Slashdot Mirror


Netflix's Big Bet on Original Shows Finally Seen Paying Off (reuters.com)

Netflix shares jumped as much as 20 percent on Tuesday, after the company added 50 percent more subscribers than expected in the third quarter. Reuters adds: At least 10 brokerages, including Goldman Sachs and RBC Capital Markets, raised their price targets on the stock, praising the company's focus on developing original content. The video streaming company also said it was getting ready to spend $6 billion on content next year, up $1 billion from 2016. "The benefits of Netflix-produced original content including attractive economics and greater control are clear and we believe returns on original spend are high," J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Doug Anmuth said in a research note. Strong subscriber additions after two quarters of disappointing growth helped Netflix post a 31.7 percent jump in third-quarter revenue. Anmuth said he believed Netflix was on track toward 60 million plus subscribers in the United States and about 100 million internationally by 2020.A study by IHS Markit this month noted that both Netflix and Amazon are challenging major networks by upping spending on original shows. The study noted that Amazon and Netflix both had doubled spending on new shows in the last two years. Amazon dropped $1.22 billion in 2013 and spent $2.67 billion in 2015. Netflix's spending on original content rose from $2.38 billion to $4.91 billion over the same period.

90 comments

  1. Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I subscribed to Netflix just to watch Luke Cage the moment it released instead of having to wait to pirate it. It was awesome. Stranger Things was awesome.

    To be quite frank, while Netflix does have more misses than hits as far as original content, the hits they DO have are incredible. Directly comparable in entertainment value to a decent HBO show. (which is no surprise if they spent about as much money as HBO spends and they have about as talented a crew. Yes, Game of Thrones is still better than anything Netflix has, but GoT is arguably the biggest and flashiest television show in the world.)

    Anyways, this is great news. Nothing to whine about. Netflix is a far better concept than ad supported TV. You can watch anything they have whenever you want. You pay a very paltry amount of money (9 bucks a month!) and get access to it all. No intrusive ads. The content is racier and more violent at times than anything advertisers would be comfortable with, or the moralizers who police broadcast TV would allow. They do lots of original ideas instead of rehashing the same cop/lawyer/doctor/reality shows that conventional network TV is rife with.

    For nerds, Netflix is a representative of a golden age of content. This is what we all wanted on slashdot 15 years ago.

    1. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What is so great about Luke Cage? I'm not trying to be obstinate, I'm legitimately curious. I have heard numerous people say it's great, but I'm 11 episodes in now and I think it's the worst of the shows from Marvel. Daredevil S1 was pretty good, S2 was a bit of a mess. Jessica Jones was good, although really dark. Luke Cage is slow, boring, and predictable so far. Even the main character, who they are trying to paint as very moral, has a pretty major period of immorality. That is easily overlooked if I cared at all. While watching the show I have gone from interested, to bored, to not caring, to just wanting to finish the story.

      So I ask, what is so good about Luke Cage? What am I missing?

    2. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Netflix draws away from licensed material (or, flipped, the Imaginary Property owners draw away from doing business with Netflix) and they do in-house material, isn't it basically the same as paying for The Netflix Channel, instead of being a curated library?

      Not that I'm saying that's necessarily wrong. You raise some valid pros about this channel, shaking things up. An optimist would see the old model being disrupted the way capitalism supposedly encourages. Take commonsumers for a ride and some underdog will make a better offer, if you carelessly let him play ball. --Falos

    3. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but they don't have to worry about pesky advertisers complaining about the content, nor do they have to be overly concerned about someone saying "fuck," etc. It's pretty refreshing to see TV-style episodic programming that isn't trying to spoonfeed us as if we're all puritanical morons.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    4. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem I have with Cage is that it just seems to crawl through the middle of the series. Now that I'm near the end things are actually happening again, but yes, it seems to be the least of the Marvel shows on Netflix. Still, it's better than a lot of the network crap, and being that it is Netflix, they can push the boundaries more. I still think jessica Jones was the best of them, if for no other reason than David Tennant makes one of the best super villains I've ever seen in any medium.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop liking what I don't like.

    6. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the long term is likely to be a heavy mix of both; licensing material from other studios, along with producing its own. Netflix largely got into this because of House of Cards, which, as I understand it, had already had a first season in the can and Netflix shelled out for it. It was the great experiment, and its success convinced Netflix that it could work at least in some capacity as its own network.

      I think the long-term game for Netflix is probably convincing more studios to make content for it to distribute, and that is disruptive. Amazon is moving in the same direction, so I think we are seeing the first waves of what will be a heavy disruption of the traditional model. The more content the online services have, the more people will cut the cord, and the long term outlook for the traditional TV networks looks pretty grim.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      > instead of having to wait to pirate it.

      You could not wait an hour?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No

    9. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by pak9rabid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the long-term game for Netflix is probably convincing more studios to make content for it to distribute, and that is disruptive.

      To add on to this, I think they're also wanting to get to a point where they have enough of their own original content to strike cross-licensing deals with other studios to distribute their content in exchange for letting them distribute Netflix's.

    10. Re: Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I feel like their long term goal is to actually use their original programming as a bargaining chip.

      They can offer licensing deals on their own content in exchange for access to some of the popular non-original content to put in the online library.

      Personally I am not a fan of much of the Netflix stuff. I enoyed Unstoppable Kimmy Schmidt, and The Ranch... which I guess says a lot about what I like for television entertainment.

    11. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, it does have slow points. Luke Cage is also sort of a shout-out to black culture. There's an awful lot that went over my head but you can see it in the commentary. It was also fun to watch as a white person because whenever the characters have a dialogue line, it's set all the way to "superblack". Anything they say, it's the blackest possible way to say it. Me and a friend enjoyed making fun of this. Also, white people in the show are treated very differently. They are usually either crazy, stupid, or both (Shades, the partner of the detective, etc). The role reversal was amusing.

      And several major black rappers made custom songs just for the show.

    12. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      My ISP passes on strike letters from monitored torrents, so I have to use alternate methods that are much slower.

    13. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't know, Shades by the third to last episode is the only bad guy that's making any sense at all. Diamondback may be channeling Samuel L Jackson's Bible quoting from Pulp Fiction, but he comes off as reckless to the point of stupidity. Cottonmouth at least tried to be strategic.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > instead of having to wait to pirate it

      Like 1 hour? Oh, the agony.

    15. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Game of Thones got tiresome and exploitative from the earliest seasons. It was a good idea, but poorly executed at later seasons unfortunately. Hardly watchable and not GF friendly.

      That anybody challenges the status quo is a good thing, but the end result will be even more fragmented and only benefit pirates.

    16. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by kuzb · · Score: 1

      This is how I see Luke Cage as a show. Even still, netflix is pretty awesome for going the extra mile on their original programming.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    17. Re: Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Luthair · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Apparently expressing an opinion is now trolling. Guess slashdot has been invaded by fanboys.

    18. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      and maybe a tittie or two.

      but not constantly like skinimax

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    19. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Maritz · · Score: 1

      long term outlook for the traditional TV networks looks pretty grim.

      A good thing for damn sure.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    20. Re: Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised that people even like your posts, both were pretty terrible I couldn't even get through the first comment.

    21. Re:Luke Cage and Daredevil Season 2 were awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit news flash. You don't necessarily like the same things as other people. Next thing you will commenting is on what music people like. Or the fact someone is on your fucking lawn.

  2. The sad thing by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    The sad thing is the people (at least partly) responsible for this - the lawyers and VPs at the content cartels insistent on geo-restricting content - have already made off like bandits.

    Their studios will fail and go bankrupt after they've been long gone, retired, living off the riches accrued by market segmentation.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  3. not all original by facebuster23 · · Score: 2

    Not all of the "Netflix Original" shows are original. They'll call shows that they picked up for a season or two a "Netflix Original". And most of their real original shows are garbage. People don't know any better because most other shows these days are garbage too.

    1. Re:not all original by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      From what I seem they'll also call shows they have exclusive regional distribution a Netflix show too.

      I think they have a pretty good track record on their original originals too though (The Marvel shows, Master of None, House of Cards are all pretty decent).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  4. But I wanted non-original content by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    The whole point of getting a Netflix account was to have access to all those shows and movies that Netflix did not make. So the less original content they have the less relevant it is.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      That's true, but I don't see how it could've gone otherwise once the other big players realized there was money to be made. You used to be able to stream CBS for free, but not they've got subscription. I'm not sure why I would pay to stream what I can get with the antenna for free... no time shifting, I guess, but what little I watch on CBS isn't very serialized. When we had HBO Now to watch GoT I was interested in seeing what movies they had, but it was rather poorly populated. Better worth the money to get a Netflix disc plan, Redbox, or the library. I do wonder how competitors will handle binging. Netflix has cultured this behavior and have enough shows scattered around the calendar year to promote year-round subscription. We ended our HBO Now sub once GoT was done, and plan on binging Westworld in between GoT episodes. It'll be hard to convince everyone to stay subscribed year round to multiple streaming services versus rotating.

    2. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have stopped at the subject line, as your post is nonsense. Some subscribe for original shows, some for non-Netflix-made content, some for both. You fit into the second category, which is fine, but don't act like your preference is the only preference.

    3. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what Netflix wanted to do. The only "threat" they posed was to middleman content distributors (cable tv, possibly some OTA programming--but they had the same issue with cable companies when they came in anyway).

      The content owners (channels--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BBC(ish*), CBC(ish*), Telemundo, etc.) went to bat for their middlemen by denying content, outrageous pricing, or offering limited content. Netflix decided to produce it's own based on it's own service data--and has done amazing for itself. As a result, Netflix (and Amazon, possibly) are now _also_ threatening content producers.

      They can make up ground by not being so greedy with their licensing options. I doubt Netflix will refute their content at this point. In the future if content becomes a bigger piece of the puzzle they may not be able to pay Netflix to host their shows because they compete with original offerings. If we reach that point, they will be SOL

      The only business lines that channels / content producers have that currently are not touched by video streaming services are live sports and live news. The former is protected by contracts alone (which can be undone over time, particularly non-professional sports like NCAA [College] ), and YouTube has live streaming services that may eventually compete with live news coverage (choose which TrafficDrone stream to watch that police chase on!) if leverage properly.

    4. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The market for content has changed dramatically since NF started, and that's a large part due to NF. That model doesn't work anymore, so NF is evolving and the best measure of how well they are adjusting is subscriptions.

      If the old NF existed today, monthly subscription would be much much higher, and you'd be complaining about that.

    5. Re:But I wanted non-original content by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      When the third party content cost approaches parity with Netflix original, we should see more come into play. For now, it seems to help subsidize a lot of foreign content, which may be good for the world.

    6. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of Netflix subscribers joined because it had a good selection of shows/movies, not in hopes that they would create new content that is mediocre at best.

    7. Re:But I wanted non-original content by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      You fit into the second category, which is fine, but don't act like your preference is the only preference.

      In case you hadn't noticed .. Netflix has been dropping its other stuff left right and center.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      he content owners (channels--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BBC(ish*), CBC(ish*), Telemundo, etc.) went to bat for their middlemen by denying content, outrageous pricing, or offering limited content.

      What their middlemen? ABC owns Comcast outright. NBC, Fox and couple others jointly own Hulu. Time-Warner, which owns networks and cable stations and studios, sold Time Warner Cable to Charter, and owns a good chunk of that company.

      It's crazy vertical integration, and combined with copyright, it's making it very hard to progress in this country.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That certainly explains why their subscriptions are down this quarter. Oh wait...

    10. Re: But I wanted non-original content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast owns NBC. Disney owns ABC.

    11. Re: But I wanted non-original content by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I stand corrected.

      I don't really have good brand awareness of the major networks.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  5. Speculation by Luthair · · Score: 0

    Seems like speculation not fact that the reason people are subscribing for original content, I don't actually know anyone who uses Netflix for original content. Myself included, for me there really have not been any series that have been worth watching.

    1. Re:Speculation by SolemnLord · · Score: 2

      It's entirely anecdotal, but I re-subscribed to Netflix for the original content (Bojack Horseman, to be specific).

      I've said it elsewhere, but it's perfectly fine if the shows that Netflix puts out aren't for someone. Luckily other streaming companies are finally starting to do the follow suit, giving people options. What's impressed me with Netflix is the range of shows they currently offer. Besides their award-winners, they've got a broad variety of documentaries, anime, even old fashioned sitcoms. I'd never have known about the last one if it wasn't for my brother watching some. There's a lot of stuff they make that I have zero interest in, but they're smartly casting as wide a net as possible.

    2. Re:Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I watch original content almost exclusively. I probably would not keep my subscription if not for that. Many people I know watch the original content. I think you are just assuming everyone is like you.

      Anyhow, if you think NF is creating all this content when it is not a big draw, you are fooling yourself.

    3. Re:Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Seems like speculation

      It isn't speculation, when Netflix makes an exclusive show, it is investing in itself. Anyone acquiring them would also get access to their exclusive library. It is also a long term investment for Netflix, as it doesn't have to renegotiate/pay the licensing costs for those shows.

      > not fact that the reason people are subscribing for original content

      Netflix is doing well subscriber wise. I suspect their upside of original content is more on stopping people from unsubscribing. If they can hook you on a couple of their original shows, you'll likely stick around as the next seasons of those shows become available.

      Personally, I think the biggest wedge for Netflix original content is against the $150+/month cable subscriber.

      Think upper middle class person, who pays for *all* of the cable channels so they can have access to *all* content. If someone at work is talking about a show, they can watch regardless of what network it is on, showtime, hbo, cinemax, doesn't matter, they can watch it.

      Then suddenly the millennials at the water cooler are talking about shows they *can't* watch. That they don't have access to. Suddenly their cable package no longer represents 100% of all possible TV show content.

      This both makes them question the value of paying for "all the channels", and if it gets them to investigate netflix and see, oh only $10/month, that is a pittance. They then start to compare the amount of content $10 is getting them vs $10 for say showtime, which has significantly less content than Netflix.

    4. Re:Speculation by dwywit · · Score: 1

      It's almost like - a service that offers a mix of originals and re-runs, some that appeals to you and some that appeals to me, at a reasonable price, that isn't tied into internet or other subscriptions, is actually successful - who'da thunk it?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    5. Re:Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep Netflix (despite the price increase that kicked in earlier this year) for the following:

      House of Cards
      Star Trek: TNG (I have the series on DVD, but Netflix is more convenient)
      Breaking Bad
      Once Upon a Time (girlfriend watches it, I can't stand it)
      Archer (I watch it, my girlfriend can't stand it)

  6. Good, but... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    The problem with original content, from anyone, is that, for the most part, such original content will suck to high heaven. For each hit like, say, Cheers, there are hundreds of flops that, justly, remain in oblivion. I am all for new shows and movies - but I want access to classic hits. Complete access, not this garbage whereby things appear and disappear more or less randomly. Until this happens, piracy will carry on rampant.

    1. Re:Good, but... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      The problem with original content, from anyone, is that, for the most part, such original content will suck to high heaven. For each hit like, say, Cheers, there are hundreds of flops that, justly, remain in oblivion. I am all for new shows and movies - but I want access to classic hits. Complete access, not this garbage whereby things appear and disappear more or less randomly. Until this happens, piracy will carry on rampant.

      But you are not everybody and most people do not want to watch old stuff over and over again. Most of the Netflix original content ranges from excellent to pretty OK and my only response to the idea of them making more of it is that it can't happen fast enough and the same goes for every other similar service out there. The thing that is currently holding up these streaming services is, as you point out, the tangled up cluster-fuck of a legal spiderweb that is visual media licensing. Some licensing agreement expires and a bunch of titles disappear from Netflix because Rupert Murdoch or some other dickhead media oligarch wants to shield his TV networks from competition. Another example is, say that I move from, oh... Germany to Austria and a bunch of stuff disappears from my favourites list because the local rights owners in Austria did not want to give Netflix access to stuff Netflix hat access to in Germany. This kind of thing is just going to force two developments in services like Netflix. Firstly visual streaming services will start making their own material because they have to in order to survive. Secondly they will augment their own stuff by buying material directly form indie content creators. Visual media services are not going away if content rights owners starve them anymore than music streaming went away when rights holders killed off Napster. What happened when they killed off Napster is iTunes, Spotify, and friends and they are to a large extent outside of the control of the music industry's old gatekeepers. Those guys found themselves replaced by new gate keepers and distributors. Similarly visual media streaming services will kill off traditional TV and the harder the old guard tries to prevent that, and the bigger the library of their own original content services like Netflix build up, the faster traditional TV will die and quite frankly... good riddance.

    2. Re:Good, but... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The problem with original content, from anyone, is that, for the most part, such original content will suck to high heaven.

      While that is true and Netflix is not immune, Netflix seems to somehow have a better hit rate than the accepted "90% of everything is crap quote" figure.

      Plus on Netflix with a whole season released at once, you can evaluate if the whole thing is worth getting into and not judge if you will spend time watching an episode at a time hoping for the best in the future... a terrible or awesome pilot may mean nothing for the whole season.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Good, but... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      It does not matter how many flops they get. You only need one show that you own exclusive rights to that everybody wants to watch.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Good, but... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      or ten shows that different 10%s want to watch.

      That was HBOs model, not to make shows with broad appeal, but to make shows that had narrower "must see" appeal.

      The Sapranos (picked because I'm going with guessing it was the most watched premium show) had half the viewers as The Big Bang Theory, but people paid to watch it, while The Big Bang Theory would much easier be substituted for another random comedy by its fans (I suspect), but it has double the viewers. Both the Sapranos and Sex in the City had limited appeal, but to those that they appealed to, they were must watch.

      Netflix isn't trying to be NBC, it's trying to be HBO, the shift to original content is part of that.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  7. Mascots was insanely funny... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am glad that Netflix is funding the creation of this stuff. They are giving the cable channels a run for their money, if not yet the main-line studios. On the other hand, they've had some shows that were definitely "acquired taste" sorts of things, too (Pompidou, I'm looking at you). I guess they're still at the "throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" stage. But at least a good deal of it is watchable and a few things are quite good.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:Mascots was insanely funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus they have a global audience, so quite niche things might have good enough audiences - though I have no idea how many viewers warrant an extra series or anything.

    2. Re:Mascots was insanely funny... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      I am glad that Netflix is funding the creation of this stuff.

      Most of my TV watching is with my very young children, and they LOVE the original Netflix children's shows (Dinotrucks, Puss & Boots, and others I can't recall off the top of my head).

    3. Re:Mascots was insanely funny... by sad_ · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and soon there will be 'Skylanders', they are already going nuts about it!

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    4. Re:Mascots was insanely funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hay i love those shows. And i no longer as young as i once was...

  8. Stranger Things is a major reason why by chispito · · Score: 2

    Come for the Stranger Things, stay for everything else.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Stranger Things is a major reason why by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      What I love about Stranger Things is that when I watched it with my daughter, and we're watching the opening scene in the basement with the kids eating pizza and playing D&D, I turned to her and said, "That was me and my friends in 1983".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. VPN access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much of this new "International" revenue is due to their most recent ability to successfully shut down VPN access from International traffic. As discussed here Yesterday

    1. Re:VPN access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've got this wrong - if I pay for Netflix in the UK and visit the US, I have access to their US content whilst I'm there. So the idea behind VPN+Netflix is that I can pick from their far larger US library. However, I would remain a UK subscriber, so part of their international revenue regardless.

      The real reason VPN is being shutdown by Netflix is that they absolutely have to as part of their negotiations with content producers. They'll get sued to eternity and back if they agree with company X to only license company X's material for US viewers, but allow anyone else to get through with a nod and a wink. I imagine Netflix would love nothing more than to have global distribution rights for the material they license and do away with the whole issue.

  10. Game of Thrones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Yes, Game of Thrones is still better than anything Netflix has, but GoT is arguably the biggest and flashiest television show in the world.)

    Before I saw GoT and got involved in youtube fandom were I watched literally everything about it, I thought what you are saying too. Me doing the fan thing surprised me greatly as the last 2 seasons were not really so much inspired by the creator, more brewed like a 'for tv' thing.

    Anyway, I watched Marco Polo one weekend and now completely regret my time spent on GoT hype. They say you can't compare these shows. I do. Marco Polo... mucho better TV!

    1. Re: Game of Thrones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GoT is fucking terrible unless you're a complete moron who doesn't want any sort of plot for multiple seasons in a row.

  11. "Finally"?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    It's been paying off all along, right from the star with House of Cards. Not all of them along the way were winners (I despised Sense8) but Netflix has had winners often enough that staying with them was never a question, while other services I've subscribed to have come and gone...

    At this point Netflix has all by themselves a pretty compelling library of content other services will not have, enough that any new subscriber would have reason enough to stay with Netflix for a year or more just to catch up. Add the fact that they often have really good shows and there's lots of reason to stay with them, even as the catalog of content from other companies churns...

    Not mentioned is how crafty Netflix has been in picking up great TV shows other networks have been too stupid to see the value of (like Longmire) and continuing to make new seasons... we should all laud Netflix for being a safety net for good shows. I'm betting they would have taken up Firefly if it had been aired today with the same mistakes...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: "Finally"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing on Netflix that warrants $120 per year.

      And this trend with original content ... What are folks going to have Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and regular cable? Just streaming services would be a couple of hundred a year for mediocre content.

    2. Re:"Finally"?? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Personally, liked Sense8, but to each his own. House of cards was an expensive series to produce, but it pays dividends now with justifying the strategy.

      What I dislike is that some series just don't last. I really got into Straights or whatever it was called, but it only made it a season or two. Common problem; hope Netflix continues to support the long tail.

    3. Re: "Finally"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could rotate through the streaming services, as they are on demand, there is no need to subscribe to them all concurrently.

  12. Using stats to say what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just saying what their investors want to hear. Just because someone watched some of their original content doesn't mean they are satisfied. I don't watch their original content, I'm only there for content from other networks and movies.

    Give us the numbers without trying to brainwash us with your words.

  13. I never understood the ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everytime Netflix dropped millions on a single show, I had to ask myself "are they really getting that many *more* subscribers per month?"

    Which is the short-sighted view.

    Their original programming plan never made sense to me until I realized that each show that they *owned* also made them more valuable.

    If you bought Netflix pre-original programming, you just got their subscriber base and their technology. Their actual content right were an ephemeral thing, up for renegotiation every few years.

    A single show's rights, by itself, isn't worth much, but an entire exclusive library, that starts to become something people would pay you money for. So if something happened to make them lose subscribers, they could always fall back on licensing *their* content out.

    Meanwhile, a constant stream of new exclusive content helps retain customers, while also increasing your valuation. It is like they are a company that is concentrated on long term growth and survival or something...

    1. Re:I never understood the ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any great American brand, the Netflix story is one that is wrapped in golden layers of irony. First they were a disruptive technology, destroying the retail DVD rental industry with their DVDs by mail service. Then they pioneered online streaming and decimated what was left of the DVD industry. Now, faced with intense competition by older and more experienced telecoms, and wounded by the rising costs of content licensing, their only option is to build up their own content library. Whatever it was that was supposed to distinguish Netflix as a brand has now dissipated, they are now just another online television network, subject to the same whims of popularity, and utterly vulnerable to the next big disruption of the industry.

  14. If you say so, but I think it's worth far more. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There's nothing on Netflix that warrants $120 per year.

    I would gladly have paid $120 just for Stranger Things. But I also enjoy the Marvel stuff they have been doing so far. And some of the anime they've been backing as well... For me Netflix has been the most value per dollar I've had from any video purchase for a long, long time... I'd be happy to pay $300/year for Netflix, which is still far cheaper than most cable bundles and includes many more things I like to watch.

    The great thing is that if you don't like the content, you don't have to subscribe!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. BIG by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Netflix's long term game is to get BIG.

    The #1 problem with Netflix is that they need to beg for Licencing. The Cable companies are already BIG, and so they throw their weight around. This is why you get that stupid VPN stuff with Netflix because you cannot use certain content in certain countries because the Cable owns all the rights. When content creators were initially selling content, it was simply seen as another new revenue stream. Then when it started getting big they all now want a cut of the pie, and today you see all sorts of players. However even now, some of them are finding, usually because they not only want pie, but cake and eat it too, that tying subscription to also only their own customers, that well you limit your customers, fail to get enough subscribers, and start to fail (sorry for the run-on sentence). On top of that you have Netflix which is the most dominant and has the most established base to break into. Add to that the fact that in the last several years they have invested heavily into their own content, which makes them less dependent on the content providers themselves... Anyway to finish the thought, is that if they continue to do this year over year and get BIG enough, the shoe will be on the other foot and they will have content creators begging THEM to be allowed to licence deals to stream their content over their service... However just as Netflix is established as a streaming service, so are the Cable companies and content creators, it will be some time before any of this flips in the other direction.

    1. Re:BIG by lrichardson · · Score: 1

      I think the MCU deal - read: DISNEY - is a good thing for Netflix. One of the golden rules of Hollywood: Don't fuck with the mouse.

      Netflix got strong-armed by Comcast a while back. With Disney on their side, Comcast is going to think twice before pulling such crap (illegal, but no charges laid) again.

      On top of which, Disney has a long history of using independent subsidiaries to produce their 'riskier' content, thus keeping the 'Disney' name pristine and family friendly. Netflix is truly 'independent' :)

      And, of course, Disney owns ABC. While the old networks are struggling to stay relevant, and slowly crawling into the 21st century, Netflix is there. *Any* partnership gives Disney/ABC an edge over the others. There were rumours that ABC shows would be streamed on Netflix, too, similar to how the network sites release them after they air (usually either a day or week delay). That hasn't happened - yet - but I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

  16. Two star content? by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    I've not been watching much of Netflix anymore, and I'm about to cancel. Everytime I open the app, I see all this exclusive content rated 2 stars. And I've watched some of it, and it is indeed 2-star content. There's so much of it, I want a star filter, but I think that would eliminate half their library.

    Some of their stuff is good, but they lost Doctor Who to Amazon, and their top rated movie selection is dwindling. It's becoming a B-movie haven.
    In fact writing this has convinced me to cancel.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Two star content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of their stuff is good

      and yet somehow you are unable to simply ignore the things you don't like, and presume that all content is supposed to make YOU happy

    2. Re:Two star content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's becoming a B-movie haven."

      And you're comment probably just gained them some subs!

    3. Re:Two star content? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      If you read avclub.com or similar you'll see that they review and write articles about the better Netflix shows, just like with TV.

    4. Re:Two star content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everytime I open the app, I see all this exclusive content rated 2 stars. And I've watched some of it, and it is indeed 2-star content.

      The star rating system is subjective. When a show is unrated, Netflix offers you red stars that roughly predict if you'll like the show or not, based on your viewing and rating habits.

      If you rate their original content highly, you'll see red ~4-star ratings. If you rate it poorly, you'll see red ~2-star ratings. It's not just original content. Other factors matter too, like the genre and the target demographic (example: Sense8 vs the Turbo cartoons).

      Don't assume that the two-stars that you're seeing on original content are ratings from all Netflix users. They are ratings from people who watch the same shows you do, and rate shows the same way that you rate them.

      It's not a revelation that Netflix tells you that you won't like their original content, and then you don't like it. They (and we) knew that when they told you that you won't like it.

    5. Re:Two star content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Netflix made it easy to ignore things you don't like, say with a tick box under the show that says "Don't show this to me again", doing what you suggest would be a lot easier.

      My biggest problem with Netflix is that it isn't easy to browse through their full library. When I log in they have perhaps 10-15 lists of shows/movies based on various categories or shows I've watched, these list have maybe 20-30 shows/movies in them, but often with duplicates across the lists and also including stuff I've already watched.

      They need to be smarter about what they suggest, if I have watched something, I probably don't want to watch it again (at least not for a while, and even then only if it was really good), I also don't want to see the same show suggested over and over. There are some shows I just don't want to watch, I want an option for them to stop suggesting them. I'd also like a way to specifically filter for movies. I'd also like a way to browse through the entire catalogue.

  17. Best use of your Entertainment $ out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    7 to 8 years ago or so I spent lots of $ on blu ray copies of some of my favorite shows. I remember spending what seems like a fairly obscene amount of $ on the BattleStar Galactica box set. That one purchase alone would pay for 2 YEARS of Netflix these days. Considering all the great netflix content... the licensed material is just cake. For the last year I can't say there has been one month I haven't had at least one great show to binge. We got a couple good Netflix movies... at least one of them was of fully legit award winning quality.

    I know people like to pick on specific shows. They have had hits like Stranger things that have wide appeal, and others that have a much narrower viewership. I hope Netflix never ever ever goes the route that has killed quality with the major networks. Netflix needs to continue producing the odd niche content without a lot of care for the viewership numbers.The networks concerned themselves so much with demo numbers that they killed creativity completely and we ended up with years of reality tv and the same cop/lawyer/friends shows repeated 1000 times each. A show like Stranger Things wasn't expected to be a massive hit, no way during production any one at Netflix thought yes this one show is going to be a major part of our third quarter 20%+ stock surge. Netflix needs to keep going with the scatter gun... find young artists and fund them. I am glad the stranger things bump happened, it should keep us in good new shows for a few more years... it should have convinced them that spending money on talented no bodies is a better option then dropping millions on known hacks like Sandler. Not that their isn't a place for that type of content as well. For Netflix though... funding the unknowns and having 3-4 hit out of left field shows every year will push the Netflix brand and drive down the cost of getting "name" people to work on their stuff. At this point I'm sure people are wanting to work for netflix. HBO was the first "network" that movie stars viewed as safe to work with... I would say many are looking at Netflix the same way now. Winona Ryder won't be the last carer revived by a Netflix original.

    1. Re:Best use of your Entertainment $ out there by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The big advantage of the content Netflix itself produces, or at least buys outright, is that it can show it in all the countries it is available in. So while a specific show, like the Marvel series, may be considered "niche" when one looks at one single market, the viewership in all markets for even a niche show can be substantial.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Best use of your Entertainment $ out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, talking about a rambling train of thought. Holy sh*t.

  18. Agree - been a consumer win by BeerMilkshake · · Score: 1

    Am finding the netflix originals and their selections so much better than the network stuff, maybe comparable to BBC. I like how they seem less afraid to take editorial risks to investigate new markets.

    That said, still see plenty of unexploited opportunity streaming direct-to-consumer though, in niches that Netflix probably wont choose to go as they too become bigger.

    Ex: I sub to NHL and would gladly subscribe to other sports channels like golf channel.
    Ex: huge potential in independant/art/amateur scenes, political channels, charitable/volunteer channels, ...
    Ex: Would gladly pay much more for new movie releases. Sorry theatre industry, havent visited you in over 8 years.

    1. Re:Agree - been a consumer win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would gladly subscribe to other sports channels like golf channel.

      either too much hypnotoad or not enough hypnotoad

    2. Re: Agree - been a consumer win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to say that in the U.K. there's way too much old BBC stuff. Dreadful.

      Then again they've got Peaky Blinders which is a show on BBC. It's awesome.

      Netflix UK was how Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul were shown. I think it was a big deal when BB was shown.

      Originals like Marco Polo and House of Cards are way better than the BBC could ever make even though HoC was originally a terrible BBC production way back when.

      Now gimme more Kimmie Schmidt!

  19. When will Aus have all of the shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ETA?

  20. Billion by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Amazing: Netflix and Amazon each spend more on content than the GDP of Belize.

  21. Netflix can go down in flames!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the war on geo block services and vpn providers, the ever increasing indian garbage the self produced and 2 star crap it is seriously getting to the point where i will cancel my subscription which has been active for more than 6 years......

    Netflix thinks they are invincible and too big to fail, a lesson is coming their way......

  22. Seems like they are a traditional producer by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Rather than a content delivery service.

    They have become one of the cable channels. Since their foreign content is only leased tempoarily it seems to me they will inevitably drop their streaming service/subscription model and go directly to a la cart show subscriptions. Maybe new episodes cost a dollar to watch. Old series 25 cents for a couple hours.

    Then that will evolve with Netflix breaking off into two or more companies. One a delivery ecosystem; others the new cable production channels.

    Interestingly I think Apple is the biggest threat to them with an alternative content system already up and running. Question is will they start/invest in their own production companies or simply buy out HBO or some of the other channels with original content.

    I think the Big Three are all dead within 10 years along with cable.

  23. Star Trek by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Well it is things like the new Star Trek TV show coming out by CBS that ticks people off. I live in Canada.

    It is to be available on Netflix internationally. However:
    In the US, it will only be available on CBS and their own home brew streaming service.
    In Canada up until people got angry it just wasn't available because of licencing BS. Now it is going to be on the Bell Space channel if you have cable AND have access to that specific channel.

    I have cable and subscribe to the Space channel so for me I don't much care anymore (other than on principle). I expect anyone else that is interested will just pirate it instead or do the VPN shuffle with Netflix to some other country ID.

    Anyway the media company's love to complain about piracy and region spoofing, but they do this sort of thing all the time presumably because they can make more money making exclusive deals with other companies like Bell even though as far as offering a service to their consumers it stinks (then are shocked and surprised that the consumers use alternative means).