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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
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.
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.
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...