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."
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.
The Nielsen ratings have never rally been without major sampling error, methodology and fallacy. If they really want the traffic numbers, they can get them from Comcast and other cable networks. And after reading the article, it's actually more just a complaint and response to a complaint than "escalation". Move along, nothing to see here.
Gently reply
I agree that you can't have it both ways. That is like saying a movie is making a lot of money and at the same time claiming it is losing money.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm loving the fact that voting with your wallet has become very powerful in this field right now. I just cut the cord on my basic cable package and moved to Zattoo.com (in Europe), which is a web-based TV provider. I get pretty much the same thing as before for either free (but in SD with a few more adverts) or I get more than I'd have got before (a generous cloud-based DVR and replay of anything in the last week) for half the money I used to pay the cable provider for its crappy set top box. This plus Netflix is great for me.
soylentnews.org
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...
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
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
...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.
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?
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 may have something to say about that. I've had a Netflix subscription twice now and both times I dropped it because the cost outweighed the value. Netflix had a large catalog of movies I've either already seen or don't care about and searching for new stuff was painful to say the least. There were movies I wanted to see that routinely were not available through Netflix. I don't really care about their original programming and I'm hardly the only one. Honestly I've found Amazon Prime to be a better value.
The big fight here is over new content. Netflix is creating their own, and it's being extremely well received.
Being well received does not equal a monopoly nor does it necessarily equal profits.
Cable has shit the bed by maximizing cable profits to the detriment of the viewing experience (too many ads, extra fees for HD, too many bullshit channels) and now they complain that Netflix doesn't measure eyeballs the same way they do? Viewership ratings only matter to broadcasters that rely on advertising, Why should membership based Netflix be held to same metric? Who would that even benefit? I think a more interesting question is whats happening on Hulu, which is having its cake (subscribers) and eating it too (shows ads).