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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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