Slashdot Mirror
Tension Escalates Between Netflix and Its TV Foes (nytimes.com)
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."
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.
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...
Seconded.
Everyone Else.
No sig here...
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.
-Styopa
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/...
I always find semantics works really well for making customers happy.