House of Cards (Netflix)

[J.T.B.]

From the trailer it looks like they are at least paying homage to the original. It starts in a similar scenario,[...]

Yeah, it's hard for me to see the motivation as being on the same level in the US scenario. Wikipedia says that the Spacey character is peeved because he wasn't made Secretary of State. In the UK, the big cabinet jobs go to MPs just like Urquhart and he had good reason to expect one, too. But it's been a long time since a US Secretary of State has been even a former US Representative, let alone being appointed directly from the House.

Lillyhammer wasn't a big hit apparently so they lack of DVD might not have registered with netflix customers but if House of Cardsis a bigger hit, and my hunch is that it will be, I wonder if there's going to be another shitstorm if DVD only customers feel shortchanged/forced to add streaming.

I don't see much justification for feeling shortchanged or forced. You want more, you have to pay for more, such is life.

Justin

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Netflix has had some trouble with unwise decisions causing customer furor. People don't need to be "right" in order to be angry, they just need to be angry. It's Netflix's job to figure out how to not create that situation again.

As for the motivation of Spacey's character, it looks to me that he's an antihero type - he's angry because he's egotistical and ambitious and he thinks he deserves the job. The audience doesn't have to agree - I don't give a flip if anyone in Washington gets any job - we just need to find him compelling enough that we're willing to go along with the ride, regardless of how odious a character he may be. And to accomplish that, it really helps to have an actor of Spacey's caliber. His personal charisma will be the reason the audience cares if some DC dickwad gets revenge for a supposed slight.

 

[Gaith]

Damn, it doesn't even show up as an eventual/unknown release in their dvd search!

Oh, well. There's plenty other discs to keep me busy...

 

[PsychoPere]

And where's the advertising?

For most of January, it's been prominently displayed at the very top of their website when logged in.

Lillyhammer wasn't a big hit apparently [...]

Netflix was apparently satisfied enough to continue with season two.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I've been seeing it at the top of their site and on my PS3 app as well. Might be targeted because I watched the trailer?

I will give the show a shot because I want to support the business model. But it does have to be GOOD. I never finished the first episode of Lillyhammer. It screamed mediocrity.

 

[sidious618]

Early reviews for the show have been VERY good.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I haven't seen a thing when I log onto their site. Oh Netflix. Was it something I said? Sometimes my reviews can be snide...

i'm really curious how they decide someone is or isn't worth advertising to. This is their only original show being released now, you'd think they'd just shove the ad at everyone.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Variety thinks Netflix is making a biiiig mistake.

... let's not forget that the whole point of Netflix embarking on an original programming strategy is to bring in new subs by offering a different value proposition. These are consumers who didn't feel compelled to sign on to binge on library programming, but they're interested in seeing a buzzed-about new show like "Cards," and other originals still to come.

So when new subs polish off "Cards" in less time than the month they paid for, they'll quickly have to confront the issue of whether they are getting their money's worth. Netflix is betting to work its algorithmic magic on these subs by getting them hooked on other programs from its library. But that's a risk because that's not primarily why these customers signed onto Netflix.

It's not like another original series will be waiting for them as soon as they're done with "Cards." The next series on Netflix's slate of originals, Eli Roth's "Hemlock Grove," isn't due until April and the revival of Fox's "Arrested Development" doesn't begin until May. Thus, getting new subs to pay for a second consecutive month of services becomes at least a little less likely.

But if the 13 episodes of "Cards" were parceled out in the traditional weekly, installments, you could hook a viewer to pay for at least three months instead of just one.

Yes, the binge opportunity makes Netflix all the more addictive. But compelling the viewer to pace their programming consumption will generate more revenue.

I'm not so sure about this - Netflix has no competition for "instant binge viewing." The only other way you can legally do this is by buying DVD sets of old series, and that's not instant. Since there's no competitor for subscribers to compare Netflix to, why would they feel disgruntled not to have the next binge series in their face right away?

Also, why assume that everyone will do binge viewing, just because it's possible? I think many viewers are so accustomed to once-a-week viewing that they might just subconsciously follow that approach, or a speeded up version, maybe one episode every other night, with other stuff in-between. What Netflix offers is not just binging but choice. You can view this series at any pace you want, that's what's new.

 

[cylkoth]

Ugh...I really hate the designation ''binge viewing''. I don't binge view, but I will marathon shorter run series on occasion. Longer run shows I'll watch roughly 4-5 episodes a month. And I'll agree that Netflix's strategy of releasing the entire season of an original production is a mistake, but not for the hysterical reasoning offered in that piece. Netflix is denying itself the tremendous promotional bonanza that having an original series delivers. I've always felt that the best thing for them to do was-as mentioned in the article, release the episodes in 4 episode volumes. It gives you something to crow about, it can drive interviews for cast in the media each month...once an outlet covers the show the month it premieres, there's no further reason to go back. With volume releases, guest actors can be chatted up over upcoming appearances.

There can be a certain logic applied to putting the entire thing out at once. Instead of Hastings using the book example, he should have used theatrical films. You pay upwards of $8 to watch a new movie all at once, and likening Cards to an $8 movie ticket would've worked alot better for the Hollywood press.

Another fault of that article is omitting the reason behind all pay tv services turning to original programming. HBO and Showtime went to war with one another back in the early 80s. Out of that war came the advent of exclusive studio licensing, each channel locking the entire theatrical slates of studios down, blocking the other from access. Both suffered as the pool of films shrank. And that's when they turned to creating content, to help pad the schedules now deprived of the latest blockbuster from a studio the other had under lockdown. That same dynamic is now hitting Netflix. But instead of focusing on that, most media prefer reveling in the shrill ''let's obsess over doom and gloom'' where this company is concerned. It's tiresome.

BTW, Sony owned Crackle, an ad supported streaming service has also released an original series entitled ''Chosen''. Starring Heroes' Milo Ventimiglia, it's 6 half hour episodes, available at all once. Check it out sometime.
http://www.crackle.com/c/Chosen

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Variety thinks Netflix is making a biiiig mistake.

... let's not forget that the whole point of Netflix embarking on an original programming strategy is to bring in new subs by offering a different value proposition. These are consumers who didn't feel compelled to sign on to binge on library programming, but they're interested in seeing a buzzed-about new show like "Cards," and other originals still to come.

So when new subs polish off "Cards" in less time than the month they paid for, they'll quickly have to confront the issue of whether they are getting their money's worth. Netflix is betting to work its algorithmic magic on these subs by getting them hooked on other programs from its library. But that's a risk because that's not primarily why these customers signed onto Netflix.

It's not like another original series will be waiting for them as soon as they're done with "Cards." The next series on Netflix's slate of originals, Eli Roth's "Hemlock Grove," isn't due until April and the revival of Fox's "Arrested Development" doesn't begin until May. Thus, getting new subs to pay for a second consecutive month of services becomes at least a little less likely.

But if the 13 episodes of "Cards" were parceled out in the traditional weekly, installments, you could hook a viewer to pay for at least three months instead of just one.

Yes, the binge opportunity makes Netflix all the more addictive. But compelling the viewer to pace their programming consumption will generate more revenue.

I'm not so sure about this - Netflix has no competition for "instant binge viewing." The only other way you can legally do this is by buying DVD sets of old series, and that's not instant. Since there's no competitor for subscribers to compare Netflix to, why would they feel disgruntled not to have the next binge series in their face right away?

Also, why assume that everyone will do binge viewing, just because it's possible? I think many viewers are so accustomed to once-a-week viewing that they might just subconsciously follow that approach, or a speeded up version, maybe one episode every other night, with other stuff in-between. What Netflix offers is not just binging but choice. You can view this series at any pace you want, that's what's new.

I thought in the US you had Amazon Instant and Hulu plus as well as Netflix on subscription, not to mention iTunes, PlayStation Store and Xbox Live for other paid on demand content?

Netflix certainly isn't the only option here in the UK on the subscription platform we have Netflix, LoveFilm and NowTV, with iTunes, BlinkBox, Xbox, Playstation, etc. for paid on demand. Though so far NetFlix is the only one with original content and it's managed to convince me to keep subscribing for that reason.

 

[lurok]

Looking forward to this as love political drama and Spacey. Feels like he hasn't been in anything in ages. Seen a couple of these ads round town. He's like an adopted national treasure here

Aren't Netflix also doing this prison drama Orange Is The New Black? Mulgrew's in it, and Jodie Foster has directed one ep.

 

[tighr]

I've always felt that the best thing for them to do was-as mentioned in the article, release the episodes in 4 episode volumes. It gives you something to crow about, it can drive interviews for cast in the media each month...once an outlet covers the show the month it premieres, there's no further reason to go back. With volume releases, guest actors can be chatted up over upcoming appearances.

I feel the same. I think the press you would get from releasing 4 episodes per month would grant a similar effect that the television networks get currently. You could parade your stars on Leno/Letterman/Jimmy/Conan just like the networks do. Its essentially like DVR except you don't ever have to hit record. I don't know how long it will take me to watch Cards, but it'll certainly take me less than the 9 months it takes to watch 26 episodes of a traditional show.

Along those same lines, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix starts releasing other types of original content, not just mini-series. What about signing popular vloggers? Create "talk shows" with new episodes released daily, for you to watch at your leisure. Compete with Leno/Letterman/Jimmy/Conan. Maybe start adding sports, or news.

Give people a reason to sign up for streaming and keep it (I do, but I know there are those who will keep it one month, cancel it, then a few months later get another month in).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And I'll agree that Netflix's strategy of releasing the entire season of an original production is a mistake, but not for the hysterical reasoning offered in that piece. Netflix is denying itself the tremendous promotional bonanza that having an original series delivers. I've always felt that the best thing for them to do was-as mentioned in the article, release the episodes in 4 episode volumes. It gives you something to crow about, it can drive interviews for cast in the media each month...once an outlet covers the show the month it premieres, there's no further reason to go back. With volume releases, guest actors can be chatted up over upcoming appearances.

For whatever reason, I haven't been seeing a whole lot of pre-release publicity for this series, but there's no reason they need to schedule the marketing to stop when the series is released. A new release format will require evolution with their marketing strategy, for instance, more effort on promoting word of mouth after the series launches.

The usual approach of spend-the-whole-budget-before-launch is driven by the fact that, that's the only shot you'll get. But now you don't need to worry about the show being cancelled or pulled for low ratings/box office, the marketing could be done as a slow build, or some other approach.

The other big change in marketing is targetting, so that everyone knows much more specifically who to advertise/promote the series to. This means that if you're not part of that specific target, you may see nothing. Kevin Spacey going on Letterman is the old type of mass media marketing, that reaches a lot of people who wouldn't be interested in the series.

The new approach might be online advertising and social media campaigns at targetted audiences - fans of the actors, fans of Fincher, fans of other political dramas. For instance, I've been seeing ads for the series on Deadline, because one audience they want to reach is people in the entertainment industry (which I'm not, but they don't know that.)

Thanks for telling me about Chosen, I'll check it out.

I thought in the US you had Amazon Instant and Hulu plus as well as Netflix on subscription, not to mention iTunes, PlayStation Store and Xbox Live for other paid on demand content?

So far, only Netflix is producing exclusive content that interests me. If I want something from iTunes or Amazon Prime, I could just buy it without needing any subscription. I also get Crackle (free? i guess I'll find out) but until right now, I've never found anything worthwhile there.

Maybe start adding sports, or news

Obscure sports maybe but the costs for popular sports like football are going through the roof. The way sports are driving cable costs up is a major reason why I dumped my cable subscription, it's only going to get worse.

Netflix stands to gain greatly from people like me, who are looking for a cheaper alternative and can do without sports entirely. Netflix is the a la carte option everyone wants. As for news, there's so much on the internet already, what angle could they take to compete?

Aren't Netflix also doing this prison drama Orange Is The New Black? Mulgrew's in it, and Jodie Foster has directed

And a horror series from Eli Roth and let's not forget Arrested Development! Here's a story on their plans.

"The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." Great quote!

 

[milo bloom]

I guess I'd rather see them dump the whole series at once. If all the other stuff they have isn't enough to get subscribers to stay, then it wasn't worth the show in the first place.

And maybe I'm underestimating the time it takes to get a show moving, but it seems to me like Netflix has certainly taken their sweet time in getting original content made. Even something like someone above said, about getting vbloggers and such to do shows would get some sort of audience.

 

[cylkoth]

And I'll agree that Netflix's strategy of releasing the entire season of an original production is a mistake, but not for the hysterical reasoning offered in that piece. Netflix is denying itself the tremendous promotional bonanza that having an original series delivers. I've always felt that the best thing for them to do was-as mentioned in the article, release the episodes in 4 episode volumes. It gives you something to crow about, it can drive interviews for cast in the media each month...once an outlet covers the show the month it premieres, there's no further reason to go back. With volume releases, guest actors can be chatted up over upcoming appearances.

For whatever reason, I haven't been seeing a whole lot of pre-release publicity for this series, but there's no reason they need to schedule the marketing to stop when the series is released.

I was thinking more on the media's drive for follow up interviews, rather than Netflix stopping promotion after Feb 1. If I'm an entertainment news editor, and I cover the show this month, what incentive do I have to greenlight additional coverage? You cover the Lead actors, supporting actors, guest stars, then, that's it. A genre show, you add in features about the special effects... merchandising, tie ins. For a weekly release, that gives you nice presence while it's hot. But putting the entire thing out at once, unlike a theatrical film, will the media feel that urge to continue normal patterns of coverage.

I also get Crackle (free? i guess I'll find out) but until right now, I've never found anything worthwhile there.

Yes, Crackle is free, and can be watched on the pc, with apps on the PS3, Xbox, plus Android.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If I'm an entertainment news editor, and I cover the show this month, what incentive do I have to greenlight additional coverage?

If the audience demands it (it gets good ratings) they'll cover it. But don't forget that the likes of Letterman et al are owned by megacorps who like to use talk shows as ways of promoting their own content. Netflix is still regarded as the enemy by many of those corporations, and that could inhibit them helping out with Netflix publicity. I'm thinking websites are a better way of spreading the word. Googling "netflix house cards" turns up a lot of stuff, so Netflix's PR dept has not been slacking.

Anyway, most of the publicity and advertising for any new series on broadcast or cable will hit just before the premiere, and then taper way off. At that point, it's sink or swim time. For a big hit show, there will be a new round of PR/advertising for each season premiere, but that's the same as with House of Cards. I'm sure S2 will have another promotional push when it's ready (assuming it's a hit, that is.)

Whatever PR value there is in doling out episodes isn't likely to be greater than the PR value of having a whole new system of episode delivery, which is what a lot of the articles are talking about. That alone is getting them a lot of exposure. Netflix will get a lot of data from users on exactly how they are consuming the episodes. If it turns out they don't binge-view after all, then Netflix can adjust their delivery style, but first they need to do this test.

 

[tighr]

The other big change in marketing is targetting, so that everyone knows much more specifically who to advertise/promote the series to. This means that if you're not part of that specific target, you may see nothing. Kevin Spacey going on Letterman is the old type of mass media marketing, that reaches a lot of people who wouldn't be interested in the series.

See, that's exclusionary. In order to make the most money, you need to have a broad spectrum advertising plan. If you target only those who already have Netflix, you gain nothing. If you target people who don't have Netflix, but may be Kevin Spacey fans or people interested in political thrillers, they will sign up for Netflix for the show, and then stick around for the other content available. Voila, new customer. People don't know they're not interested until they know it exists in the first place.

Obscure sports maybe but the costs for popular sports like football are going through the roof. The way sports are driving cable costs up is a major reason why I dumped my cable subscription, it's only going to get worse.

One of the things Netflix has going for it is that it is on demand. Sports don't have to be live; ESPN3 has already tapped the market of watching replays of previously played sports matches. NFL Network plays old football games all the time. ESPN Classic shows old events of all types. Just because I know who will win the game doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not entertained by the sport.

Netflix has an opportunity to fill that niche. Sports content owners charge billions to air an event live, but then typically never air that sport ever again. It is lost to time. Sometimes, they may release a DVD of an event. Netflix could be a new home for previously played sports. I would sit down and watch replays of old Olympics or college football or the X Games or Rugby matches.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

See, that's exclusionary. In order to make the most money, you need to have a broad spectrum advertising plan.

Not in the wonderful new digital world, it's all about narrowcasting and precise targetting now. The old mass market/Neilsens model is doomed. DOOMED!

If you target only those who already have Netflix, you gain nothing.

You gain added loyalty and less likelihood that they will cancel their subscriptions. The first job of a company like Netflix is to retain customers; then their job is to add customers. This is because the cost of adding a new customer is always greater than the cost of retaining one - it's the ounce of prevention/pound of cure idea.

I have no real idea what their marketing plan is, but it's possible that their target is only current Netflix subscribers (and Hollywood industry types). It probably does go beyond that, but they could have a very focused strategy based on affinities for premium serialized storytelling; dark political thrillers; Kevin Spacey fans; etc. I don't just mean targetting them within Netflix, but all over the internet. For instance, Kevin Spacey's Facebook page, or politico.com, etc.

Your idea about streaming old sports games sounds viable. I know new, live sports is a very pricey business but I'm sure there's an audience for baseball games from when current Netflix customers were kids, that they'd watch for nostalgia, or games from before you were born, etc. There's gotta be something like that already, and sure enough...http://www.freewebs.com/vintagesportsvid/ - doesn't look exactly legal, but it's the general idea.

The rights to that stuff should be pretty cheap, and it's the kind of niche audience stuff that Netflix should keep piling up. The gating factor is probably just staff time. Can you imagine all the specific tastes that they could be catering to? It must be endless.

 

[tighr]

There's gotta be something like that already, and sure enough...http://www.freewebs.com/vintagesportsvid/ - doesn't look exactly legal, but it's the general idea.

As I mentioned, ESPN3.

I was able to watch several college football games that I had missed later in the week, in their entirety. I could fast forward and pause and everything.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I'm a big Kevin Spacey fan, and it looks like this series is going to give him a lot of scenes to absolutely chew to pieces.

If nothing else, I'll give it a whirl on that merit alone.