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

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.

Comments

of course the do!

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:of course the do!

[nine-times]

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.

Re:of course the do!

[TheRaven64]

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?

Ummm...

[mhkohne]

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).

Re: Ummm...

[thundercattt]

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)

Re:Ummm...

[Shane_Optima]

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?

Different demographic?

[somenickname]

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.

Hmmm

[Archfeld]

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.

Re:But what about "its other content"?

[somenickname]

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.

Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

European TV shows

[hduff]

I enjoy the European TV shows they carry.