on the number of times the content is watched.
Your show sucks, and nobody watches it on Netflix? Not only will Netflix pay you less for it, when time comes to renew, they may drop it altogether unless you agree to take even less again.
Your show is awesome and everyone watches it on Netflix? Netflix will pay you more to make sure their subscribers can still come to Netflix to watch it instead of going to Amazon or whoever else.
This is the heart of the dispute. Netflix can claim whatever viewership they want. The content owner cannot verify this because that information is proprietary, unlike for their own content. But Netflix knows what their numbers were on TV so they know the popularity of something before they buy it. But once they do, the owner has no way to know if the title has gained, lost, or held its value because they don't know the viewer numbers. It puts the power very much in Netflix's hands because they have pe
Re: (Score:2)
This is the heart of the dispute. Netflix can claim whatever viewership they want. The content owner cannot verify this because that information is proprietary, unlike for their own content.
Precisely, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that the TV viewer is the actual audience for this catfight.
I think the audience for this catfight are the actual creative types that write, direct and act in these productions. The "ratings" brouhaha is code for "popularity" and "success" and they want to discourage talent from getting involved with Netflix productions based on the argument that it will be damaging to their careers.
The whole thing seems bizarre, because I would think that MONEY would be the driver for most of Hollywood. Some
Re:TV ratings methodology (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole thing seems bizarre, because I would think that MONEY would be the driver for most of Hollywood.
No, not really...
Sure, they talk about money and appear to focus on money, but the reality is that once you have a lot of money and are free from worries about money, you undergo an interesting transformation...
Money stops being everything...
Power, control, egos, influence, vanity, and "winning" become just as, if not more important, than money.
Put $100 million in the bank and earn $20 million a year and you'll find that your worldview and focus changes... a lot...
Re: (Score:3)
they want to discourage talent from getting involved with Netflix productions based on the argument that it will be damaging to their careers.
The whole thing seems bizarre, because I would think that MONEY would be the driver for most of Hollywood.
They're linked. Taking a less prestigious or lower paying role may limit how prestigious or high-paying your next role is likely to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem...
Comcast owns NBC.
See any rivalry there?
Comcast, if you're a customer of theirs, knows everywhere you go on the Internet, for how long, and which machine inside your network did what, even with NAT.
Should they be scared? Ayup.
Comcast as Eve (Score:2)
But how can Comcast peek into a TLS connection, other than that I happen to be accessing some URL whose hostname is a member of Netflix's CDN?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't take much to look at the CDN network accessed to figure out what's being watched-- along with the ad content that is also triggered.
In fact, if they're not looking-- they're stupid.
When every mirror has everything (Score:2)
If all popular shows are mirrored on all CDN nodes, how is that going to help?
Re: (Score:2)
Specific nodes will have specific content. Latencies can also help determine what's going on, too. Predictability is reasonable.
What they're trying to do, however, is hassle and compete with Netflix, who doesn't need to report the same numbers to the ad gods.
It's internecine fighting that's all in the spirit of good fun, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Specific nodes will have specific content.
But all nodes will have the most popular shows. As far as I can tell, the ISP would be able to tell only for possibly a few long tail shows. Do there exist public statistics for how widely distributed particular shows are across the CDN? And even if specific shows are only on a subset of nodes, how would an ISP know what nodes have what shows anyway?
Latencies can also help determine what's going on, too.
Are you referring to VBR encoding leaking changes in motion complexity over time?
What they're trying to do, however, is hassle and compete with Netflix, who doesn't need to report the same numbers to the ad gods.
Does HBO "need to report the same numbers to the ad gods"?
It's internecine fighting that's all in the spirit of good fun, right?
The future of an open
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP has the IP address, the port, and the SNI hostname of the server that the client has connected to, as well as throughput of the connection at any given second. Someone seems to be under the impression [slashdot.org] that Comcast can use this information to map which shows are stored on which CDN nodes and thereby determine which shows are being watched.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That works just peachy in Hollywood...keeps the IRS happy and fucks the profit participants.
Re:Can't have it both ways? (Score:5, Informative)
You're rated +5 insightful, but considering that's precisely how "Hollywood accounting" works, it should be +5 funny.
For example Lord of the Rings trilogy made roughly $6 BILLION worldwide, yet New Line Cinema's accounting report shows "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.
(http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/10-movies-that-made-hundreds-of-millions-in-boxoffice-dollars-and-yet-somehow-showed-no-profit.php)
Links to explanations in the original page above.
1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, and yet lost $20 million.
2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy made over $2.9 billion in box office, and yet showed âoehorrendous losses.â
3. Return of the Jedi made $475 million on a $32 million budget, yet has never shown a profit.
4. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix made $939 million worldwide, and yet ended up with a $167 million loss.
5. Forrest Gump earned $667 million, yet shows a loss of $31 million.
6. JFK earned $150 million worldwide but showed $0 in profit.
7. Coming to America made $288 million in revenue, yet showed no profit.
8. Michael Mooreâ(TM)s Fahrenheit 9/11 made $220 million worldwide, and yet apparently showed no profit.
9. The Exorcism of Emily Rose made $150 million on a $19 million budget and turned no profit.
10. Batman, which made $411 million worldwide, showed a $36 million deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
The budget is how much it cost to put the movie in a can. The box office revenue is how much money was paid by the audience. There's a whole ton of marketing, distribution and exhibition costs that go on between those two. Yes, often those are inflated, but you make it sound like they should be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
If every movie costs so much to market, distribute, and exhibit, then how do the studios stay in business? Is it by overcharging each movie for said marketing and distribution?
vote with your wallet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I already use 3 video providers now that are not Apple.
There are several more I could use if I wanted to.
Most of the content overlaps. Most of the stuff that are exclusives end up being released in formats like DVD or to the other streaming video vendors.
Most of the actual content is owned by someone other than the company providing the streaming service. There's less vertical integration than with cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the stuff that are exclusives end up being released in formats like DVD
True of scripted series, less true of competition shows such as sports and "reality".
Netflix has a hard road ahead (Score:3)
Thing is, people are fleeing a system controlled by 6 corporations in favor of a new system controlled by only 1.
With apologies to Grand Moff Tarkin, I think you overestimate their chances. Netflix getting a distribution monopoly is a highly improbable outcome. They don't own the copyrights to most of what you can watch through them and that matters a lot. Could they undermine the business model of traditional networks? We can only hope... I think Netflix can succeed without being the gatekeeper for all video content which is good because it isn't likely to happen.
Apple will be the gatekeeper for music, and Netflix for video.
I think Google, Amazon and more than a few others
Shady Stats (Score:5, Informative)
Mr. Wurtzel provided data from a firm named Symphony Advanced Media, which uses audio content recognition installed on phones to recognize what is being watched and when.
I'm willing to bet most of these users didn't even realize that fun game asking for microphone permissions was doing this.
Re: (Score:3)
And, to forestall the next step, it's worth noting that the somewhat-reasonable rejoinder to this is that people had to self-select to install this app -- I believe it's something you actively install and opt into. Which means that it's a lousy way to create a sample population.
So in short: Either the methodology involves installing spyware on your phone against your will, or it involves self-selecting populations. It's either morally repugnant or just incorrect. Take your pick.
Re: (Score:3)
Nielsen ratings (Score:5, Informative)
Last year, I got one of those Nielsen diaries to track my household's television viewing, and they had a methodology for tracking Netflix as well as DVR, but only for shows watched on a television. Netflix on a desktop computer or tablet were not tracked...
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like Nielsen should allow tracking content watched on computer or tablet (or smartphone even). If anything, this situation just points to the fact that Nielsen needs to update how it collects ratings since there is no reason a Nielsen household couldn't also track viewing content from Netflix, Hulu, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got one and watching shows live was the focus of the diary. They wanted me to use a blank page or insert loose paper of my own if I watched DVR later.
So it was 20 pages with something like 18 for live TV, and 2 for DVR.
Since I watch 99% of my TV timeshifted or on demand I didn't bother filling out the diary. Too much work to do it by the letter as they requested.
Attn: traditional TV networks (Score:5, Insightful)
We, the viewers, hate you. You are sliding down a slight but increasingly steep slope into the deep dark hole of irrelevance and you don't even know it. It shows that you don't know it, because you increasingly devote time on your networks to advertising, at the expense of quality content. You continue with a business model of stretching out fairly mediocre and predictable stories over two or three hours, spread across two or three arbitrary 'ratings' weeks in order to inflate your own numbers, while admonishing Netflix for being dishonest.
You fought tooth and nail against VCRs. You fought against DVRs. You now fight against online streaming. All of these technologies actually make experiencing your content better, yet you still fight them. We see through your bullshit, and we've found a content delivery paradigm we like better: all-you-can-stream for a low monthly charge. No advertising at all. All episodes of a season, and past seasons, available RIGHT NOW.
As soon as someone cracks the hegemony largely preventing the streaming of live sports without having a cable or satellite subscription, you're done. And you still continue on like it's 1983. And what you don't realize, is that we can't wait to fire you for being completely inept in your own business and refusing to innovate in even the slightest ways.
Stop clutching at the past, and embrace the future, before the future holds a pillow over your head and we all rejoice.
Warm regards,
Everyone
Re:Attn: traditional TV networks (Score:5, Informative)
Seconded.
Everyone Else.
Re: (Score:2)
We, the viewers, hate you. You are sliding down a slight but increasingly steep slope into the deep dark hole of irrelevance and you don't even know it. It shows that you don't know it, because you increasingly devote time on your networks to advertising, at the expense of quality content
There was a story here a couple of months ago that disagrees with your rant above: TV Networks Cutting Back On Commercials [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We, the viewers, hate you. You are sliding down a slight but increasingly steep slope into the deep dark hole of irrelevance and you don't even know it. It shows that you don't know it, because you increasingly devote time on your networks to advertising, at the expense of quality content
There was a story here a couple of months ago that disagrees with your rant above: TV Networks Cutting Back On Commercials [slashdot.org].
I wonder if we'll see an uptick on product placement to get products before viewers as commercials decrease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Attn: traditional TV networks (Score:5, Funny)
You do not speak for everyone.
He meant, everyone except cable company executives.
Re:Attn: traditional TV networks (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not speak for everyone.
As an AC, you do not speak for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Sling TV Has ESPN in its basic package for $20/month IIRC
And guess how much the cable ISPs surcharge an Internet subscriber for not also subscribing to TV.
Netflix doesn't need external ratings (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do viewer numbers matter for Netflix? They don't show ads, so they don't have to put a value on their equivalent of airtime. The ratings are only relevant to them internally when deciding which content will gain/lose the most subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
It says it is for "leverage to recruit more and better talent". While revenue is an important factor, many creators also what their work to be seen and enjoyed, so being able to tell people you work will be widely seen can be a convincing factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there are no commercials an Netflix, there's no opportunity for an increased viewership to translate directly to more revenue generated by that program
Unless the studio wants to charge Netflix on some approximation of a pay-per-viewer basis, assuming that Netflix substitutes for DVD sales.
Sory Networks different game different rules. (Score:3)
NetFlix does not have the same success criteria. The networks need people to watch shows at a certain time, not dvr them fast forward etc, because they depend on the ad revenues.
That means the only measure of success is viewership at original air time for the most part and that the target demographic that the advertisers want tuned in.
Netflix on the other hand is all about obtaining and retaining subscribers. It does not matter to them when people watch their series or really even if they watch! They need their subscribers to feel they are getting value. That means for instance if Netflix produces a show that mostly appeals to 4 year olds, that is fine. Mom and Dad think $9 a month is a cheap way to keep the kids occupied while they make dinner. Advertisers would hate that though because kids that age don't spend money.
So at the end of the day if Netflix has the money to invest in content production and keep their bottom line in the black they are succeeding. So far all indications are that they do. Financial statements etc. The proof is out there.
Children's Television Act (Score:2)
if Netflix produces a show that mostly appeals to 4 year olds, that is fine. Mom and Dad think $9 a month is a cheap way to keep the kids occupied while they make dinner. Advertisers would hate that though because kids that age don't spend money.
Serving an audience too young to buy things is also why OTA TV has an E/I requirement. Broadcasters are willing to pay extra for shows that fulfill their requirements under the Children's Television Act.
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware actually and it proves my point. Without special intervention in the market place by government OTA networks would air little such programing. If they had been airing enough Congress would not have stepped in.
Netflix on the other hand is producing a number of kids shows with no such intervention. Their motivations are different. They like any business seek to provide what their customers want (at least in aggregate). In the case of Netflix that is you the subscriber. With traditional network
Re: (Score:2)
That means for instance if Netflix produces a show that mostly appeals to 4 year olds, that is fine. Mom and Dad think $9 a month is a cheap way to keep the kids occupied while they make dinner. Advertisers would hate that though because kids that age don't spend money.
A four year old is more than old enough to know what toy they want at the toy store, the money is in convincing the parents to buy merchandise. And unlike an 8yo or 12yo were you might have a reasonable discussion about money and allowance a 4yo just wants. And yes, even kindergardeners will spot a bad knock-off or homemade look-a-like so by far most parents go with official trademark products because it's simpler, even though they can be quite expensive. You don't need ads between shows when the shows are
I care not. (Score:2)
I am a Netflix user. I could give a crap about what CBS/NBC/ABC have to offer...Netflix will have it eventually. Maybe Netflix is acting like a peacock and extending it's tail, but reality says that it will win in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm at all interested in what the dinosaur networks are offering, I can just put up an antenna and feed that signal into a PVR.
I didn't even need cable for them before. Forget about now.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a Netflix user. I could give a crap about what CBS/NBC/ABC have to offer...Netflix will have it eventually
Which means you do give a crap, or at least you should. For all that Netflix is, it doesn't actually produce a whole lot of content. It makes content produced by others available to you. If those other content producers go away and Netflix becomes the sole creator and provider, what happens then?
Netflix learned their lesson from Starz (Score:3)
Four years ago, the Starz network tried to destroy Netflix by yanking its content over demands for much higher licensing fees. It was a body blow to Netflix, and many people wondered if the Netflix streaming service could survive the loss of content. Fortunately, Netflix did survive, and now they're successful enough to call their own shots.
Any information that Netflix provides to its competitors will just be used to try to destroy them, just as Aereo was destroyed. You don't do your enemies favors in this business. All that matters to Netflix is that they get enough viewers for their original content to justify their production costs. They are under no obligation to reveal their viewership numbers to their competition. If I were in their shoes, I'd be telling the major networks to take a flying leap, too.
Good to see Netflix causing the networks angst (Score:3)
...NBC had hired a firm to estimate Netflix's viewership numbers, because Netflix won't release them....
Back when it appeared as if Comcast (owner of NBC) was slowing Netflix traffic via intentionally overloaded border routers, one of the proposed solutions I read about was for Netflix to place some content distribution servers in Comcast's data centers. To do so would have required Netflix to share it's usage data with Comcast, and Netflix didn't want any part of that.
.
Now I understand better why Netflix didn't want to do that.
Refusal to provide free colo space (Score:2)
one of the proposed solutions I read about was for Netflix to place some content distribution servers in Comcast's data centers. To do so would have required Netflix to share it's usage data with Comcast, and Netflix didn't want any part of that.
That's not what I remember being the problem with installing an OpenConnect Appliance at Comcast. It was that Comcast didn't want to give away colo space without charge.
Re: (Score:2)
...Netflix offered to provide caching servers (at their own expense) to Comcast (it's a standing offer they make available to almost any ISP); Comcast refused the offer....
Did Comcast just refuse the offer, or did Comcast refuse the offer because Netflix wouldn't share their usage data? It would be nice to hear what Netflix has to say. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
...Comcrap have them by the balls now, it's just a matter of time before they start squeezing them to push up subscription rates for Netflix customers....
Comcast already has all over the top video providers in their firm grip via the data caps that are being instituted.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Boo hoo (Score:2)
Viewership numbers are vital within the TV industry. For years, the networks have relied upon ratings to make money — higher numbers mean higher ad revenue. The most important part of the ratings system is that individual networks can't just claim whatever viewership they want; third-party companies like Nielsen control the stats.
So they built a business model based on ad revenue which presumes everyone else is using the same business model. Now someone else has a business that isn't dependent on ad revenue and is eating their lunch. Cry me a river. The networks provide crappy programming through a distribution model that nobody likes and then are shocked that customers are looking for alternatives. Good grief, what a bunch of tools...
Either Netflix will make money on their products or they won't. The advertisers are the ones t
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about how you define "success" (Score:2)
Years ago, a company called NCSoft shuttered a game called City of Heroes because they didn't find it profitable enough. Never mind that it had steady numbers after 8 years of operation and was pulling in over ten million dollars a year, even with an F2P setup that'd been recently implemented.
A group that was trying to buy the property off NCSoft in lieu of shuttering it looked at those numbers and went "We can live with that!"
Another company, Catalyst Game Labs, is in business today, keeping several game
Re: (Score:2)
Another company, Catalyst Game Labs, is in business today, keeping several game lines (BattleTech and Shadowrun) in print and growing. Yes, their fanbase is smaller than it was back in 1990, when they were created/owned/run by The FASA Corporation.
I feel really nostalgic right now, but I've gotta say I really started disliking Catalyst when they annihilated my Kell Hounds. :(
your wagon wheel broken there buddy? (Score:3)
Compelled disclosure of viewership data? (Score:2)
Given that this is Slashdot, I am surprised not to see any notable discussion of an important issue: If this turns in to an actual legal battle, one possible outcome would be the compulsory disclosure of analytics data.
That would be A Bad Thing. I'm certain that Netflix does provide detailed, segmented, specific data to the people that provide and create the content they serve. This is as it should be. To be compelled to provide such data to their competitors is anti-capitalist at best (and I am writing as
Who cares what Netflix's ratings are? (Score:2)
I'm trying to recall how many years it's been since I've watched broadcast or cable TV - or how much longer it was for more than an hour a month.
Ratings based TV is dead to me. To misquote a certain virtual muppet: