Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Says People Watch Same Amount of Movies Regardless of Perceived Quality or Depth (news.com.au)
Two of the most common issues people have with Netflix is: the movie catalog is shrinking, and the quality of the movies aren't that great anymore. Netflix says it is aware of those issues, and it thinks, in reality, those factors don't really matter much as people end up watching the same amount of movies as they always have. From a report:According to the Netflix exec, subscribers spend about the same time watching movies on the service regardless of the depth or perceived quality of the movie library. "No matter what, we end up with about one-third of our watching being movies," he told the audience. Mr Sarandos cited two contrasting examples of the United States and Canada as proof of such behavior. In Canada, Netflix has five major deals with movie studios to use their content while in the US the company basically has none, with the exception of the recently signed Disney deal. Despite US subscribers having far less access to movies from big studios, both countries spend roughly the same proportion of their time on the service watching movies. Netflix believes that by the time many blockbuster movies make it onto the platform -- many months after being released in the cinema -- a majority of fans have already seen them. "If you were passionate (about a movie), you've already seen it," he said.
I havent watched anything on netflix in weeks precisely because I cant find anything with any quality or depth.
Am strongly considering cancelling my subscription.
This ala carte thing is really backfiring - as much as I dislike Comcast, there is something to be said for getting everything in one bill. When you add up netflix, HBOgo, hulu, CBS, Amazon, and your choice of Directv NOW, Playstation TV, or that Dish/sling offering plus a decent internet connection, its already more than the tv+net package from the cable company and the content we want constantly disappears or has some goofy restriction placed on it. The media companies are making this WORSE...
If the same holds true for television -- that people watch the same amount regardless of quality -- it explains why I get 140 channels and can't find a show worth watching.
From personal experience, when we want to watch a movie on short notice we will go to Netflix first. We've generally got a pool of movies in mind we're meaning to watch. If Netflix doesn't have any of them (a situation which has become more common than not) we'll usually just pick one that is there out of convenience. "Lots of movies, just not the ones you want" is not a great situation for Netflix to be proud of or even satisfied with. It's like they're becoming the online video equivalent of the stereotypical used car salesman from old sitcoms hawking their huge fleet of trashy cars, and 38 rusty Toyotas is not better than the BMW you wanted.
I cancelled earlier in November for this very reason. They've got their market all wrong. The biggest benefit Netflix had was the volume of movies that you haven't watched but had some interest in. To recharacterize thier users as people who watch what they want prior to netflix, is a big mistake because that's where netflix had its biggest value.
If this is the real reality, the price of netflix should come down to reflect the diminished quality and selection.
I'm at amazon now. Amazon and chill.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
There seem to be a lot of problems with this argument, at least as presented in the blurb (TFA is blocked at work.)
First, the amount of time spent watching stuff is a poor metric by itself. What you really want to know is the amount of enjoyment people get out of the service. Admittedly that is very hard to measure accurately, which is why they want to use "hours spent watching" as a more easily determinable value. However they shouldn't forget that the map is not the territory.
As long as people are subscribed to the service they're going to feel compelled to get something out of it. It's the old complaint of "a hundred channels and nothing is on", and yet people kept watching, at least until something better came along. For a lot of people if they have Netflix and they feel like watching a movie they're going to browse around until they find _something_.
And there's a strong corollary, if people feel like they _aren't_ getting their money's worth out, they're probably inclined to cancel the service. Which means suddenly they're not being measured in your survey anymore.
Of course what's being measured here is the balance between movies and TV, which _might_ not be affected by people deciding there aren't enough good movies on. However the above would still hold true if their (non-original) TV content had also seen a similar decline. I know a couple shows i used to watch have disappeared off of Netflix. Are there actually any statistics about the number/quality of TV shows they've had available over time?
Finally, saying that "a majority of fans" have already seen blockbuster movies is just dumb. Of course the "fans" who were "passionate" about the movie have already seen it. They're probably also the people who are going to buy it on DVD or BluRay. They are not your customers in this particular instance. The people who are waiting until the movie is on Netflix/Cable/broadcast TV are the people who said "that sounds kind of cool" but never got around to watching it before it left theatres. Given that they weren't gung-ho about it in the first place they're probably not going to want to rush out and buy the DVD sight-unseen, they're just going to wait until they can rent it or catch it on something they have a subscription for. There may be no one particular blockbuster movie that audience especially cares about, but if your service doesn't carry _any_ of the blockbusters then i expect that that's a serious mark against it in the eyes of many consumers.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Hulu actually has a lot of movies they offer, too... unfortunately, it's about the same quality as Netflix's library.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I've had Netflix for what seems forever, at least for 10 years or better. Bragging about that buys me zero credibility and a negative balance of /. stock, but here's why I think they are right: people seriously don't give a shit after a while and will side with convenience, comfort, and instant availability to satisfy all of our Alice in Chains 'feed-my-eyes' quest for immediate entertainment anymore, even if it's at the cost of some pixel depth and resolution crispness.
Not a single person can't tell me after spending almost the comparable amount of swiping time 'looking' for a show that it takes to actually watch one, you just finally pick something and watch it.
Heck, I can't tell you how many times I just wanted to watch a show I was jonsing to put on, that I own in that cute BluRay-DVD bundle pack, but was too lazy to go and physically put it in, so I sufficed the average HD/SD quality Netflix had to offer _for_the_same_show_.
Netflix has got it right and doesn't need to back up their claim with all the data you give them away to pillage, do big data on, run through Hadoop or whatever machine learning foo they have: We are going to watch it all in the end, regardless of what is/isnt there and what it's quality is, as long as it doesn't look too much like a 1980's Twisted Sister bootleg off a first gen tape PVR. That's how we are wired to act about this shit anymore. Anyone having a high-res flame war here is just wrong IMHO.
It's gonna be a hairy couple of years before the business models work themselves out and everyone finds a happy niche. Meanwhile, I'm off to pitch a gritty remake of...let's go with, uh, Jimmy Olsen as Elastic Lad.
I mean, what could go wrong? "People buy our stuff whether it's good or not! Surely, they will continue to do that forever. Dividends for everyone!"
The problem is too much choice and not enough quality material. If you have 4 TV stations, like the UK use to have, each of them has enough revenue to be able to produce quality programs that a large segment of the population will enjoy. When you have 100+ stations the audience is fragmented and most of the stations have less money since there re more staff to support and so they can only afford reruns or crap new shows which are cheap to make.
The same is true for streaming. If you look at the content on Netflix in Canada there are no real alternatives since Shomi shutdown and as a result the content they have is much better than the US. If you have 5 streaming companies then that same content will be split five ways and the money each has for new programming will be much less because now that same revenue has to support 5 sets of admin and support staff etc.
This, hard; Most people who watch movies as entertainment are going to be slow to adopt new hobbies. What the report really says is "bored people on Monday evening settle to watch movie they're not that interested in because they couldn't think of anything else to do." This is the precise arrogance that pushed Block Buster Video out of business.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]