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.

Comments

On the other side of the coin:

[GrandCow]

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?

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[rtb61]

There is quite bit of difference between making content and paying a production house to make content for you. Still quite an impressive list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and it goes on https://media.netflix.com/en/o.... Of course http://www.news.com.au/technol..., NewsCorpse who own Fox, think it is a really bad idea, competing against their content is an extremely bad idea.

Now that explains why Netflix went from friend to last millenniums content dinosaurs to being the enemy to be cut off from content (I dare say, the more popular Netflix become the more they wanted to charge Netflix, Netflix's response fine, we will make our own, see you at the bargaining table).

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[ShanghaiBill]

Netflix original content now drives 20% of viewership.

Up from 12% a year ago. So the OC portion of their business is growing rapidly. According to TFA, they spent $8B on content last year, but it doesn't say how much they spent on licensed content vs original content. Their 2017 revenue was about $12B, so 2/3 of that went to pay for content.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[zifn4b]

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

Paid for by your friends at the cable companies. We're just looking out for your best interest which is paying 10x the premium for less quality content and don't forget our wonderful advertisements!

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Wild_dog!]

67% growth year to year then... that is pretty amazing.
Bet the rest of the content makers would hope for such explosive growth year over year.

Combine that with making a sizable profit to boot and there-in lies a recipe for a new paradigm for how people consume content in the future.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Oswald McWeany]

Netflix original content now drives 20% of viewership.

Up from 12% a year ago. So the OC portion of their business is growing rapidly. According to TFA, they spent $8B on content last year, but it doesn't say how much they spent on licensed content vs original content. Their 2017 revenue was about $12B, so 2/3 of that went to pay for content.

In general their OC has been good quality programming. There have been some misses, but certainly a lot higher % of hits than network TV. The problem is though, that they are increasing OC at the expense of catalogue size. There are far fewer shows available than there used to be. I guess the benefit for them is that they don't have to "keep paying" to offer the content because they own it, so eventually their catalogue will be bigger.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[ArhcAngel]

The problem is though, that they are increasing OC at the expense of catalogue size.

They aren't sacrificing anything. The studios they license content from are pulling content or increasing the the licensing terms to exorbitant amounts as they try to capitalize on Netflix's success or are terrified of it cannibalizing theirs...which in some areas it is. Netflix's OC of the Marvel characters was unexpectedly a huge hit. Which may explain why Disney is taking all of their content and rolling out their own competing streaming service.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not anywhere near as good as it sounds. They've been losing massive amounts of 3rd party content for years. It would be shocking if the portion of original content wouldn't be growing significantly when they've lost so much of the licensed content.

The library has gotten pretty bad and the tools for finding other content is still just as terrible as always. They rarely, if ever, have the things that I'm looking to watch and I probably wouldn't have an account at all if I had to pay for it as the content library is that bad.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[laird]

Quite a few networks are pulling more and more out of Hulu and Netflix and into their own site/application, for strategic reasons. Think of it this way - if you're making content, would you want to set up Netflix as the gatekeeper to all of your viewers/content, or would you want to control your own distribution? So while it's a hassle for viewers (all in one place is nice) I think that more and more content is going to be pulled from the aggregators. This might be good for Apple TV, which provides a unified user experience on top of all of the channel applications, so you can easily find and watch a show, no matter whether it comes from an aggregator (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon), channel app (e.g. Comedy Central, A&E, CBS AA, HBO, Showtime), a cable operator app (Comcast, etc.), satellite app (DirectTV). So while the world is likely to get more fragmented, there's some hope that it'll be unified by Apple and others, so people won't be forced to run a dozen different apps to watch their TV shows and movies.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[edtice1559]

But nobody indicates what % of the library is made of original content. If it's 5% of the library, it's performing really well. If it's 50% it's performing poorly in terms of viewership. Then of course their is the measure of cost/viewership but we can't even get that far with such basic information missing.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Oswald McWeany]

They aren't sacrificing anything. The studios they license content from are pulling content or increasing the the licensing terms to exorbitant amounts as they try to capitalize on Netflix's success or are terrified of it cannibalizing theirs...which in some areas it is. Netflix's OC of the Marvel characters was unexpectedly a huge hit. Which may explain why Disney is taking all of their content and rolling out their own competing streaming service.

Every budget is a sacrifice. If you spend more creating original content, obviously you aren't spending that money on existing content. It very well might be true that providers are yanking content away or raising costs; but it's also true that Netflix is no longer as willing to spend as much on non-original content and their budget has been redirected. It's quite astonishing the lack of variety on Netflix compared to 10 years ago. It used to be if you remembered a show you once watched (or failed to watch but wanted to), you could look it up on Netflix and it was almost guaranteed to be there. Nowadays it is almost guaranteed not to be.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[ArhcAngel]

The problem with that is each content provider now wants to be paid directly. Meaning a show I was getting on Netflix is on another service which wants my ~$10 a month for access to their entire lineup when all I want is the one show they used to license to Netflix. If I watch 10 shows in total I am now paying over $100 month which was what cable cutting was supposed to prevent. I foresee a backlash in the near future where content providers will learn (they won't actually learn they'll just blame pirates) they have cut off their nose to spite their face. Paramount is already flaunting this with their Star Trek pre-sequel. I doubt it is doing as well as they claim and I'm not about to subscribe just for one show.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Bengie]

80% of what I watch on Netflix is "Netflix original", but 80% of what I watch is not on Netflix.

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[LordZardoz]

Of course the more popular Netflix became the more they wanted to charge Netflix. Netflix negotiates deals based on being able to show the content for X number of years. Lets say you own SuperAwesomeMovie 7, and you make a 3 year deal. You may assume that only 15% of Netflix subscribers will watch the movie, so you make a deal for 10 million dollars. If a year and a half into the deal, Netflix overall subscriber base tripled, you are now kicking yourself because your now only getting maybe 1/3rd of what you ought to.

DVD sales used to be massively lucrative, and a solid movie would sell 1 copy per potential viewer. You set your initial price high, and lower it over time to maximize your revenue. Maybe your movie is not a blockbuster, but if it did better on home video then in theaters, you were doing well.

Netflix has killed that revenue stream. Instead you have to negotiate a good deal for streaming rights. Netflix will know exactly how often your movie gets watched and what it is worth to them when the time comes to renew the deal. You can only make an educated guess based on disclosed number of subscribers.

For movie studios, Netflix is that one poker buddy who keeps cleaning you out every week. You need him at the table to play the game, but it would be nice to win once in a while.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps it is because the only thing on NutFux these days is their crappy OC, so unless you cancel it, you are FORCED to whatch their Original Content.

67% growth in "viewing" of OC is likely because of a 67% decline of "other content not created by NutFux" ...

Re: On the other side of the coin:

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be if you remembered a show you once watched (or failed to watch but wanted to), you could look it up on Netflix and it was almost guaranteed to be there. Nowadays it is almost guaranteed not to be.

Since I don't remember this ever being even remotely true for their streaming service, I'll remind you that their dvd-by-mail service still exists (since that must be what you were thinking of)

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[CrashNBrn]

NewsCorpse doesn't have any content any more, beyond Fox News. They sold out to Disney.
See: Walt Disney buys Murdoch's Fox for $52bn

Re:On the other side of the coin:

[pnutjam]

Meaning a show I was getting on Netflix is on another service which wants my ~$10 a month for access to their entire lineup when all I want is the one show they used to license to Netflix. If I watch 10 shows in total I am now paying over $100...

Meaning a show I was getting on Netflix is on another service which wants my ~$10 a month for access to their entire lineup when all I want is the one show they used to license to Netflix. If I watch 10 shows in total I am now paying nothing and torrenting.
FTFY

Duh?

[TFlan91]

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.

Re:Duh?

[bickerdyke]

not quite. the long tail effect suggests that the majority of your content could never be bought, but you can still make a profit as there are no costs involved with keeping old content

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not too bright are you?

Re:Duh?

[jon3k]

This honestly looks like a hit piece. The fact that 20% of the content viewed on Netflix is Netflix original content is amazing, and growing very fast. I'd love to know what percentage of content Netflix's content represents out of the entire library. Probably a fraction of one percent.

Neat, a static picture of changing dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps original content viewership has been growing?

OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[jools33]

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?

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix participates in production of original material, but also the other parties have rights of ditribution.

Only a part of the netflix original content is netflix exclusive.

in other words:

original != exclusive distribution.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[jools33]

OK, thanks for the explanation, it clears up the definition a lot.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Carewolf]

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?

They use the term for both original and "exclusive" content. So it just means that no one else is running it at the moment in that area of the world...

Yes, they are intentionally lying and lying poorly.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Carewolf]

Netflix participates in production of original material, but also the other parties have rights of ditribution.

Only a part of the netflix original content is netflix exclusive.

in other words:

original != exclusive distribution.

No, they use the "Netflix original" for exclusive content they had NO part in producing. I have seen it applied to shows made in the 1980s.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[bickerdyke]

for example....?

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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?

I've seen similar labeling on Amazon Prime Video. An "Amazon Original" that I swear first aired somewhere else.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Austerity Empowers]

Netflix also provides funding for shows that may have begun on another network, but lost funding or whose target audience might be better served on Netflix. Basically they sometimes take a syndicated show that got cancelled and carry it on. I've seen it a couple times, but I can't at the moment remember where.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Wild_dog!]

I think Netflix buys into the production. Sometimes they just buy out an already popular show and take over production for the future. This has happened for some shows that were about to cease being produced, but Netflix picked them up and extended their production.

Reminds me of the rebranding at Trader Joes. If a product is very successful in their store.... then they will repackage it and sell it in their store, but under their own label.

Most Original content is all Netflix however.

So far their content is oddly and consistently of a fairly high quality. They are making some interesting things that I would not expect to see.
A month or so ago I watched an Arabic post apocalyptic movie that was entertaining. I had never seen a movie in Arabic. And the storyline was much as one would expect from the western world. I hope they keep making films by people from everywhere in the world. I like new perspectives.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Wild_dog!]

Lying seems a bit over-used in such a case. Parsing.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Wild_dog!]

Yep.... Netflix and Prime and Apple are buying up content and repackaging and also producing their own.
Pretty soon there will be a bunch of fiefdoms where all the content will be locked away in exclusive domains and to have access you will have to pay the gatekeeper.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Longmire

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Oswald McWeany]

Netflix participates in production of original material, but also the other parties have rights of ditribution.

Only a part of the netflix original content is netflix exclusive.

in other words:

original != exclusive distribution.

No, they use the "Netflix original" for exclusive content they had NO part in producing. I have seen it applied to shows made in the 1980s.

Hulu does this too. It's funny seeing shows that I watched play originally on the BBC being labeled as "Hulu Original" or "Netflix Original" years later in the US.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are intentionally lying and lying poorly.

Maybe to someone with aspergers like yourself. The rest of the world couldn’t give a shit less.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[laird]

They do tons of this with anime - presumably Netflix has a strong anime audience (my daughter, certainly) and I see tons of Japanese anime as "netflix original" - with Netflix credited in the show's credits. So perhaps Netflix licensed the content and paid for subtitling or something? I'm pretty sure that the programs were produced long before Netflix was involved.

Then there are shows like Travelers, which were produced internationally, where Netflix picked up the show for the first season, and helped finance the second season. That seems like a low risk way for Netflix to get programming, since it's based on watching their audience for the first season, allowing them to pick up shows that they knew that they have an audience for.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Carewolf]

for example....?

I saw it in Denmark when visiting. An old series for a local Danish tv-station was on Netflix marketed as Netflix original. It even still had the original TV station's logo in the corner (because old crappy content).

I don't see stuff that old regularly, but for content with "Netflix Original" moniker that Netflix had no part in producing, there is a small subset of a few hundred of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

These television shows, even though Netflix lists them as Netflix originals, are shows that have been aired in different countries, and Netflix has bought exclusive distribution rights to stream them in other various countries. They may be available on Netflix in their home territory and other markets where Netflix does not have the first run license, without the Netflix Original label, some time after their first-run airing on their original broadcaster.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Carewolf]

Lying seems a bit over-used in such a case. Parsing.

Are you claiming it the term is correct or that they are not aware they using it incorrectly?

It is not a big lie, but it is a lie.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Carewolf]

Yes, they are intentionally lying and lying poorly.

Maybe to someone with aspergers like yourself. The rest of the world couldn’t give a shit less.

You cared about it enough to reply with an adhomin attack on someone stating the obvious. That is a lot more than I care.

Re: OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they build their walls too high they will fall victim to piracy. The consumer can't afford to pay them all what they dream of. These industries are rich enough. Actors are overpaid and over idolised. Just give us an open market of content and let us watch what we want. But yeah basically, if it's not on YouTube or Netflix, I don't watch it.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Tyrannosaur]

After the fiasco with The Little Prince I got the impression that a "Netflix Original" is something they have exclusive rights to in the United States, and that the term isn't any more specific than that.

A description of the little prince fiasco: an adorable animated movie released July 2015 by Paramount... in France. They dropped the ball a week before they were supposed to release in the United States (after advertising october, december, february, and finally may), and Netflix bought the US release rights for August 2016. When I finally got to watch it I was very much taken aback at the "Netflix Original" branding.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

netflix paid for the entire production of the anime show sometimes, from concept to final product

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Wild_dog!]

I would say they are using the term more broadly than they should to keep with their marketing/branding of things. Basically, it is stuff Netflix spent a lot of money to make or have in their walled garden.

They have a label "Netflix Original" and they are applying it to 1. things they make themselves.... 2. things they they didn't start out making but are continuing production on and 3. Old dead series they outright buy and can only be viewed on Netflix.

"Netflix Originals" in essence is a marketing term to differentiate between Netflix Proprietary stuff and stuff they are licensing.

It wouldn't make sense for them to muddy the waters with a bunch of other terminology to define their main thrust of supplying OC for their viewers.
However some people may wish to spend time simply parsing definitions and that is fine.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[HideyoshiJP]

Stranger Things

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[swb]

Just what does "participate in production" even mean?

My guess is that mostly how Netflix operates is by just buying content from production companies that actually produce the shows (ie, cast, film, edit, etc). The non-American productions are probably just cash infusions.

I'm sure Netflix is building out their own production house, but there's a finite amount of available production talent and going to the extent of creating a full-service production company (sound stages, technical crews, post facilities, etc) may be more difficult.

Re:OK, but what does Netflix Original mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrested Development

Subscriptions Minus Costs

[mentil]

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.

Re:Subscriptions Minus Costs

[Wild_dog!]

I think OC is also about keeping the subscribers one has.
Subscribers stay put the more there is a steady flow of content.

Study finds people don't watch unavailable content

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the % would be if Netflix actually had all content available.

there is more licensed content

[sad_]

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.

Bring back Chuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix killed it halfway through watching.

Re:Bring back Chuck!

[Oswald McWeany]

Netflix killed it halfway through watching.

Probably for the best. Chuck was a great show in the early seasons, but each season got progressively of a lower quality. Netflix probably saved you from the last few seasons, which, honestly, probably shouldn't have been made.

Re:Bring back Chuck!

[gnick]

...each season got progressively of a lower quality.

Watch it backwards. That's what I'm doing with The Office. It really picks up when they introduce Michael and then keeps getting progressively better.

Re:Bring back Chuck!

[Oswald McWeany]

...each season got progressively of a lower quality.

Watch it backwards. That's what I'm doing with The Office. It really picks up when they introduce Michael and then keeps getting progressively better.

That's an interesting idea. But only if watching last episode first... watching the contents of an episode in reverse might be annoying, especially trying to understand what they're saying.

Probably even higher

[Carewolf]

The majority of "Netflix originals" are not original for Netflix, but licensed content, since Netflix use the "Netflix Original" as a common monicer for both original and "exclusive" content.

why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[gravewax]

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.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[edtice1559]

What percentage is original content. It's driving me bonkers that I can't find those numbers. Without them, this whole discussion is a waste.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[thegarbz]

Before you look at it on terms of percentage of library maybe consider looking in terms of percentage of costs. If I were an investor I would be alarmed at this considering the expense.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[Rob Lister]

I suppose it depends on how you count it.

Netflix currently has about 300 original titles (depending on how you define original) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Instant Watcher counts 5682 total Netflix titles. http://instantwatcher.com/sear...

Let's call it 5%

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[edtice1559]

So the original content is 4x as popular at he crap they license. So if it costs less than 4x to produce, seems they should make a ton of it.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[gravewax]

own content is far more valuable as it is immune to being screwed over by licensing deals (like those that Disney are currently screwing them with) and it can be onlicensed to other providers. If I was an investor I actually much prefer seeing the fate in their own hands rather than the hands of their competitors.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[thegarbz]

own content is far more valuable

You should see my holiday videos.

Does that scare you? It should. They are horrible. And my point is that own content is not valuable at all if it isn't watched. If you were an investor the increasing gap between profit and revenue despite the increasing subscription fees should alarm you. It isn't something that can survive on "we make a loss on every unit sold but we'll make it up in volume" kind of scenarios.

Netflix needs viewership of their own content otherwise along with a large expense the net result is that people will go elsewhere for the content they want. Remember, Netflix broke the cable model, their customers are mobile, and their competitors have half of the cost of content to weigh down on the bottom line (literally Netflix spends more on content than Hulu and Amazon put together).

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[gravewax]

and viewership of their own content is what they have. These numbers are very good. What they have traditionally struggled with is the escalating costs of licensed content where they have zero control, huge risk and ongoing exposure to deal changes AKA Disney. the own content is a direct result of those increasing costs risks and margin attack which would ultimately lead them to a death that is not in their control.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[thegarbz]

and viewership of their own content is what they have. These numbers are very good.

... I don't know how you can justify that post.

Re:why does the summary suggest this is negative?

[Anonymous Coward]

how can you not, the numbers are right their in the article. despite having only a tiny percentage of original content it makes are a significant percentage of viewing.

great for torrents

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the whole series in one go and move on. Their business model of releasing everything in one go makes torrenting so easy

Re: great for torrents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

According to who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

When 98% of the content is "licensed" and only 2% is original content, it would be expected that most will watch licensed content.

It's far more interesting that such a high percentage focus on the original content, until you observe the "quality" of the licensed content. TV shows and crappy B and C grade movies?

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.

Re:Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Exactly!

[Wild_dog!]

I don't pay $14/month.

Re:Exactly!

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

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.

Re: Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their misses far outweigh their hits. Their shitty standup comedy sp3cials alone put number every good piece of original content.

Re: Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Exactly!

[Uberbah]

Their shitty standup comedy sp3cials alone put number every good piece of original content.

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.

Re: Exactly!

[nedlohs]

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.

Re: Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re: Exactly!

[laird]

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... .

Re:Exactly!

[jwhyche]

Hell Yeah on the Altered Carbon and Stranger Things.

I, for one, am shocked

[GrumpySteen]

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.

Guess I'm An Exception

[tgeek]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The more important question is how many people signed up just to see the originals.

Re:The more important question

[Wild_dog!]

Although an important question as to how OC drives new subscriptions I believe OC is also about keeping active users on the hook.

Netflix subscriptions continue to grow and I seem to vaguely remember reading something about an acceleration in growth coinciding with the advent of OC on Netflix.

Since Netflix seems to have a declining streaming catalogue and and increasing OC catalogue, it would seem that current users are staying put because there is new material to watch and those signing up could be coming to Netflix for the existing catalogue with its convenience of streaming or/and the OC.

Might be hard to separate why new people are signing up without a formal survey.

Re: The more important question

[Anonymous Coward]

People are becoming increasingly fed up with the low quality of most of their original content, though. Itâ(TM)s now becoming a joke and a meme.

LOL You american dumb fucks are so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They lied about Iraq

They lied about Libya

They're lying about Syria

You people are so fucking stupid

Remember this photo of a kid laying next to her âdeadâ(TM) parents who were âkilledâ(TM) by Assad and this photo went viral and got thousands of retweets and had people crying all over Twitter?

Fake! All Fake!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...

Re:LOL You american dumb fucks are so stupid

[Wild_dog!]

Silly AC trolls.

Re: LOL You american dumb fucks are so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Putinâ(TM)s Lackey.

The real question

[Plumpaquatsch]

What*s the percentage of original content in the Netflix catalogue. I doubt it's anywhere near the 20% it generates in revenue.

Re:The real question

[Rob Lister]

See above. Roughly 5% is original titles, depending on how you define 'original'. If we're counting hours, it would be far less.

well

[cascadingstylesheet]

I'd be pretty impressed if 20% of what the cable company carried was produced by them.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges. The cable company shows everyone the same show at the same time. You don't get a say.

Dub

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd watch more original content if they voice-dubbed the non-English movies instead of just having English subtitles.

Re:Dub

[Anonymous Coward]

What sucks most is the movies where the English SDH only shows English subtitles for the actors speaking English while the Spanish dialogue is not subtitled at all (unless you change to Spanish subtitles where both English and Spanish audio is subtitled).

Re:Dub

[Wild_dog!]

I switched 3% to Portugues on my Apple TV to watch it in Portugues instead of the lame dubbed version they had. Just put the english subtitles on so my wife could follow along.

Not a big fan of dubbed things except when it is Anime or something.

80% of *Netflix's* viewing

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No non-original Netflix content is not the 80% of *all* US Viewing.

Among Netflix customers original vs non original viewing splits 20 - 80.

Re:80% of *Netflix's* viewing

[mysidia]

The author of the article misses the point.... licensed content will likely ALWAYS be a majority of Netflix's viewing --- Original content is not a replacement for the licensed stuff, in the sense that they need movies from other studios in order to have a reasonable selection; However, by having an increasing amount of Netflix Original content they are increasing the barriers against a competitor very easily starting a comparable service and just licensing all the same stuff non-exclusively, AND Netflix Originals also gives potential-cord-cutters on the fence an independent reason to consider Netflix even if they keep TV and keep buying movies, because there will be stuff they can't watch on TV without Netflix.

Re:80% of *Netflix's* viewing

[UnknownSoldier]

> AND Netflix Originals also gives potential-cord-cutters on the fence an independent reason to consider Netflix even if they keep TV and keep buying movies, because there will be stuff they can't watch on TV without Netflix.

I guess you missed the news last week -- Comcast announced will be bundling Netflix:

In a statement on Friday, the companies said Netflix will be available later this month through various Xfinity TV packages delivered through Comcast's X1 set-top box.

If I'm reading that right it sounds like you can watch Netflix through the X1 box?

Re:80% of *Netflix's* viewing

[laird]

Exactly - the licensed content is essentially the same on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Apple, etc., because _anybody_ can license network content, pretty much. The exclusive content is a big differentiator - you have to pay for Netflix/Apple/Hulu/Amazon to get their original and exclusive content. So even if it's a small percentage of what people watch, it may well be a large factor in how people decide which streaming service to subscribe to.

Half data is useless

[dirk]

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.

Bad title

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that Netflix start an original series about a narcissistic, misogynist horndog who creates a huge social media company and then manages to create the largest privacy-invading database of all time, involving almost everyone on the planet who has ever toughed a data network (phone, computer, ATM, credit card, paid a bill, email...) and blatantly lies in front of the US Congress when asked if he sells the data.

Oh wait, that's Zuck.

Donâ(TM)t care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is wasting billions on shitty original content. When they started everything they put out was a hit. Now itâ(TM)s just a flood of awful documentaries, idiotic standup specials, and cringeworthy shot like that lampoon on a,erican summer movies and shitty Adam Sandler movies or dull as fuck sci if where nothing happens.

Is viewership of their content growing? Of course â" because their licensed library is neglected and getting shittier every month. Just fucking give me a huge library of content and leave your 20 original female lead crime dramas and ironic teenage love comedies behind.

minus 4, troll)

[Anonymous Coward]

brilliant plan keed to be Kreskin can# reaaly ask of How is the GNAA a full-time GNAA your spare time continues toChew

DVD Netflix or streaming only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

peculiar

[adelaidepalerma]

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 itâ(TM)s great content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the majority of their streaming content is old, stale or uninteresting. Thatâ(TM)s why.