House of Cards (Netflix)

[Temis the Vorta]

PS, I checked out Chosen on Crackle. Looks okay, but now that I'm used to not watching ads every 15 minutes, I can't go back, or it would take something pretty amazing to get me to do that. Sorry Milo, see ya on LA Noir or whatever they change the name to now that they're getting sued by the video game.

 

[RoJoHen]

So, how much time will Netflix give these original programs to determine whether they are a success or a failure? With regular broadcast TV, you base rating on how many people watched when it airs. With something like Netflix, there's no real incentive to watch a new show right away. I have lots of things in my queue that I want to watch before I watch House of Cards, but that doesn't mean I won't eventually get to it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Since this is such a new distribution model, they'll probably be patient and just see what the viewing pace is like for a show like this. The downside is that they'd have no real incentive to tell us what they're finding. Anyway, they're scheduled for two seasons of the show so that should give them a lot of data.

And then they can also use Arrested Development to see if there's a comedy vs. drama difference, and use Hemlock Grove to see if genre stuff plays out differently. Personally, I binge view comedy the most, genre stuff maybe somewhat less, but would be most likely to pace my viewing of a political drama.

They'll also look at the rates of new subscriptions and subscription cancellation around the time of a new series launch, vs usual patterns. These shows pay for themselves by attracting new subscribers and preventing cancellations, so any deviation from the expected can be credited to the new show (assuming everything else about their service is "normal" during that time.) But this is something else they won't tell us about, except maybe in generalities if the numbers are very good.

Beyond all this, there's the brand-building impact of a high-profile series starring Kevin Spacey. Netflix needs to keep building credibility with Hollywood (they are inundating deadline.com with ads for the show now) for future development efforts, so regardless of how well it does with customers, that's still important.

 

[RoJoHen]

Since this is such a new distribution model, they'll probably be patient and just see what the viewing pace is like for a show like this. The downside is that they'd have no real incentive to tell us what they're finding. Anyway, they're scheduled for two seasons of the show so that should give them a lot of data.

And then they can also use Arrested Development to see if there's a comedy vs. drama difference, and use Hemlock Grove to see if genre stuff plays out differently. Personally, I binge view comedy the most, genre stuff maybe somewhat less, but would be most likely to pace my viewing of a political drama.

Oh, it's definitely an experiment. I guess what I'm wondering about is at what point they will decide to order more episodes or to cancel. How long do you wait for people to watch the first season (or second, in this case) before you determine whether its worth making more?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't think they have a reason to care if people watch the show, per se. They don't get paid on a per-view basis, but by attracting new subscribers/forestalling cancellations, and that's something they can see a difference in right away.

The ideal series for them might be a show that nobody watches - but makes everyone think "I wanna watch that!" and either makes them subscribe or stops them from cancelling. (Realistically, if they never watch the show, at some point they will forget it exists, and then it will have no further value as glue to keep them subscribing.)

Hmm, they can see whether we add the show to our Instant Queue. So that counts, because it shows that we value it. Add the show to your queue and don't stress about when you watch it. They probably know the relationship between your queue length and the likelihood you will cancel your subscription. A queue with a lot of stuff in it is less likely to be abandoned. They should also be able to tell which shows are "sticky" just by sitting in your queue, unwatched, and how long the effect lasts. Damn, they must know a lot about us, now I feel paranoid!

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, they need to get to work on a space opera.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They need Star Trek! Seriously, even if I didn't like Star Trek, that would be my #1 piece of advice for Netflix. They've already got all the series on streaming, probably all the movies, so they must know exactly how big their fanbase is, and who to advertise to.

On another site where they were also talking about Netflix development, a bunch of people were squalling for Firefly (of course ). I felt like reminding them that with a big hit movie and another on the way, Star Trek is a far bigger brand name with the kind of drawing power Netflix needs, plus CBS has a good working relationship with Netflix and I'm not so sure about FOX, but also being a Browncoat, I figured I shouldn't start anything. It's just a cold-blooded business decision.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'd rather have a Farscape sequel than Firefly at this point, but yeah, Star Trek wouldn't be bad. Even a Star Trek miniseries would be kind of cool (and something the franchise has never done). The Trek universe is so huge that I think several 4-5 episode miniseries would be a cool way to have lots of different adventures without being tied down to anything.

 

[bigdaddy]

There has been rumors for years of a Firefly series of movies on Netflix, like making 1-2 every summer.

 

[lurok]

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!

True. Broadcasting will only really be relevant now for mass events like Superbowl or Olympics. Or Downton Abbey

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Can't speak for the US but here in the UK broadcast is as popular as ever. The same amount of people watch broadcast TV and last year the average amount of time actually increased. 80% goes to the networks and their digital spin offs, the rest to cable and digital. Then of course online catch up via iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD etc. are owned and operated by the networks themselves. But services like Netflix are add ons to TV rather than replacements, for the most part.

But I guess our TV environments are quite different. I get 150 channels and a DVR without subscription.

 

[tighr]

True. Broadcasting will only really be relevant now for mass events like Superbowl or Olympics. Or Downton Abbey

The same Olympics that for the last two times were streamed live in their entirety on NBC Sports website?

Or Super Bowl XLVI, which was also streamed live to NBC Sports website, NFL.com, and the Verizon Mobile NFL app?

I don't know enough about Downton Abbey to know if ITV posts those episodes immediately or if there is some sort of delay. I'm assuming by your post that all episodes of that show are available online.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I haven't tried - can you watch pro sprots live, online for no additional charge with no need to prove you have a cable subscription and no ads? I googled around and found something called NFL Game Rewind but it looks like a subscription.

I'm sure sports like everything else will be sold online if it isn't already. But sports fans have proven to cable co's that they are willing to pay up the wazoo for live sports, which keeps the price high so Netflix won't be able to afford to add live sports and keep their cheap prices.

Chart of wholesale cable costs. Notice how out of whack sports channels are compared woth everything else. The sports biz isn't going to undercut their ability to command those prices by giving away their golden goose for free.

As TV enters its death spiral, live events will be the last thing it holds onto, since ads can still be effective for something that loses value when its DVRed.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Now I remembered why I came back to this thread! How Netflix will judge HoC's success.

This is a clever marketing move for the streaming service, which costs $7.99 a month in the U.S. Netflix says this morning that for the month of February it will enable non-subscribers to see the first episode of its first original series, House Of Cards, at this web address. Members can see all 13 episodes of the political drama that stars Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright and Kate Mara beginning today. Investors and analysts will be looking to see how the production affects Netflix’s subscriptions.

...

Execs talked down the likely benefit from House Of Cards. “Some of us are optimistic that it may in fact be substantial, but we really don’t know and we don’t want to count on it until it happens,” CEO Reed Hastings said. Wells added that marketing efforts will be focused on “influencers in big markets.”

Imagine using the same approach for a new Star Trek series.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Well the fact they are making original content has been the decider on whether I keep Netflix or LoveFilm.

I've watched the first 4 episodes and I wouldn't say so far that it was fantastic but I like it enough to keep watching.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It could be that they're just looking at the impact pf new subscriptions to judge HoC because they aren't giving it a fair trial in seeing how it helps retain subscriptions.

I looked for the show on my Mac, my iPad and Roku. If I depended on just those for my new show recommendations, I would not know it existed! Okay maybe my Mac browser is so futzed up that it's blocking the popup ad for the show, but that could not be true for iPad and certainly not Roku, which doesn't allow for the same degree of customization /screwing things up.

On Roku (my main way of accessing Netflix), the show was not in my Top Ten or Popular on Netflix. It should have been there or better yet, advertised in its own special "ribbon" for new original content, so it was the first thing I saw. I literally had to type "h-o-u-s-e" into search to find the damn thing. Madness! I seriously wonder if there is some technical reason Netflix wants subscribers to not watch this show during the free trial period. Why would a company not advertise a new product to their captive audience of existing customers, who can be reached with ridiculous ease?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

It had it's own special ad and page on Netflix site for me and a special space for a trailer my Xbox a few weeks ago.

 

[PsychoPere]

It does seem odd that Netflix isn't consistently displaying the banner ad for the show to all users on the website. That's a definite fail. I can't recall if a trailer space like Bob mentioned was visible in the Netflix app on my Xbox at any time in the past, but I haven't seen any special notice about the show today when I've looked.

Speaking of failure... I'm not seeing any way on the show's landing page on the website to add it to my Instant Queue, which is just plain bizarre. I had to search for the show in the Xbox app to do that. That's a rather unintuitive way to add a show to my queue, and I can't think of any licensed shows or movies that I've had to add through such a workaround.

 

[RoJoHen]

It does seem odd that Netflix isn't consistently displaying the banner ad for the show to all users on the website. That's a definite fail. I can't recall if a trailer space like Bob mentioned was visible in the Netflix app on my Xbox at any time in the past, but I haven't seen any special notice about the show today when I've looked.

Netflix on my PS3 had a banner ad for "House of Cards" about 3 weeks ago, but it only showed up once. Pretty poor advertising strategy if you ask me.

 

[tighr]

Netflix on my PS3 had a banner ad for "House of Cards" about 3 weeks ago, but it only showed up once. Pretty poor advertising strategy if you ask me.

I got an email today telling me episodes were available. Pretty effective advertising strategy if you ask me.