[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Why doesn't Netflix make fewer originals of ...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Why doesn't Netflix make fewer originals of higher quality?
Wouldn't they get more subscribers?
Author : amichail
Score : 7 points
Date : 2022-05-12 21:25 UTC (1 hours ago)
| ThrowITout4321 wrote:
| There are a few reasons, I think they are trying to expand their
| catalog as fast as possible so they approved some very iffy
| content. They were quick to say yes as long as they thought
| someone would view it.
|
| I attended a preview of a NETFLIX movie similar to Braveheart. It
| was ok but it was no where near the quality of Braveheart. I
| think that speaks to the fact that they are just trying to build
| up content without attention to quality.
|
| Also, the way they measure success is by the number of viewers.
| That indicates that you have to produce content that reverts to
| the mean. Rarely is that the best quality. And, the dropping of
| whole seasons at one time makes it hard for writers to develop
| characters. So you get some very shallow plots written since you
| can get that done really quickly.
|
| It also makes it hard for viewers to get attached to the
| characters. I know I've watched a whole season in less than a
| week and have felt very unsatisfied. Similar to eating food just
| because it's available and you're hungry. I feel full and ready
| for another series. Yet, I barely remember what I saw and have no
| attachment to any of the characters. What could have been a great
| series is just a quick snack.
| Someone wrote:
| I would think quantity is more important than quality, as long as
| the quality exceeds a threshold that's not particularly high.
|
| Quality might _get_ more subscribers, but they also want to
| _keep_ them. To do that, there must frequently be something new
| to see.
| qgin wrote:
| It's hard to know what will be a success unless it's a
| rehash/remake. The Netflix strategy is to spend less per
| production on more productions to give more shots on goal. They
| can greenlight more productions and take more chances if each one
| is less expensive.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Higher quality means different things to different people though.
| For one group that loves really classy metaphorical big-picture,
| slow-burn thrillers, the workaday Virgin River drama is like
| listening to off-key elevator music. But for Virgin River people,
| who really live in the workaday fantasy realm, Virgin River is an
| addiction, if not life itself.
|
| I'd also wonder if part of Netflix's goal is making stuff that's
| high-enough quality to fit some part of a bell curve. This would
| mean making a lot of what amounts to low-quality content, to
| considerable portions of the Netflix audience.
|
| Upping the quality level could then essentially shift the area
| where Netflix fits the curve, and cause the outflow of a lot of
| subscribers who perceive that they are paying for more quality
| than they want or need.
|
| This could imply that your being here and asking this is just
| part of the way it works, given where you fall on some perceived-
| quality histogram, if there is such a thing.
| b-team wrote:
| Why doesn't my stock portfolio have fewer high quality stocks?
| mongol wrote:
| I believe in the long tail, but I am unsure if it can be catered
| for by a company like Netflix. Youtube serves it well, but
| imagine if Netflix produced a drama about systemd? Would you not
| watch it? I would.
| pjlegato wrote:
| Most media productions -- almost all -- are not profitable. They
| don't attract enough viewers to make back their production costs.
| A few productions are immensely popular and make back many times
| their production costs.
|
| It's not possible to predict in advance what media will become
| popular with consumers (and thus profitable.)
|
| Moreover, popularity/profitability does not correlate with
| production quality at medium and high quality levels. (That is,
| bad production quality rarely becomes popular. Medium and high
| quality may or may not become popular, and becoming popular is
| uncorrelated with production quality.)
|
| Since a) most productions are unprofitable; b) you can't predict
| which ones will be popular; and c) as long as you're at "medium
| quality" or above, adding more quality does not improve your
| chances of being profitable, the optimal strategy for content at
| scale is to invest in making as many medium-quality productions
| as possible. The risk involved in making a few high quality
| productions is much greater.
| amichail wrote:
| But won't subscribers be annoyed with having to look through so
| much content to find something they like?
| pjlegato wrote:
| Yes, a bit. Then they'll eventually be happy when they find
| something they do like. The recommendation algorithms help.
|
| If it was only a few high quality productions, the chances a
| consumer ever finds something they like at all is much lower.
| halfdaft wrote:
| Might be relevant: Netflix's big power clash and rivalries behind
| the crash - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31274642
| ipspam wrote:
| I think Netflix killed themselves with the focus group. Mostly
| mediocrity designed to appeal to a large audience, but satisfying
| no one.
|
| And don't get me started on the "normalisation" of groups X Y and
| Z, or the diverse stuff.
|
| Sense8 is a decent example. Had everything including out-of-body
| mind linked group orgies with every available sexual orientation.
| Lol! And it was entertaining,
|
| But guess what? Wasn't really that great. Haven't bothered
| watching season 2 or 3 and probably won't.
| spoonjim wrote:
| You cannot just spend your way into making higher quality
| artistic output. You can spend money to get from a $100,000
| 60-second commercial to a ~$1,000,000 60-second commercial and
| the difference in output will be immediately visible. But there's
| no way to achieve the highest levels of artistic achievement just
| by pumping more money in. It's like finding a jingle writer and
| telling him you'll give him a billion dollars to write a Beatles-
| quality album. He just won't be able to.
| handmodel wrote:
| I'm not sure if this premise is true. At the Emmy's last year
| they won for The Crown and The Queen's Gambit. Were obviously
| nominated in plenty of other categories.
|
| I generally prefer HBO Max in that if a new show comes out there
| is a much higher chance it is something I'll like - though
| Netflix makes so much more it's probably about even in quantity
| of shows I like.
|
| My guess is making shows is very expensive and a gamble! Plenty
| of projects that look good on paper get panned. Plenty of shows
| that are considered "crap" probably get a huge amount of views
| against their cost. I still think this is a semi-overlooked
| problem to have such a large brand, but ultimately tough position
| to be in.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-12 23:02 UTC)