I wonder how much of Netflix's success is that its show are good, and how much is that they are easy to watch.<p>Anytime I want to, I can go to Netflix and watch any episode of their shows. I ca watch the first season; I can watch the intervening seasons; I can watch the current season. There are no blackouts; there are no embargoes.<p>I can binge-watch if I want, or I can pace myself, at <i>my</i> pace.<p>Compare that to the big companies' offerings, where I may be able to watch every episode this season, but not get started by catching up on previous seasons (I know that they hope I'll pay up for boxed sets of those early seasons, but I'll just skip their shows altogether instead), or I may be able to wath previous seasons but not the current one, or (my favourite) I can watch previous seasons and recent episodes but not early episodes this season.<p>Why would I want to get involved with a show which is such a pain to watch?
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License.<p>I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you access to everything the BBC offers, except what they broadcast live (and maybe online news), which you get for free (the exact opposite of how they charge now).<p>A much better proposal for the streaming generation, essentially a tax-cut for the older generation, and none of the nasty TV License policing issues.
In addition to it; netflix actually knows that when you watch a series you don't care about already seen episodes. Good old TV never really labeled episodes correctly and is a pain to use when you are just interested in the next you haven't seen.
In netflix it is painless.
Yes, the feature is simple, but still I value it every time i can just watch the next episode ( or pick up where left in the middle of the episode).
Don't know if the catalogue is the same here in the UK than in the US, but in the UK Netflix is only good for TV shows. The movie offering is very light. The other thing is the lack of offline viewing, which is useful when travelling.<p>The media industry is so backward. I can't believe most of them still live in the 90s and these problems haven't been solved yet.
What is the purpose of this article? Was it really some random person SO EXCITED about a video streaming company? I struggle to find a thesis here. Do people need an entire essay that just says "Netflix is making money and producing content"?
We are huge Netflix fans (my wife and I have our own streaming accounts, which is stupid now since they offer family options for separating play lists). That said, I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials, is also a fine product and Hulu is owned by the large network stations.<p>We get Amazon Prime free shipping via my brother's business so we have not signed up ourselves and don't get the free Amazon Prime content which friends and family members say is amazing.<p>The thing is: there is so much good content that it is fine, at least for me, to not have access to everything.<p>Another distribution model that I like is Google Play Movies and TV. It is a little pricy but I wanted to watch the Worricker Triliogy (fantastic!!) the the new scifi Expanse and it was so very convenient simply buying both series and watching them anytime on any device. If the cost was a little less, and if Google Play had most content, I think that I could be happy with a completely a la cart pay per view experience.<p>A suggestion for anyone working in this industry: when content is rented, offer a purchase option that is valid for a week. Sometimes I have rented movies and liked them enough that I would pay the difference to own permanent viewing rights.
It should however also be noted that the people who rate stuff on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes (namely, people who go on the Internet to look at movie reviews, discuss, rate etc.) are also probably most of the target audience for streaming services in general. While "Big TV" also caters for the older demographic, people who like reality tv (yes, apparently they do exist, I don't know...) etc., which still make up probably the majority of the viewers. Things will most likely change in the next decades, when the older viewers die out and a whole generation expects streaming and on demand and maybe even expect "stuff that is not shit" on TV - though I won't hold my breath for the latter.
Looking at the top series, they're all semi-obscure or obscure, early seasons of very new shows. This means they follow some key trends: obscure things typically have higher ratings in general than the mainstream, because you're unlikely to hear about them / watch them if you're not already in some narrow niche. Compare that to something like The Big Bang Theory, where people watch it just because it's on.<p>Ratings also tend to go down as a show matures, both as the quality and novelty drop off (even The Wire has its critics of the last season) and as the show is exposed to a wider audience.<p>Taking this into account, I don't think user ratings are the best measure of a show's appeal.
I don't think online reviews are a good reference for TV shows. My impression is that, different of movies, only fans do reviews. So the average TV show rating is much higher than for movies.<p>And I also have the impression that Netflix shows have a stronger "fan review only" effect, as you must be proactive to start watching that show on the first place.<p>Another effect is that for movies, after you decide to watch it is easier to get to the end even if you are not liking (more so if you are on a theater). So most people watched 100% of the content. If you don't like a show, you do not pass the first episode. So if you did not watched more than 10% of content, I assume you won't feel confortable with giving a negative review.<p>So that is why I dont trust reviews for TV shows
Hollywood is ripe for disruption. They remind me of the old 1970s auto industry: fat, happy, and stagnant. They don't do "plot" anymore, churning out nothing but totally formulaic rehashes and reboots and franchise flicks. I don't think viewers are as dumb as Hollywood thinks. Hollywood gets away with this schlock because they have little competition at the high end of film making.<p>Netflix can do what the Japanese autos did: start at the lower end with good but inexpensive TV shows and then eat up the value chain until they are producing blockbuster flicks of superior quality at a lower price. Give me a great blockbuster movie with an actual plot and actual dramatic tension and it's game over.
Another interesting thing to see is the response by a lot of those inside the television content industry.<p>Many of the companies that produce content are retooling and reorganizing specifically to deliver that content over the internet. None of them want to use Netflix, instead wanting their own service, but the growth of such streaming services has emboldened them. They both see that it's possible to go directly to consumer, -and- that it will be necessary at some point in the future, as the increase in cord cutters means less money on the incumbent TV providers to pay them with in contract negotiations. They realize they either are looking at ever dwindling fees, and thus, dwindling business, or they have to be able to circumvent the existing distributors.<p>So it's not just that Netflix is managing to create great content; its mere existence is leading to much of the content that TV distributors currently have a stranglehold on to be distributed directly by the content company.
While I think it's pretty f<i></i>*ing obvious that traditional TV channels are going to be in a lot of trouble in the years to come, I couldn't verify his statement that "Netflix now produces 3 of the top 5 rated video series according to Rotten Tomatoes". I did find the exact list he posted under "Top TV Comedies"<p><a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/#" rel="nofollow">http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/#</a><p>Also, on their "Top 10 TV Shows 2015", I only see two Netflix shows in places 8 and 9 on the list.<p>Netflix do produce some top quality shows, but the aren't currently killing it as much as the author claims.
Netflix has it easy on content production, all they need do is fill evening TV viewing for a younger generation, and content that can be put in front of children.<p>They do not have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content, Netflix is all killer no filler in terms of content production.<p>And it turns out, that that's only a few hundred hours of TV per viewer per year, many of whom belong to those same small demographic groups that share great overlap in interest.<p>BTW, I'm really glad they turned down Top Gear whilst at the same time producing shows like Jessica Jones. One seems so dated and a decade ago whilst the other feels now or from the future.
And Netflix is the only source of UHD, at least in my parts of the world. Which made me pay them even more for that subscription now when I bought a UHD TV last week. Oh, and I just ended my good old regular cable subscription one month ago.
The key is how are the younger generation consuming tv content? My daughter and all her friends love YouTube, Netflix, etc. They don't bother with cable.<p>That's where the future is heading, me thinks. And yes I have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. Sure the cost pretty much equals what I would pay for cable but I prefer this way.
Marco Polo — 92% (Fun Fact: Critics rated it 24%. How’s that for incongruity?)<p>Narcos — 94% (Another crazy disconnect as critics only rated it 78%)<p>The author preaches shows produced by data driven companies, then when a rating data driven company has results he judges abnormal to his taste he insinuates something is wrong.<p>Personally, I found Marco Polo okay, the visuals are good, but the plot got boring after a while. I would not give it more than 50%. As for Narcos, 78% seems legit, I found the whole traditional drama show mixed with documentary interventions awkward. And would not give it more than 75%.<p>As for the article, of course linear TV is going to get disrupt. But I doubt Amazon or Netflix will get a monopoly. AMC and HBO will simply put their content online, and TV providers will make their revenue loss from linear TV on higher internet consumption.
Netflix content is indeed amazing, Narcos is my favourite show by far, house of cards and others are also top notch.<p>In the beginning I was always wishing that Netflix would get famous TV shows/ new movies to the platform ASAP.<p>Now a days I really want to see more of their own content in the platform instead.
I wonder if ratings are higher because viewers don't have to endure annoying commercials?<p>To me, the absence of commercials definitely makes the experience far more enjoyable, and I can better relate to the stories and characters when the experience isn't constantly interrupted.
So here's the catch 22. The Hollywood content producers and deliverers won't just sit back and let Netflix and Amazon eat their entire lunch. They will fight back, and presumably with their own streaming services. So we will have a proliferation (more so than now) of services to get specific content through. Usually this is a good thing. People want choice and choice breeds competition which is good for consumers. However in this instance most people I know, myself included, just want one streaming service to subscribe to so it's not such a hassle. But wishing for that is like wishing for Hitler to be replaced with Stalin. It will end poorly with just another monopoly taking the place of the old.
Other than a few good streaming shows you're left with the leftover movies that the studios are willing to license to them. Most of the good stuff you have to get through other means. Sometimes I miss blockbuster.
I'm an Australian. I barely watch television any more. The TV Networks have basically screwed over Australians for a long time. We don't get the same content at the same time as the rest of the world, it gets shown out of order and at times they even missed entire episodes.<p>The only thing that the TV networks might have had going was to produce their own drama. They didn't - they just produced home improvement shows in the 90s, and really bad reality TV in the 2000s. Very little in the way of drama, and what <i>was</i> created was dross.<p>So, goodbye TV! Hello Netflix!
It'll get interesting when they make the first play for sports rights. Not because I think it's necessary or anything but that would be a pretty strong signal for the general audience that the paradigm has shifted.
I think streaming quality isn't quite there yet but there's plenty of not super premium content they could try.
Why is the argument framed as Netflix against the other TV companies? That is wrong. I don't think people care who makes the show as long as its good and available/accessible. They will all change one way or the other. Their viability in the long run will depend on how good their online offerings are. We are still in the nascent stages of this.<p>The big issue here is the service providers like Comcast will be relegated to becoming purely pipe providers as they are supposed to be. They are getting hit from both ends by Google and Netflix.
They spent the last 10 years conducting massive studies of what people like to watch.<p>If they weren't able to come up with some hits after that, then they weren't trying.<p>Somewhere behind the scenes, Netflix is applying sabermetrics to Hollywood.<p>Except it's worse than in baseball... Unlike Oakland, all their competitors (except maybe Amazon) can't just copy their approach, because all their data is private, not public.
As long as netflix can dump cash to generate quality original content they will have great success.<p>Redbox likes to advertise "not on netflix for years" on certain titles.<p>And they are right.<p>For someone who never goes to theaters like me, I hope redbox stays in business.
Mom: "We got Sky now, so many channels and we get the newest Soccer and Movies!"<p>GF: "Oh nice... so where can I choose the movies?"<p>Mom: "You select the movie channel at 20:15 and it shows it"<p>GF: "What? I that's in four hours! Who pays a company to wait? This sounds like Netflix in bad to me..."<p>Classic cable TV is basically dead.<p>First Netflix&co had better airing times (on demand, haha) and now they invest in better shows.<p>Besides Rick and Morty and Game of Thrones, every show I watched last year, was made by Netflix or Amazon.<p>And this seems to be a good thing. Just look at stuff like orange is the new black. These new producers are far less conservative than the old media companies.