Slashdot Mirror
Netflix's Original Content Library Is Growing By 185% Each Year (cordcutting.com)
An anonymous reader writes: From Q1 of 2012 to Q1 of 2016, Netflix has added an incredible 111 original series and films. The numbers translate to an average quarterly growth rate of 34.22% and an average annual growth rate of 185.41%. And there is reason to believe that future growth rates could be even higher -- with competition coming from all sides, Netflix is likely to keep pushing more and more cash into original content. Those wondering why Netflix has grown increasingly interested in owning the shows it airs, you have to realize that not long ago the streaming company was struggling to snap any good TV show from cable channels. The New York Times' profile of House of Cards' Beau Willimon, from 2014, sheds more light into this : Around three years ago, Netflix realized it had a problem: It was paying large sums to license other people's content -- TV shows and movies produced by other companies -- in order to then show them to you, the Netflix subscriber, at home. This initially proved successful, but there were two troubling aspects to this model: 1) It left Netflix very vulnerable to competition, since the shows and movies it licensed could, theoretically, be licensed by anyone willing to outbid them, and 2) the most popular TV shows, episodic dramas like "CSI" and sitcoms like "The Big Bang Theory," were already being sold for huge deals into syndication at basic cable channels like TBS and USA. What was left to Netflix were the kind of serialized shows that don't typically play well in syndication, like "Lost" and "Breaking Bad," which have complicated story arcs that compel a viewer to watch all the episodes in order. Traditionally, while these kinds of serialized shows could be big hits in their initial broadcast runs, they proved tough sells to aftermarkets, precisely because of the demands they placed on the audience.
https://www.allflicks.net/netflixs-us-catalog-has-shrunk-by-more-than-2500-titles-in-less-than-2-5-years/
I'm glad Netflix didn't waste their money on stateless television series that can be watched in any episode order.
I want other networks to make the investments in content, get burned, and for Netflix to pick up the least crispy remains a few years later. New Netflix shows like House of Cards (which began to suck after just two seasons) just aren't needed: compared to what I do watch on Netflix its original content is only a small fraction.
They licensed the studios' content to stream, and once those studios got wise to the fact that hey, people are actually canceling their cable TV subscriptions in favor of this, killed their deals during renewal. Now Netflix is using the money they made streaming famous content for cheap to fund new original series to keep people watching.
I call this the AMC model.
Streaming isn't like television, where two channels in the same market can't both have broadcast rights to show the same program.
Why not?
I think they mean that the production studio making the shows could take the better bid.
So like HBO could offer the studio making House of Cards double the budget for their next season in exchange for exclusive rights to the episodes and then not license the episodes to Netflix.
Though HBO even releases their shows to services like iTunes and Amazon Video (coinciding with the DVD releasees).
Because selling exclusive use for a fixed time to the highest bidder maximises the value for the rights owner. In this case you can have another auction later and pick up the second highest bidder, etc.
It's not an ironclad rule, but tends to be the way that the contracts are negotiated when it comes to streaming rights.
the same thing that makes those shows bad in syndication makes them great for Netflix binge watching!
-nb
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
If Netflix is going to concentrate on its own content, what's the real difference between Netflix and any random cable channel that provides on-demand viewing?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Even in the age of DVRs and streaming I can't be bothered with serialized shows. I'm pretty sure that the serialization of CSI is what killed the show. Early on it was like watching Dragnet; a criminal show with some steady characters with a bit of personality but no so much that you cared about their personal lives. Then it turned more and more into incorporating their personal lives and while the show still mainly dwelled on an episodic case you had to be dragged into this personal drama story arc that seemingly took an entire season or two to resolve. It got really boring when the last 15 minutes of every show ended up being Catherine Willows staring off into the sunset while some neo-hippy/alternatrend acoustic ballad droned on as she pondered the spirit of her dead father or what drug dealer her daughter was buying meth from and how she earned the money to buy it.
Not to mention that Lady Heather was the lamest attempts to "sex up" a TV show in the history of the medium.
Speaking for myself, I came to Netflix for the back-catalog movies and TV shows. Their original shows are just icing on the cake. But lately Netflix seems to think that they can be just another TV network like HBO, and have neglected what made most of their customers subscribe to their service in the first place.
As their back-catalog shrinks, so do the chances I'll renew my subscription each month. If I wanted to subscribe to HBO, I would just go subscribe to HBO.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Because (at least in our country) I can switch channels with the flick of a button, but with streaming I have to pay for each streamingprovider a 'hefty' sum..
How about demand / customer base?
If you have two coconuts and three buyers you have a market.
If you have three coconuts and two buyers you don't have a market.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
But then again, selling to multiple providers at once might make even more money.. providers will want the series for a long time if they don't have to pay a gazillion dollars for a small time..
Applicable only in US Territories otherwise you get diddly squat and a whole load of VPN blocks and IP Bans.
I like the original content push - it seems NetFlix is more willing to be original and take some chances rather than create yet another "CSI" or "Law and Order" or just some stupid hospital based soap opera. Not all the original content is great but it's mostly pretty solid with some standouts. I hope they continue to embrace original content. The back catalog stuff is sometimes interesting but mostly stuff I've already seen, it's a dead end.
I've really been getting into international shows. "The Almighty Johnsons", "Wentworth", "Happy Valley" are all excellent.
It's dumb they should do it like music and have a simple fee and let anyone broadcast it. I guarantee they would make more money over the long run.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I cam mostly for the original shows like Dare Devil, House of Cards and Jessica Jones. The loss of some back-catalogue stuff is quite annoying though, especially when you are part way though watching (happened to me with Ashes to Ashes).
As such I tend to subscribe for a month or two at a time now, between releases of original series. If they improved the back catalogue I'd just keep the subscription going.
As an aside, Netflix does some good non-English original series too. If you don't mind subtitles or speak another language, they are worth checking out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
as I'm about to pull the plug on Netflix for blocking VPS/DNS services. I do watch them quite a bit from Canada but I don't really need them. Even the wife who could care less about tech stuff was like what? Off with their heads.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Some do (Star Trek for example, streams on multiple services). However, most rights-holders feel they can get more money by charging a lot to one service for exclusive rights rather then getting a little money from many services. Likewise, the streaming services are willing to pay more to deny their competitors access to the same show.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Either that is because of a change in focus of Netflix or because the content providers are getting more difficult/greedier? Without an official comment from Netflix it is hard to know, but any change of focus of Netflix is probably triggered by the latter?
The one reason I would give for someone pirating: is that you can't be sure where to find the content or find the content in 1 year and at a reasonable cost. I appreciate content owners need to stay profitable, but there needs to be some sort of balance?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I would assume that this is mostly due to the licensing agreements and not any technical reason. If I am negotiating to pay a licensing fee for a particular series it would be in my best interest to pay a bit more for the license if I could gain exclusive access to that programming. With this exclusive deal I could then market my service as the only place to get that particular program and hopefully increase subscriptions from people that want to watch that series.
I disagree. I joined Netflix for the same reason you did, and grew concerned as copyright holders became intent on denying Netflix quality content. When they started producing their own content, I thought, "That's smart. Even if you just come up with a couple shows, it could spur interest."
After a couple years of new Netflix content, they produce a couple of my favorite shows. I definitely do not want them to stop. What's more, I do subscribe to HBO, and it's largely so that I can view their original programming. I also subscribe to Hulu. None of these has anything resembling a complete catalog, but putting them all together, I get to watch most of what I'd want to watch.
I think this is the right move forward-- not a good endpoint, but a good "next logical step". Streaming services with limited catalogs and great original programming will continue to hammer away at traditional TV, and you'll see more and more cord-cutters. I don't know how long it will take, but eventually the situation will become dire enough for traditional networks that they'll have to make their properties available on streaming services to make any money off of them. It'll be the Spotifycation of TV.
Give that a few years, and you'll see some method arise where you can pay a single subscription and get everything you want-- a complete back-catalog plus HBO/Netflix/Hulu originals. Now, that might be by some arrangement where these major providers agree on some common platform, or it may just be licensing deals (e.g. "Netflix pays HBO to get all their programming on a 1-year delay."). But that's the endpoint we want, and I still think it's going to happen.
There is content that appears on multiple streaming sites but shows and movies that will draw the most users are the ones they try to get exclusive license to if they don't have exclusive content then the only competition is in user experience and price. If they continually loose content because exclusive licensing then they are screwed.
.
But Netflix appears to be slowly, drip by drip, screwing its customers of the DVD service.
The "next day" mail service has now been turned into two-day deliveries.
It also seems as if the turnaround at the distribution center once a disc is received is now next day, instead of same day.
I subscribe to the two discs at home level of service. I appear to be receiving about half the number of discs per month as I used to.
It looks as if Netflix is actively trying to chase customers away by reducing the amount of streaming content and putting large latencies into the distribution of their DVD service.
It looks like Netflix's US business has become too expensive, and Netflix is now looking to international markets for the profits as it withdraws from the US markets.
Sorry as this is off the main topic, but how did they come up with "The numbers translate to an average quarterly growth rate of 34.22% and an average annual growth rate of 185.41%"? I would have assumed that averaging growth over time would be done logarithmically. 1.3422^4 is not 2.8541. Pedantic I know, but maths should be correct on a nerd site.
Agreed. Their back catalog of movies can be fairly tough to stomach. But I think that's because they're getting horribly squeezed b the content providers -- so Netflix has had to produce original series to keep the subscriber base, and I'm guessing that next time those catalogs roll around for licensing, that Netflix will be much more in the driver's seat. Also, Netflix isn't renewing any deals where they don't get licenses to stream it in all countries it services at once, which I think is a smart move. But that necessarily shrinks their catalog since the content providers are used to Balkanizing their distribution as much as possible and dislike the universal deals. That shrinks US content quite a bit, but I'm ok with it -- it's the right call for Netflix.
Blame the content owners, not Netflix. If it were up to Netflix, they'd put everything online and you'd be able to stream any movie/TV show ever made at any time. The problem is that each show is owned by someone and Netflix needs to negotiate rights to stream with each company. Some companies demand a ton of money and their content isn't worth it. Others sign exclusive deals with other providers. Still others refuse to put any of their content online or start their own online service thinking they'll be "the next Netflix" when they are anything but. (I'm looking at you, CBS All Access.)
There was also a movement by the content owners awhile back to starve Netflix. They saw Netflix growing in popularity and felt threatened so they decided as a group to withhold popular content from Netflix and only give them older, "B-Level" content. The theory was that Netflix's popularity would plummet and people would stay with cable TV so the content owners could keep getting richer fast. Instead, Netflix has begun producing its own content which insulates them from this kind of attack. Combined with the increase in people streaming and thus the increased pressure to put shows on streaming services, this ruined the content owners' plan, but Netflix still needs to negotiate and pay for each block of shows.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If they thought there was more money to be made this way, they would have already tried it and everyone would be doing it.
My guess is that a few of them already have on some limited basis and found that it doesn't make them more money.
Further, the streaming services themselves might demand exclusivity because if everyone has the exact same content, the only thing they can compete on is price.
Also, I'd guess the content producers want to play the streaming services against each other to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. Apple was able to dictate terms to the music industry for a good stretch of time because iTunes become far and away the most popular place to purchase digital music.
Care to make any specific recommendations? We watch pretty much everything with subtitles on because we speak 4 different languages in our household and watch even more on film.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The next step for Netflix may be to produce major motion pictures, release in theaters then exclusively on NF.
I also wonder when they make serious moves into live TV and sports. Theoretically they could make that a different service but use the existing infrastructure.
Why can't the right-holders charge a flat-fee for streaming rights and let more than one entity stream them? Why must the streaming rights be held by one and only one entity with the deepest pockets?
For most providers, it is evidently the path the to greatest returns. They can release any way they want, but if you release to everyone the value goes down for any given distributor, who place a lot of value on exclusivity to draw more customers. You can also lengthen your return periods by strategic sequential releases to different distributors.
It likely has more to do with operation cost effectiveness than intentionally providing less service to push people to streaming , but I think its clear that NF will celebrate the day it can rid itself of the hard media portion of its business and concentrate solely on streaming.
Is NF original content available on disk? I never even thought about that.
I can; here's a few I have (or still am) really enjoying:
:)
Occupied (Norwegian & a little English and Russian - takes place slightly in future)
Heavy Water War (Norwegian and English - takes place in WWII)
Foyle's War (Ok, pretty much all English, but UK not US, also WWII)
Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (also English, takes place in Australia in the 20's)
I only saw 1 episode & wasn't really my thing, but Netflix Original series Atelier is in Japanese.
There are tonnes of good British shows on Netflix, I have been binging them lately. Yes, I realize the request was for non-English, but I read that to be non-American, so I mention them anyway. If I am wrong, you still have 2 good suggestions and a third if Japanese underwear is your bag
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I get what you are saying but I think there is a lot of evidence that this new business is taking over the old one. I don't think they are at too much risk of losing customers over it. People love the new content and I suspect it is even driving some new signups by people who want to watch House of Cards or Orange is the New Black.
I'm also curious what the contraction in their catalog is caused by, are they really taking on less A list shows or are they not bringing in as many C list made for TV movies. If its the latter I think they can get away with it (although those movies make for cheep filler, they may not need as much filler).
If they really do stop carrying syndicated shows that could cause an opening for another provider to come in (amazon perhaps) but that doesn't mean that Netflix can't compete on oringinal content with someone like HBO and I suspect they will continue to do that.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The Last Days was a really cool and original scifi/apocalypse move. I really enjoyed it.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Huh. Anecdotally, I'm getting the same service with DVDs that I always have. I generally assume that if I put it in the mail Tuesday, they get it Wednesday, and get me the new disk Thursday. That seems reasonable to me.
I dropped from the 3 disc service back to 2 because I watch a lot more stuff on streaming, but there's a lot of stuff that's only available on disks. I generally have one disk on hand and another in the mail. (Actually, I often end up holding things for a few days, since I watch less stuff than I used to. Trying to get a life.)
So I'm pretty happy with the service. It's the only content I'm paying for; it provides as much as I need for the time I have to spend watching TV.
If Netflix wants more original content, they just need to choose to spend more money on original content.
If Netflix wants to license more content, there's no no way to force rights-holders to take their money no matter how much they wave around.
Don't forget: https://xkcd.com/1102
I'm also curious what the contraction in their catalog is caused by, are they really taking on less A list shows or are they not bringing in as many C list made for TV movies. If its the latter I think they can get away with it (although those movies make for cheep filler, they may not need as much filler).
Since I watch a lot of Christian content (which is relatively obscure and not mainstream and definitely usually qualifies as C list quality), I can tell you that niche content has exploded and "blockbuster" movies, especially those that can be found almost everywhere, aren't on there anymore. There's a heavier emphasis on TV shows and less on movies.
Netflix knows what they are doing. I can always find something interesting to watch on there. I don't need the blockbusters, because I probably already saw them in the theater or I can buy the DVD/Blu-Ray. But they have stuff for me to watch that I really like that I can't find anywhere else. The bigger problem for me is not that I can't find anything to watch, but that I don't have time to watch it all.
This is the exact opposite problem with cable where I pay 10× as much and even with a DVR, never have anything to watch.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I went from 3 discs down to one plus streaming... because generally anything I want that they have on DVD I can get from Amazon for $3-6, and I don't have to deal with (potentially scratched) DVDs. I do keep one DVD service, for some reason, though. I rarely even use it.
you have to pay for most TV channels...
Therefore it's negotiated exactly the same way (exclusive rights) no matter if it's streaming over the Internet or regular TV.
Their original shows are just icing on the cake. But lately Netflix seems to think that they can be just another TV network like HBO, and have neglected what made most of their customers subscribe to their service in the first place.
What are you talking about, their DVD and Blu-Ray selection is still great!
Their streaming options always, always sucked. But that's not really their fault -- with the current set of laws in the US, you can't run a good online streaming service. You just can't.
You read correctly. Thanks.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Well, I like j-drama, but it's not for everyone. I think you just have to try a few shows.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Shipping DVD's all over the place, and checking them in (and verifying the customer hasn't intentionally damaged it) has to be a logistically fun - I'm sure its not cheap - maybe even only breaks even because the delivery method is subsidized (via usps).
I hesitated to reply to myself (especially when I could have been wrong), but I also really liked "River" (also British) - in fact that was what got me started (with this list, anyway, I like a lot of BBC shows). I really liked Stellan Skarsgård (Swedish - I also liked Nicola Walker, had seen her previously in Spooks [renamed MI-5 for American audiences, but I watched it before Netflix carried MI-5]) so I searched him & found King of Devil's Island (Norwegian) & liked it well enough, the 'More like this' feature lead me to The Heavy Water War & then Netflix started making good recommendations.
It seems people that complain about Netflix's library are only interested in US shows/movies - I can always find something new and interesting to watch.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Same here, it takes longer to get a replacement disk than it once did. I suspect they consolidated the servicing centers which results in a longer shipping time. But I would drop streaming before I dropped DVDs by mail - their DVD by mail catalogue is amazing and gives us the opportunity to watch new releases and classics that are not available on streaming. There are lots of tv shows on DVD as well.
The next step for Netflix may be to produce major motion pictures, release in theaters then exclusively on NF.
That's sort of already happened.
With Netflix investing more than $1 billion in original content in 2015, I'd hope it grows substantially.
The Detectorists. You will not be sorry.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It does happen, rarely. In the UK, the soccer World Cup Final has been shown on both BBC and ITV simultaneously, giving viewers the choice of which pundits to listen to and whether to put up with ads at half time. Hard to see what's in it for the channels though.
I think you mean the FA cup final.
Does that law cover the world cup too?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
...and have neglected what made most of their customers subscribe to their service in the first place.
They've been ignoring their DVD rental via mail?
Thanks, it's now in my queue :-)
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I'm also curious what the contraction in their catalog is caused by, are they really taking on less A list shows or are they not bringing in as many C list made for TV movies.
The contraction is due to a fundamental disagreement about pricing between Netflix and the content companies. Netflix offers a "one size fits all, unlimited streaming for a fixed price per month" model that the content companies don't like. They want titles to be pay-per-view, they want to charge more for different titles, and charge more for high-def versus low-def, things Netflix says degrades the viewer experience (and they're not wrong). So the content companies, who say that customers should be paying far more than Netflix charges for the content they watch, charge exorbitant fees when these streaming deals come up for negotiation, if they're willing to allow Netflix to stream at all.
Unlike with DVDs and Blu-Rays, where you buy one and you keep it forever, you, me, and Netflix can lose the right to see anything through streaming at any time. It's the return of the "bad old days" when Disney would pull back a title and put it back into "The Disney Vault," so they could make a big event of releasing the movie from The Vault a few years later. It's an exploitation of copyright, but the pendulum of power has swung way over to the side of the content companies.
At least 50% of the time we go looking on Netflix for a certain non-obscure movie, it's not there. But what IS there is a surfeit of "straight to video" quality stuff that I'm sure appeals to them for the low licensing cost, it lets them say we have N thousand movies, few of which are what one wants.