Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

People Like Netflix's Original Content More Than Its Other Content: AllFlicks (allflicks.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the customer-satisfaction-guaranteed dept.

According to a study by IHS Markit this month, in the last two years Netflix's spending on original content rose from $2.38 billion to $4.91 billion. The company has invested big in original programming -- and it looks to be paying off. The folks over at AllFlicks have found that Netflix's subscriber base prefers Netflix's original content to that of its syndicated content. AllFlicks reports: Netflix user ratings show that Netflix's subscriber base prefers Netflix's original content to its syndicated content. Netflix originals sport an average rating of 3.85 stars out of five; all other content averages 3.47 stars. That means that user ratings for Netflix originals are 11% higher, on average, than user ratings for syndicated content. Netflix does best in the documentaries category, where users rate non-original content, on average, at 3.54. Netflix's documentaries average 4.07 stars, a pretty impressive showing. Netflix's TV shows do the worst, but still edge their other TV show content by 5.7%. It's possible that the frequent reviewers among Netflix's user base differ from the user base as a whole, but there's not a lot of reason to doubt the raw data here. The Netflix originals and non-originals were both reviewed on the same service and using the same rating system, yet originals consistently outperformed the rest of the content.

77 comments

  1. YEah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..but there's not a lot of reason to doubt the raw data here.

    I think there is. People are too nice when they review stuff - reviews aren't very trustworthy.. So, how about comparing the actual number of streams - and how many viewers stick with the shows? THAT would be a much better indicator than reviews.

    1. Re:YEah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then there are the people who only rate new things and corporate shills.
      DNRTFA

    2. Re:YEah by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      this story is meaningless. conclusions drawn are too general and not necessarily correct.
      for just one example, there is a reason why mere averages are not good for statistical analysis. average rating for one set of data may be higher than another set of data for variety of reasons, including very high rating( or very low ratings) for just one or two shows skewing the average. skewing will be greater if the set is smaller. so if set of original content is small and has handful of shows with very high ratings, their average will be high, compared to a very large set of non original shows whose rating distribution is likely to be more even just because it is a larger set.

    3. Re: YEah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No doubt. Especially when Netflix ratung cannot be trusted in the least, as they are directly tied to which contect categories are shown.

      Do have kids or any interest in Y7 programming? Rate every Power Rangers, Barney, learning show, etc 1 star and they will all eventually disappear.

        What more femme fatales or british crime dramas? Search for a few and rate them 5 stars. More will automagically appear.

      Seems to reason that ratings of original content may be reflected in peoples desire to see original listed, which could skew the data considerably.

  2. smells like speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does not netflix release raw data on their star rating system? Last I checked the star rating was based on the users preference and what is rated as a 5 for user A could be rated as a 1 for user B.

    See: http://bgr.com/2016/02/10/netflix-ratings-what-they-mean-how-they-work/

    This source claims netfix does not release raw data:
    http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/what-conclusions-can-we-draw-from-the-new-netflix-viewer-ratings-data.php

  3. of course the do! by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netflix has been on the recieving end of a concerted effort to kill it by the big media players, because they dont like the disruptive marketing model that netflix represents. that is why these media giants have categorically denied access to recent media offers, and keep hogtieing netflix in licensing disputes and changes.

    Netflix knows exactly what people want, because even though they cannot stream the titles people want (because of the previously mentioned chicannery) they still record the search terms and frequency. knowing exactly what people want lets them make desirable original media, and turn the tables on the big media giants.

    why else do you think ATT feels it needs to buy Time Warner on the auspices of "remaining competative", than to become the single largest media giant AND ISP, if not to cripple Netflix by strangling it for access to customers?

    i mean, seriously.

    1. Re:of course the do! by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Netflix knows exactly what people want

      Also, they're in a position to care about what the viewers want. The TV networks, meanwhile, are built to care much more about what advertisers and their clients want.

      You might expect it's the same thing, since advertisers will want whatever people will watch. However, there are some subtle differences that have big effects. For example, they don't like controversy, so while they're trying to get a big audience, they're also making sure they don't ruffle anyone's feathers. If they're trying to get Walmart or Chick-fil-a advertising money, then there'd better not be anything in the show that could be considered anti-Christian or pro-homosexuality.

      There's also a tendency to look for shows that will hit certain demographics who are thought to be likely to buy specific kinds of products. So, for example, a children's show might get cancelled in spite of critical acclaim and high viewership, if it turns out that kids aren't buying the toys and merchandise associated with that show. Two shows with similar budgets and viewerships might have very different fates, depending on whether the viewing demographics are expected to have a lot of disposable income, or to correlate with products that the advertisers want to sell. So networks are going to focus on making teenager shows to market Clearasil, and they need old-man shows to market Viagra. If you're their target demographic that's considered a desirable market, then they're not particularly trying to make shows for you.

      There's also another similar problem that that Netflix avoids by having an on-demand viewing model, as opposed to having shows compete for a time slot. On network TV, a show might be making enough money in order to pay for production and make a profit, but it might still be cancelled if a network thinks that another program would make more money in that time slot. This was one of the rumored reasons for the cancellation of both Firefly and Farscape, for example.

      All of this is why you see a lot of cheap reality TV that appeals to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't much matter whether the show is good or whether there's a substantial audience on the edge of their seat waiting for the next episode. Networks are just looking for cheap, uncontroversial programs that will make it easy to sell advertising.

    2. Re:of course the do! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2
      I wouldn't be surprised if there's also a much more direct feedback loop for Netflix-produced content (though HBO is probably similar). Think about how a normal TV show is created:
      1. Someone has an idea. They persuade a studio to fund a pilot.
      2. The studio takes a loss on the pilot and shops it around to TV channels.
      3. The TV channels evaluate it and decide the demographics that will watch it and if a large enough segment of a profitable (i.e. high income, low impulse control) of the population might like it, they commission the series.
      4. The studio produces the series.
      5. The channel sells ads.
      6. If the ad purchasers think that the ads are worthwhile (via a complex indirect feedback mechanism involving tracking sales against projections) then they'll be happy and the studio will renew the show (unless a new show that could possibly make more money in the same slot comes along).

      Now compare that to Netflix.

      1. Someone has an idea. They persuade a studio to fund a pilot.
      2. Netflix decides that people might like it and funds the full series.
      3. As soon as the show is available, Netflix records how many people watch it, how many didn't finish an episode, and what the review score distribution is from the subset of people that bother to write reviews.
      4. If it's popular, Netflix funds another season.

      Which of these is more likely to produce shows that lots of people want to watch?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:of course the do! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Netflix also has the advantage of always being able to charge full price for its content, all the time. After the first run of a TV show, it usually goes off the air for a while and then maybe starts getting re-runs at a reduced rate. On Netflix they get paid the same amount if the content is brand new or decades old, and it's never off air.

      Must be great for shows that gain popularity by word of mouth. Instead of having to wait for DVD sales because people missed the first few episodes, they can jump in any time and catch up with their friends. Shows don't have to be heavily trailed and hyped up for weeks or months before their premier, and the advertising is even more effective because instead of saying "coming soon, don't miss it" they can say "now available, get your instant gratification".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:of course the do! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That may be less of an advantage than you'd think, because you need to know by about half way through the first season whether it's worth commissioning a second. It's definitely an advantage for longer-running things (if people are still discovering it when you're in the fifth season and starting from the beginning, then it's probably worth a sixth, for example), but it might be a disadvantage at the start of the process.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:of course the do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't getting Time Warner Cable. Charter owns that. Just the Time Warner Media properties.

    6. Re:of course the do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...they're in a position to care...
          They are not. Caring is subjective. They are in a position to read viewing metrics, that is it. Now, having gleaned what people watch they're creating custom content that mimics that. You call that caring? It's a customized ticket to repeat monthly subscriptions that's all.

      And, as many media companies are discovering, it's actually cheaper to create their own content and host/control it, that to buy rights & agreements themselves to the other media companies for their movies, etc.

      Now don't get me wrong, Netflix is not a terrible company in general... but I would not call their maneuver 'caring'.

    7. Re:of course the do! by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      Farscape had a slightly different issue - it was already an expensive show, and then Syfy acquired another expensive show, Stargate SG-1. Unfortunately, they decided they only wanted to support one, and they had just spent all the money to acquire the new property, so...

    8. Re:of course the do! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Sort of. It wasn't that they didn't "want an expensive show", but that Farscape's time slot had a good enough lead-in (which I believe was SG1 at the time) that they could put something cheap and crappy into the time slot and still get decent ratings. Not necessarily great ratings, not even ratings as good as Farscape, but good enough that the savings in making a cheaper show would still make the time slot more profitable overall.

      This is a fairly common thing. Let's say you have a popular half-hour sitcom at 8pm, and another popular one at 9pm. You might think that the smart thing is to put a 3rd popular show at 8:30, so that you'd really lock people in, but if you pay attention, that's not typically what happens. Instead they put a weaker show (or a new show they're trying out) into the 8:30 slot, since they know that being sandwiched between two popular shows will mean it gets pretty good ratings, even though it stinks. Basically, a lot of people will watch a crappy show because they're too lazy to change the channel.

      So that was the rumor on what lead to the demise of Farscape. It was getting good enough ratings to make money, but SciFi thought the time slot had good enough shows around it that they could fill the slot with a cheap crappy show, and people would still watch it.

      Even if that's not really what happened to Farscape (and who really knows?), the point remains that the way advertising and time slots work have an influence on the kinds of programs that are produced. As DVR and streaming services have become more common, some of those effects are probably becoming less pronounced. In a service like Netflix (where their original programs aren't aired on broadcast TV at all), these kinds of considerations shouldn't have any effect at all.

  4. Huh. Data without citation by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd like to know what the methodology is here, but there's no link in the AllFlicks article to the actual data, nor any explanation regarding how it was gathered.

    I would assume people who've continued to use Netflix would self-select over time to include more folks who value their original content... but still. Tell us how you got the numbers please. What I've seen on Netflix is a bunch of original content that gets a "best guess" rating for me that's always between 4.7 and five stars... but when I've actually watched it, the rating I've most commonly given is three stars. That's really odd, since for third-party stuff their predictions have been extremely good - so I'm a bit skeptical regarding all the recent stories I've been seeing touting just how much everyone loves Netflix's own content.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Huh. Data without citation by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The "Best Guess" score is not the same thing as the content's rating. It's a personalized score for you that makes a best guess at what you, specifically will rate it, and it generally gets better with time as you rate more things. I haven't checked in awhile, but you used to be able to easily see the actual scores for any given content by just clicking on it in the web interface to get more details. It was (and I'd presume still is) publicly available data to anyone with an account.

    2. Re:Huh. Data without citation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any data that says Netflix is or is not messing with the scores on their original content? I've found I can't trust the rating on their original content. It's always got a better score than what I think it should get, but with non-original content the ratings seem reasonable to me.

  5. But what about "its other content"? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I go to Netflix to watch something, but not something in particular, not anymore anyway. Because most of the time the movie I want to watch is not on Netflix. So, I try the "original content", which, on average, is rather watchable. But after watching some of it, like Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, the "original content" does show a lot of non-original patterns, some good old recipes to make the shows watchable, but not great (House of cards is still ok) ; these shows will be forgotten in a few years. The "original content" is very far from Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or The Wire. The more it goes, I feel Netflix becomes the Mac Donald's of TV. You go to Mac Donald's to eat something edible, not something great.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re: But what about "its other content"? by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      That's part of the reason I cancelled my Netflix. Things that were previously on Netflix, was not there any longer. I always had it to be able to access classics, old shows I could watch 100x. The other reason was the VPN witch hunt.

    2. Re:But what about "its other content"? by somenickname · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "original content" is very far from Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or The Wire. The more it goes, I feel Netflix becomes the Mac Donald's of TV. You go to Mac Donald's to eat something edible, not something great.

      You're comparing Netflix original content to the best TV shows that have ever been made. No, they don't compare to Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or The Wire. Neither does anything else. But, the Netflix shows get closer to it than the *vast* majority of garbage that you'll get from your $100/month cable subscription.

    3. Re:But what about "its other content"? by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      You're comparing Netflix original content to the best TV shows that have ever been made. No, they don't compare to Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or The Wire.

      Sputter. That's the sound of me spitting out my soda with laughter.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    4. Re:But what about "its other content"? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Your biases aside, he is right you know.

      Look at the drek released by sify. Or even History Channel.

      Unless you happen to LIKE endless reruns of ancient aliens, bugnuts wrong conspiracy documentaries (sometimes about ancient Egypt), and really bad monster movies with really bad CGI, of course.

      In which case, Netflix still has your back.

    5. Re:But what about "its other content"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd say Jessica Jones and Daredevil are both Game of Thrones quality, easily. Jessica Jones had some amazing performances and did a really good job with a somewhat difficult villain with kinda cheesy super powers (mind control). House of Cards is easily one of the best dramas ever made.

      People forget that even GoT has some filler and slow episodes. In fact it seems like most of the last season was done on a lower budget with things moving slowly, so that they had more to spend on the two big battle episodes (which were excellent).

      Making a Murder and Amanda Knox were both top notch docudramas too, better than anything on broadcast TV in the last decade at least.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re: But what about "its other content"? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Netflix doesn't want to cut off VPNs, big media companies want that. Netflix seems to try their best to resist the pressure from these guys because what Netflix customers want is the opposite of what the big studios want. Netflix is cheap, they still have things I want to watch, and their service is good and fast. I will financially support them even if there's nothing new that I want to watch for a few months...even if I'm only watching the occasional Star Trek rerun.

  6. Ummm... by mhkohne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure that you can infer that the original programming is paying off from what's given here. Yea, people like the original stuff better, but that could just as easily be because Netflix has given up having really good third-party content on it's system anymore, and all that's left is dreadful.

    What matters is whether the size of the Netfix userbase is changing, and in what direction, and in what direction Netflix profits are moving (if any).

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:Ummm... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      no, not given up.

      more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.

    2. Re: Ummm... by thundercattt · · Score: 2

      That's how I think the original content is drawing viewers. People try 3 or 4 searches. They fail, browse comedy, action. See nothing good. Then go well, I guess I'll watch the original content(always seemingly to be 4 or 5 stars yet when viewed should get a max 3)

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

      It would be bad for Netflix to draw any conclusions for this. I go to Netflix to watch something, and rarely have a specific goal in mind. To keep me interested I need diversity of content, from mainstream movies to obscure documentaries or foreign films. I suspect if the study were done differently they would also find that some of Netflix most popular titles have only been watched by 10% of their viewers, maybe less. On any given night, 100 Netflix subscribers are watching 100 different shows.

    4. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      no, not given up.

      more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.

      Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff, so the logical step would've been to congregate around a market leader or de facto standard early on[1] and try secure some good long term license deals or options while Netflix's position is weak.

      They're trying to kill the unkillable now. Netflix is far from perfect but it fills a large niche and there's no obvious replacement for it. Trying to kill it just made it a lot more independent. They could have made Netflix their bitch if they so chose, but now Netflix knows they have a lifeline via original content... the old media giants are utterly screwed. They overplayed their hand and lost their blackmail leverage. The only thing left is to try to poison Netflix's performance even more with the ISPs, which... is not going to end well for them.

      It's going to be funny as hell to watch the tables slowly turn. We'll probably get to watch as the last remaining dinosaurs of old media, perhaps in 10-20 years' time, start to beg places like Netflix to license them some content for cheap. Or maybe they'll wise up and band together to create a decent competing service before things get that bad.

      1. Which many years back might have been Hulu, not Netflix. A lot of people forget how big and popular Hulu was in those early days; back when Netflix was still mostly about getting DVDs in the mail. Maybe Hulu still could be a big player; I'm not sure. Their policies kept getting more and more obnoxious and the latest shows were either uninteresting or they didn't carry them, so I haven't bothered with 'em in years. They are still around, aren't they?

    5. Re:Ummm... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff, so the logical step would've been to congregate around a market leader or de facto standard early on[1] and try secure some good long term license deals or options while Netflix's position is weak."
      Expect big media and their cable friends to clone the streaming idea and make their own "new" lock in streaming shows.
      The final step will to be to region code any must have productions onto their own cable networks and traditional networks.
      No buying new shows and a flood of streaming imitations with the cash going back to big media.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Ummm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.

      Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff

      Too bad, they're going to have to anyway. That's the model we're moving towards, and even if it fails, inertia will take us in that direction for some time. HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice. Consumers can be incredibly slow to take notice of "me too!"s that don't offer a something that is (or at least seems) fundamentally new. Skype should have died a very long time ago, (for one thing, Google Voice completely destroyed it in feature set when it showed up), but it had momentum not just in terms of customer base, but as a word people knew and knew the meaning of, just like "Netflix".

      Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream. Simply willing into existence a competing service is not going to be enough--you have to outdo them, not just for one or two years, but for five or ten. I don't think a single old media giant has the chops. I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat, but I don't think they're willing to make the deals and make the sacrifices to make that happen.

    8. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I more or less reply to this argument here: https://slashdot.org/comments....

      It's possible, but not easy, They have to have the chops to dig in for a very long battle, and they're going to have to sacrifice a bunch of short term profit.

      Collusion from ISPs can help, sure, but if they push this too far new net neutrality legislation will not be far off.

    9. Re:Ummm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The other big advantage that Netflix has is that it's on everything. Most TVs have it built in. If you want to launch a new service you have to overcome the fact that people will need software updates, and we know how good manufacturers are with those, or more likely a new device just to watch it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I failed to emphasize that bit. That synergizes with the name recognition and inertia (existing customer base) to an incredible extent. This is why the war old media has declared, via the current balkanized state of affairs with each having their own private walled gardens (which I'm sure must be very satisfying to the c-levels), is doomed.

      "Oh no, people are surely going to sign up for Disney's/HBO's/WB's propriety thing because they'll surely want XYZ!" misses the point entirely. The leverage doesn't work in that direction. There's no hope whatsoever unless the competing service was massive (multiple large companies banded together), aggressively priced and promoted, and readily appeared to be better product for average people of all tastes combined (and even then, they would have to be ready for a long slog, not a 1-3 year turnaround.) Niche appeal alone simply cannot crack the Netflix nut.

      Collusion with major ISPs is their only potential trump card now, but they've been trying that for years to very little effect, and if they push too hard the regulators and lawmakers will take notice.

    11. Re:Ummm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

      Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice.

      Sigh. It's almost like your reply isn't even to my comment.

      Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream.

      Consumers may not be geniuses, but they can understand that Disney and HBO have video, and that it could be streamed to them. They already had to figure out that they could stream Disney's content from Netflix.

      I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat,

      The immediate threat to Netflix is that the distributors are not renewing their licenses to stream content through Netflix, whether because they're getting more money out of Amazon or because they're taking it to their own platform, or perhaps streaming is only cannibalizing their DVD sales. Whatever the reasons, Netflix already has to deal with the fact that their library is shrinking.

      In addition, there's another clear way they can have their lunch eaten by competitors. Amazon is partway there already: when you watch video on an Amazon Fire TV device, and you have a Netflix subscription, you're offered the opportunity to watch content on Netflix. The next step is to unify the listings into one app, and I predict that Amazon will be the one to bring us that, too. That's going to require giving the user a little more control over search, but they'll still find ways to force recommendations on you — and no doubt, to autoplay them too, just like now, to inflate statistics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      You're changing the topic. Amazon instant video is definitely not the same thing as whatever walled gardens HBO and Disney (the two companies you mentioned) are running these days.

      Sure, Amazon has a slight toehold (and Hulu might have one too), but that's because they have an existing user base and decent device compatibility. A large proportion of people have a 'smart' TV or smart Bluray player or smart game console and they just use that. Amazon instant video is on a lot of those, but not as many as Netflix. Newer and smaller services are not on there, and they don't have the name recognition.

      But in order for Amazon to kill Netflix, they have to do better than Netflix and intertia is a bitch in this game. (As I said elsewhere, Skype would've and should've died a very long time ago if not for the inertia of a userbase and broad name recognition.) That means that, in order to make a huge dent in the lazy people who just want Netflix and not screw with anything else (which is the topic of conversation here), the content owners really have to give Amazon the deals that they refused to give Netflix. Are they going to do that? Is Amazon prepared to offer them a much better deal than Netflix was offering? Maybe. Amazon obviously some multi-industry power they can leverage here, and Amazon Prime subscriptions are unique because of that leverage.

      But that is a completely different conversation than arguing that hbo.com or Disney on Demand or something is poised to significantly eat away at Netflix's customer base. That just isn't going to happen. People will find something else to watch. Social media lets people share lists of good shows, and Netflix themselves has invested a lot of money and effort into suggesting shows they think you will like. You don't need to have 100% of the interesting shows out there to keep your subscribers; you don't even need 10% of the interesting shows out there if all you're up against are single-studio competitors like HBO or Disney.

      You're not grasping the "good enough effect". Even without compatibility problems with smart TVs that are only ever going to support Netflix, It's very, very powerful.

      Consider that Netflix still has (just a quick check): the West Wing, all of the Star Treks, the X Files, Friends, Cheers, Fraiser, NCIS, Bones, Firefly, Arrested Development, plus some pretty good movies (and some meh but still pretty popular/classic ones) I'm seeing like Titanic and Galaxy Quest, Good Will Hunting, Top Gun, E.T., Pirates of the Caribbean, No Country for Old Men.

      For newer shows, they have their original content plus a few others like Sherlock and The Walking Dead. (I didn't look super hard)

      For kids, they have Little Einsteins, Clifford, Curious George Spongebob, Winnie the Pooh, some misc. Disney stuff... more than enough for them to find something they like.

      Anyone who can't easily find a hundred hours of content they wouldn't mind watching just from looking at the suggested lists is NOT an average Netflix user (or average TV/movie watcher in general). Yes, I remember when Netflix was much, much better. I sorely miss Fawlty Towers, Doctor Who, and a few others I would occasionally come back to over the years.

      But Netflix can't offer anything close to a comprehensive library (at least, not via streaming... DVD delivery is another matter, and it actually is a powerful lure for people who are interested in a more comprehensive library). And neither can anyone else... at least, certainly not Disney or HBO. Amazon? Eh... anything is possible.

      The niche Netflix has is in branding, compatibility, relative cheapness, no commercials, momentum granting them a large enough cash stream that they can afford to drop billions on original content (even borrowing money if necessary). Plus the aforementioned leveraging of people who prefer the DVD rental aspect (which these days is the only way to offer customers a large library at low price.) A pile of

    13. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Something I forgot to mention: Amazon Prime's video selection was quite horrible for the several years that I had it, at least an order of mangnitude worse than Netflix's current selection, and the streaming performance was pretty bad too. Has that gotten any better lately? That's the main reason I didn't bothering addressing Amazon until you brought it up.

      When I used it, it seemed much more like an afterthought gimmick to try to get people to get in the habit of buying stuff to take advantage of the two day shipping.

    14. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one thing I've noticed is that TV series that are NOT chopped up around commercial blocks, designed to keep you interested, is much more pleasant. Try watching something Like Steampunked or any show with recaps and it's maddening.

      But also, shows from ABC, you can TELL where the commercials were from the dramatic pauses. There's a definite tempo change in made for non commercial shows. Also, ones that are designed around a full story arc are better and not "watch next week", again, much better pacing of plot.

    15. Re:Ummm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Amazon Prime's video selection was quite horrible for the several years that I had it, at least an order of mangnitude worse than Netflix's current selection, and the streaming performance was pretty bad too. Has that gotten any better lately? That's the main reason I didn't bothering addressing Amazon until you brought it up.

      The selection is now pretty good, while Netflix's has decreased to only being pretty good. And yes, the streaming performance is now better than Netflix, at least here it is. In the evenings I can barely use Netflix. And I have the bandwidth setting set to be inoffensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Ummm... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Try a VPN sometime and see if that helps. With my old ISP I had sporadic issues with Netflix and even Youtube at times that mysteriously disappeared once the traffic was hidden behind a VPN. Generally costs on the order of $2-$3 / month if you buy a year at a time.

    17. Re:Ummm... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Collusion from ISPs can help, sure, but if they push this too far new net neutrality legislation will not be far off.
      Not if the GOP has it's way.

    18. Re:Ummm... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      The performance is good now. The content is pretty meh, but so it Netflix's at this point.

  7. Different demographic? by somenickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Netflix makes some of the best shows out there. Sometimes they buy existing franchises and breath some fresh air into them and other times they come up with properly original stuff. In either case, I think it's frequently aimed at a different demographic than "traditional TV": Netflix is in the unique position to create a 10-12 hour *movie*. And people will watch that movie over the course of a few days so, they can make it a complex and coherent story that spans 10-12 hours.

    They don't need to worry about fitting content into a 42 minute block with 18 minutes of ads. They don't need to worry about if some subtle thing from two months ago is going to be lost on their audience. They don't need to worry about meeting some crazy standard of language/nudity. They don't need to worry about the regional licensing burdens that non-original content carries.

    Basically, Netflix shows are good because they can make a complete season and release it in a 10-12 hour movie format to the entire world simultaneously. People *want* that. They will pay for it. Contrast that to a cable company: Customers have already paid some ever increasing amount of money to a cable company and they still have to watch 18 minutes of ads for every 42 minutes of television? Bullshit. Gone are the days of a mindless 30 minute or 60 minute TV show that is just a smokescreen for advertising money. In the modern age, people want literature on their TV and ads are completely unacceptable because frankly, I've already paid for the content.

    1. Re:Different demographic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longmire
      Gilmore Girls: Seasons (fixing the crappy final season)

      --

      If Netflix had been doing this several years ago, we would have gotten season 2 of Firefly.

    2. Re:Different demographic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Wash wouldn't be dead!

      Too soon ?

    3. Re:Different demographic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be horrible if they did that! I'm just glad they didn't make any sequels to the Matrix...

  8. Hmmm by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the fact that most of the non original content is poor and generally available else where as well has anything to do with the ratings.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Hmmm by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      A thing that is not netflix's fault. The big media giants want Netflix dead, so you have to use their streaming media offers that are bundled with traditional cable TV.

      netflix has been fighting hard to keep good outside content, but is basically the victim of unfair market practices by big holding companies.

      complaining that it is netflix's fault is idiocy.

  9. Agreed by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    For a sample size of one (myself), I agree...I often prefer their original content over the giant list of 80s and 90s 1-star movies that are mind-numbing drek.

    Also, is it just me, or do most people spend more time searching for something worthwhile to watch on Netflix than actually watching? Sometimes I just give up in frustration after searching for 20 minutes trying to find something that looks worth watching.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Agreed by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I don't search on netflix.I use http://instantwatcher.com/

      mostly I follow new content - and it was better before netflix killed the "ageing out" content monitor - but if you can't quickly find something you want to watch on the site, then yeah, netflix isn't for you.

      But for me? Buying used dvds and blurays and paying for netflix has been all I have been doing for years - altho - I will be signing up to amazon prime in a few weeks.

      The Grand Tour featuring the Orangutan and his two pillocks will once again be the kings of the world, or wise men, or just entertaining bastards who are immensely entertaining.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the comments about the daily Netflix story are the same.

  10. The great hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Netflix and Amazon are the next hope in 'TV'. They are essentially becoming new 'network stations' with their original content and I can't be more happy. I put those words in quotes because of my age, please substitute your generations appropriate terms. Hell I remember the time when there were only 3 networks and then all of a sudden there was FOX and it was awesome and new and disruptive. Amazon and Netflix's original content represent a real disruptive change on such a bigger scale. The original content is as good as if not better than the big 4 networks and the delivery model is so much better.

  11. Advantage by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    The netFlix advantage is worldwide release, at will.

  12. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering the rest of the Netflix catalog consists mostly of B movies and long forgotten television, this should come as no surprise.

    I say mostly because there is a gem or two to be found in there.

    For the most part, however, it seems the majority of the streaming catalog is the bottom of the barrel stuff that few are interested in.

  13. 48 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This place can't go more than 48 hours without a Netflix story.

    Did you hear about their original content? SOME PEOPLE say it is even better than the stuff people used to use Netflix for... the whole "Watch what you want on demand" idea thing that they don't advertise anymore. ORIGINAL CONTENT! It is like living in the 80's with sweeps month, and the shows are actually produced by the same Hollywood pipelines that were already in place.

  14. Do not know about other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But here in sweden almost all shows that are brougth in from third parties can be watched earlier via other sources. But the ones netflix produces them self are first on netflix. So third partie show have often been watched before netflix gets them

  15. European TV shows by hduff · · Score: 2

    I enjoy the European TV shows they carry.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:European TV shows by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Me too. I recently discovered Midsomer Murders on Netflix... It's a fun detective show and there are 18 untapped seasons!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  16. the real reason by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Netflix isn't Hollywood so nobody knows anyone or owes anyone anything. They HAVE TO succeed so they make sure the actors and writers and directors actually know what they're doing. So in other words it's the opposite of "This Is The End," which was a pile of Hollywood favor garbage.

  17. BS... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    One of the major attraction of Netflix was the big library with old series and movies, now with those gone and more of the same new crap, it's getting less interesting..

  18. Not the whole picture by DrXym · · Score: 1
    The quality of other content on Netflix has been declining for some time. It's hardly surprising that as the other content turns to shit their own might stand out a bit better. Entire TV shows / series as well as movies have simply disappeared from the service.

    Secondly, their service used to be all about relevance - start Netflix and you were recommended shows / films based on viewing preferences. But now they aggressively promote their own content whether the show is of relevance or not. New shows appear in enormous banners, and sometimes video clips as soon as you start the service

    So do people "prefer" their content? I don't know if that can be said because they have been systematically undermining the other content for some time. I also believe that if people were asked if they wanted Netflix to spend $100 million on a series they weren't interested in or $100 million to buy the rights to hundreds of quality movies and shows (not dreck) for a year that they might prefer the latter option.

  19. if only it's non-original content was good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A large majority of the Content is straight-to-dvd crap, or movies that had poor ratings on release. Some of the shows are missing seasons.

    It feels they cheaped-out on distribution selection (netflix Canada is laughably bad). But it doesn't matter. They have proven that people will watch anything, as long as it's convenient and not too expensive.

  20. D'uh! What stupid study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix original content is new, the other stuff is old.
    Netflix original content is few, the other stuff is many, thus distributes the user base.

    Really, the new content is watched more?

  21. That's because they are by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    If NBC was making Jessica Jones and Luke Cage (exactly as they are now) and syndicating them to Netflix, then Netflix's syndicated shows would be far better than their original content. Those shows are just that freaking awesome.

    A more interesting story would be to get into why the best stuff on "television" right now is being produced by Netflix and HBO, rather than the traditional TV networks and movie studios.

    1. Re:That's because they are by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      We've cancelled cable but last night decided to channel surf the airwaves instead of streaming something and the only thing remotely watchable was Lucifer on Fox. Everything else was dancing or singing competitions. The traditional stations don't appear to be even trying to make anything good.

    2. Re:That's because they are by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      We've cancelled cable but last night decided to channel surf the airwaves instead of streaming something and the only thing remotely watchable was Lucifer on Fox. Everything else was dancing or singing competitions. The traditional stations don't appear to be even trying to make anything good.

      The thing about those reality shows is that they are really cheap to make. What this is telling you is that the networks have given up on producing anything meaningful, and are just trying not to lose money.

      I've found on business trips that the only channel that *ever* has anything interesting on is SyFy, but that's hit-or-miss.

      The thing I found really telling was that Supergirl got moved from CBS to CW, and everyone associated with the show was happy about it. That's pretty damning. On CBS its average viewer age was over 55, and that was good enough to make it CBS's youngest demoed show. Think about that one for a minute. If you're watching a network show, this is who is in the audience with you.

    3. Re:That's because they are by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I suppose the over 55 crowd might be a good demo for them: expendable income once the kids are moved out, not savvy enough to have switched to streaming like the traditional core demo of young people. I'm with you there on SyFy... lots of crap on there when we had cable, but it was at least an attempt at good original fiction. When we cut the cable I bought The Expanse to stream on Amazon and was pleasantly surprised at the production and will be looking forward to the second season.

    4. Re:That's because they are by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      The only thing keeping my cable going is live sports. Particularly being able to follow my favorite EPL team streamed to my devices. NBC will stream you EVERY game the league plays to your computer or mobile device, but only if you can verify that you have a cable account. People in England don't even get that. A couple of weeks ago I had to go on a business trip, and just happened to get to watch the first half of my Spurs game while waiting for my bags and in the rental car line at MIA, and again in the same situation when I landed back in TUL a few days later.

      Its still pretty expensive to keep around just for that though. Probably going to get cut soon.

    5. Re:That's because they are by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I know! what is with that? Every network show is either a completely over-the-top drama or a formulaic competition show.... That's it.

      Add to that 20 minutes of commercials an hour and it boggles my mind why people do it...

      There is something to be said about mindless channel surfing... that is one thing about streaming services that I miss.... But not so much that I would go back to it.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:That's because they are by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      There is something to be said about mindless channel surfing... that is one thing about streaming services that I miss.... But not so much that I would go back to it.

      Actually, I've spent many an evening browsing through the Netflix or HBO streaming selections without actually watching anything.

  22. Oh, don't say that! (out loud) by doggo · · Score: 1

    "Netflix does best in the documentaries category, where users rate non-original content, on average, at 3.54."

    Great. Once the exec$ hear that that'll be the only original content we'll get. Why? Because just like reality TV, documentaries cost a lot less than original drama productions. And Crom knows, American business always goes for the cheap, easy, short-term, high profit product.

    While I like a good documentary as much as the next person, sometimes I just don't give a shit about The Ancient Aliens of Macchu Pichu, and I just want to watch a couple of episodes of Luke Cage.

  23. Their original content is 9/10 of what we watch. by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Their original content is 9/10 of what we watch, without it I don't think my family would continue to subscribe. Their movie selection is pretty lousy, and not getting any better, I'm sure the stiff competition limits what they can offer.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  24. Wrong Headline: It's the Crappiness of the Catalog by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Netflix originals sport an average rating of 3.85 stars out of five; all other content averages 3.47 stars.

    It's not that the original content is rated more highly, it's that the rest of the catalog is rated lower. And that's because Netflix has been squeezed by licensing costs and has thinned its catalog of high quality material. I don't need another supplier of original content, I need someone who can replace a great video store, with a deep collection of film that goes back to the 1930s, and up-to-date selections from today.

  25. Agreed by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    I might also point out that most of the non good content, e.g the bottom of the barrel IMDB movies were in fact produced by those same media giants that are so busy trying litigate their right to profit and force their completion out of business that they can't actually produce any decent content.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  26. Content Quality by phorm · · Score: 1

    Netflix's "original" content has improved greatly over time. In contrast - while they do have some good stuff - the available non-original offerings have gone down in quality.

    So really, this is kinda like saying "people love our house special more than anything else" when in reality it's partly because you've eliminated the other dishes that were popular.

    Not that this is all Netflix's fault, as much of the lack of content is likely due to licensing issues with Big Media.