Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Licensed Content Generates 80% of US Viewing, Study Finds (variety.com)
Netflix is spending a pretty penny on original entertainment -- but while that stuff grabs most of the headlines, it's actually licensed titles like TV show reruns that still form the core of the company's streaming business. From a report: That's according to a data analysis from 7Park Data, which found that 80% of Netflix U.S. viewing is from licensed content with 20% from original shows like "House of Cards" or "Stranger Things." The firm also found that 42% of Netflix subscribers watch mostly licensed content (95% or more of their total streaming). Just 18% of Netflix's U.S. streaming customers are "originals dominant," whose viewing comprises 40%-100% of originals, according to 7Park. The data is for the 12-month period that ended September 2017.
Netflix original content now drives 20% of viewership.
That's goddam amazing considering how long they've actually been making original content. OPs title tries to make this seem like a bad thing, it's not. Were they supposed to take 50% of all views within a couple years?
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Most of Netflix's content is licensed material, it would make sense that viewed content matches the same rough estimate of percentages.
I mean, they say it themselves, Netflix is *pushing* their original content and ramping it up. The numbers in those campaigns start low and then get high.
Who watches House of Cards or Stranger Things more than once, twice at most, in a given decades span of time, and this survey was 12 months long.
Perhaps original content viewership has been growing?
OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?
Currently I'm watching "Requiem" - a Netflix Original (according to Netflix), that I last noticed running on the BBC (BBC Wales), and was produced by the BBC, and was on BBCiplayer. So not really originally Netflix or?
What really matters is what percentage of Netflix subscribers decide to (re)subscribe due to the original content. Presumably, this will reach a point where it's profitable rather than dropping original content creation entirely. Alternately, luring away directors/actors/producers gives them leverage over the rest of Hollywood. If everyone with talent starts working for Netflix then who's going to make the next theater blockbusters? Not sure they can really pull that off, though, either.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I wonder what the % would be if Netflix actually had all content available.
there is much more licesed content available at this point, so the choice is bigger and the chance that you watch licensed content is higher.
for me, i think it's 50/50, i find the netflix shows very good and mostly only watch licensed content together with my wife.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Netflix killed it halfway through watching.
Those aren't bad numbers, they are bloody astounding given how small a percentage the original content is of the entire library. That pretty well confirms that their strategy has been highly successful which I am a little surprised at as there really isn't that much original stuff that is any good.
Netflix doesn't share this information. Which makes me wonder how they source their data, even they say it only includes desktop viewing, and excludes mobile and connected tv type viewing, which I imagine is now the bulk of Netflix's views.
They don't include margin of error and scant details on methodology, which makes me wonder how close I'd be to their accuracy if I pulled a number from my arse.
The NetfFlix library sucks! It amazes me that they have so many fans and subscribers. It annoys me that I pay them $14 every month.
Well, you can do what I did a couple years ago and just cancel it.
First I asked my family, "Hey, is anyone watching NetFlix anymore?" and when we all realized we were not, I canceled it.
Haven't missed it a bit.
New York-based 7Park Data, founded in 2012, is backed by investors including Mueller Ventures. The company sells data tracking Netflix, Hulu and Amazon VOD viewing to clients across the entertainment industry including studios, TV networks, production companies, and talent agencies.
It is absolutely stunning that a company whose clients include a lot of studios would produce a study that reassures studios that the bulk of Netflix users are watching studio properties.
It's also kind of amazing how absolutely devoid of any hint of methodology 7park's website is. They go on about "Streaming Audience Intelligence" and how it'll do everything short of blowing your dog, but never explain anything about how it's supposed to work other than some creatively worded statements that say it's better than a survey which are probably supposed to suggest that it's not a survey. I'm pretty sure it's a survey.
I subscribe to Netflix for one, maybe two at the most, months out of the year. During which time I watch all the original/exclusive Netflix content I care to and then unsubscribe. Puts me near 100% viewing of Netflix only content. It's pretty much the same thing I do for HBO Go and Sling TV (for ESPN during college football season). With a plain ol' antenna for OTA local channels, it works great for me. Plus I never complain about $100-200 per month "cable" bills.
The more important question is how many people signed up just to see the originals.
What*s the percentage of original content in the Netflix catalogue. I doubt it's anywhere near the 20% it generates in revenue.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I'd be pretty impressed if 20% of what the cable company carried was produced by them.
I'd watch more original content if they voice-dubbed the non-English movies instead of just having English subtitles.
Silly AC trolls.
I don't pay $14/month.
Among Netflix customers original vs non original viewing splits 20 - 80.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is completely useless without knowing how much of their content is originals. If originals only make up 5% of their total content, this is a freaking incredible number as it shows it is blowing out most of the other content. On the other hand, if it is 50% of their content, these numbers are terrible. As it is, this metric is useless without more information.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Sucks to be you / them, because it's the last "couple of years" that Netflix has really hit a decent scifi stride. "Stranger Things", "Altererd Carbon" (what the new Blade Runner should have been like), "Lost in Space", all their Marvel series...
But I'm assuming your a troll because your posting anon.
"Netflix Licensed Content Generates 80% of US Viewing"
To me means "of all US TV Viewing 80% is Netflix licensed content."
What they meant to say is
Of all "Netflix viewing in the US 80% is licensed content."
Do the /. editors intentionally support writing stuff like this?
Their misses far outweigh their hits. Their shitty standup comedy sp3cials alone put number every good piece of original content.
Not all anons are trolls.
But I agree that Netflix rocks!
I bet that none of their competitors will overtake them... not disney, not hbo etc
If disney does not want me to watch their content by yanking it from Netflix then I will simply stop watching disney content
I support Netflix in their quest to bring hollywood in to the new millennium... they are along with disney and others. .. still stuck in 1976 where VHS was launched ...Netflix is creating own content and that way battling geo blocking and other dinosaur stuff
Do you really think that disney content will be available worldwide for everyone from their streaming service?
Your other option is the lameness of wannabe YouTube celebrities. You can get that for free. Of course with YouTube red the ad free experience makes it great for nonfiction type content and some is good quality.
This combined with Netflix is a great viewing experience for a price that is kind of acceptable. I can't afford to pay anymore for entertainment of this nature. It works well on a very large WebTV that gives a good app or two. I don't even have the tv tuned or the free to air plugged in.
I just wish I could run the tv as a good Linux machine with wireless keyboard and mouse and maybe have a combination of MAME and Steam as a gaming service for $15 per month too. Especially if Nintendo got on board. I don't have my old GameCube plugged in and I've kind of stopped gaming except playing hearthstone occasionally and badly ony phone.
It kind of removes the need to torrent unless you're really determined to watch something that the Mafia studios refuse to release on YouTube or Netflix.
I can't destinguish the advantage of anyone continuing to give these other laggards business. They have behaved so improperly against innocent people in the past because they could not work out how to do what YouTube and Netflix do right.
Have you tried....not....watching them? I would projectile vomit if I were tied to a chair and forced to watch Fuller House. So I skipped over it on my way to the second season of Jessica Jones.
So what? Don't watch the ones you don't like and watch the ones you like.
In other news, you won't like the vast majority of music on [insert music service/record company/etc here]. You won't like the vast majority of books published either. You will see no use or value in the vast majority of software published. You won't like the vast majority of movies released. Amazingly you can just listen/read/use/watch the ones you do see as good/useful/whatever.
I had Netflix DVD delivery for a few years. Their back catalogue is huge, unlike what they make available for streaming.
Can't remember any "licensed content."
Streaming only?
> Not all anons are trolls.
Correct. Some of us just don't want to wake up one day and realize that Slashdot (or whichever site) sold whatever information we'd given them to the highest bidder. They'll have to do with my mostly crappy comments.
I remember when the first and second rule of the internet were: don't give your information to people you don't know.
Luckily shows you don't watch don't cost you anything, not even time, since everyone gets their own stream of whatever they want. So if they make a few shows that you really like (Stranger Things and Altered Carbon, for example) and you hate comedy specials, don't watch the comedy specials. Given how well Netflix understands their audience, there are guaranteed a bunch people who love the comedy specials and hate big-budget SF, and that's fine, too. Netflix isn't a mass market channel, it's a distribution mechanism to an infinite number of niches, because each show has its own audience it's targeting. And because each person gets their own stream unpopular shows don't mean they lost the opportunity to broadcast a more popular show (i.e. why broadcast TV always plays to the mainstream) they can afford to make 2,000 niche shows, and have 2,000 very happy audiences, which add up to a huge audience. Not bigger than broadcast TV yet, of course, but certainly bigger than the smaller cable networks - 117m subscribers in Q4 2017, according to https://www.statista.com/stati... .
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Hell Yeah on the Altered Carbon and Stranger Things.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I've thought that HBO and Amazon get at list half of views. This is interesting. I'm gonna post my own research at https://persuasivepapers.com/
Because the majority of their streaming content is old, stale or uninteresting. Thatâ(TM)s why.