People Like Netflix's Original Content More Than Its Other Content: AllFlicks (allflicks.net) 77
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 rating
Re: YEah (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 origi
of course the do! (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.
Re:of course the do! (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 sitc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Data without citation (Score:2, 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 actu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
But what about "its other content"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: But what about "its other content"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But what about "its other content"? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Ummm... (Score:5, 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).
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
Expect big media and their cable friends to clone the streaming idea and make their own "new" lock in stre
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the GOP has it's way.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 tw
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 d
Re: Ummm... (Score:2)
Different demographic? (Score:5, 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.
Hmmm (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Agreed (Score:2)
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.
Agreed (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't search on netflix.I use http://instantwatcher.com/ [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
Advantage (Score:2)
Shocking (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.
European TV shows (Score:3)
I enjoy the European TV shows they carry.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. I recently discovered Midsomer Murders on Netflix... It's a fun detective show and there are 18 untapped seasons!
the real reason (Score:2)
BS... (Score:2)
Not the whole picture (Score:2)
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
That's because they are (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [variety.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Oh, don't say that! (out loud) (Score:2)
"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 Ma
Their original content is 9/10 of what we watch. (Score:2)
Wrong Headline: It's the Crappiness of the Catalog (Score:2)
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.
Content Quality (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.