|
|
|
Contributors | Messages | Polls | Resources |
    |
 |
|
Comments
Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
 dmendyk
4/12/2016 3:53:23 PM User Rank Platinum 
Apples and pears?
I wonder how this survey was conducted. The fact that the vast majority of HBO subscribers are through conventional video while Netflix is OTT makes this kind of polling hard to do. Also, it's not like most people have access to all of the services included in the survey.
 Ariella
4/12/2016 7:44:28 PM User Rank Author
Re: Apples and pears?
@dmendy I went over to the Variety article to check it out. What really surprises me is how much people are willing to spend for so many television services. How many hours a day are they all watching, I wonder. From the article:
At the same time, Netflix customers are more likely to also subscribe to HBO, Showtime or Starz than non-Netflix subscribers. About 49% of Netflix members say they have an HBO subscription and 35% pay for Showtime (compared with 40% and 28%, respectively, of total respondents). "Netflix members continue to be heavy TV consumers, and actually overindex to premium networks when compared to the overall survey population," Swinburne and the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote. dmendyk
4/13/2016 8:28:02 AM User Rank Platinum
Re: Apples and pears?
So the back of the envelope tells us that most of the people who responded to the survey can't really judge comparative quality because they don't have access to all the different services. Rather than read this as some sort of validation of quality, the fact that Netflix is now perceived as a content leader, at least among the streaming set, is the bigger news nugget.
 elizabethv
4/13/2016 7:57:39 AM User Rank Platinum
Re: Apples and pears?
You make a great point, most users likely don't have both Netflix and HBO to make a true judgement. (But then the same could be said for previous years, most HBO subscribers likely didn't have Netflix as well.) Maybe you could only vote if you actually had both? But then they weren't even the only ones being considered. Either way, I'd wager series like "Making of a Murder" and "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" all had a lot to do with that popularity.
 afwriter
4/12/2016 10:27:18 PM User Rank Platinum
Stand Alone Services
I wonder how this will affect the stand alone services from HBO and Showtime. I wonder if they will pull out or pour more money into them.
 Michelle
4/13/2016 2:18:37 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Stand Alone Services
@af I think they'll pour more mony into the a la carte services. They just launched add-on subscriptions for Roku and Amazon streaming. They're playing the long game.
Ariella
4/14/2016 3:23:01 PM User Rank Author
Re: Stand Alone Services
@Michelle well, I can see the appeal of that for cusotmers who really only want one or two shows carried by a channel that they are willing to pay for rather than subscribe to the whole thing with a lot of stuff they don't want.
 inkstainedwretch
4/13/2016 12:54:50 PM User Rank Gold
Overstatisticianization
Could the reason more poll respondents have Netflix and therefore favor Netflix be because they've sampled HBO content and decided they didn't like HBO as much?
If more people are attracted by the lineup of OITNB and Daredevil and Frankie & Grace than are attracted by GoT and... and whatever else HBO has right now, then you're apt to get more Netflix subscribers. And you can't assume people WON'T pay for both; you only know that they're not paying for both. Certainly some people can't afford both, but some people might be actively rejecting an HBO subscribership, and we don't know what those numbers are. Keep in mind that one of HBO's most popular shows (Game of Thrones) is still among the most pirated shows on TV. That suggests there are millions who find it easier to pirate GoT, millions might like GoT but not enough to watch it if they had to pay for it, millions aren't interested enough in other HBO shows to pay for HBO, and those groups probably have significant overlap. The seeming bias toward Netflix in the poll might be far more legitimate than we are assuming here. -- Brian Santo elizabethv
4/14/2016 8:16:35 AM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
I'm sure you're right about Game of Thrones. There is a lot of buzz about GoT but rarely do you hear about any other HBO shows. Why pay for the whole HBO package if you're really only interested in GoT. For me, my biggest challenege is the TWD but you can stream new episodes within a few hours of them airing, sure you pay $2 a piece for them, but I need my TWD fix, and that only amounts to $32 a year. HBO doesn't offer such things to GoT fans, to my knowledge. HBO chooses to be extremely selective about who can air their shows, so the common response is going be to just pirate the episodes.
 Joe Stanganelli
4/16/2016 12:33:00 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@elizabethv: I dunno. For me, paying for HBO just for Game of Thrones and Silicon Valley (I also like that one, and highly recommend it -- especially to people in the tech sector like us) is a better value than paying Netflix for a bunch of sub-mediocre content that I don't care about plus access to a few shows with rewatchability that I could just get the DVDs for.
 dlr5288
4/26/2016 6:44:20 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
Yes I agree!
If you're only interested in one show, then why buy the whole package? It would be must easier and cheaper to just buy that particular show rather than the whole HBO package it offers. Seems too expensive if you're only interested in watching one show. jbtombes
4/14/2016 4:48:23 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
Overstatis..huh? Anyway, I see comments on GoT, but nary a word about HBO's Silicon Valley, a great fit for this crowd, and its third most popular show, after GoT and True Detective. As for stats, the 'don't know' respondents increased from 27% to 34%. Confusion rising? Amazing that Netflix is outspending HBO.
 vnewman
4/15/2016 12:13:47 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
For the life of my I couldn't come up with any other shows besdies House of Cards and Orange in the New Black that I knew to be a Netflix original content. So of course I looked it up. "Sense8," "Bloodline," "Marco Polo," "BoJack Horseman," "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt..." I've never heard of any of these before. But you know who has? My 18 year-old niece, who is way cooler than me apparently. And that's what Netflix is doing right. $9 a month for Netflix vs $15 for HBO Go. Netflix has real depth, and though some would say HBO has better quality, I'd argue the majority people who stream videos are looking for more options at a lower cost.
 DHagar
4/15/2016 9:06:25 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
@vnewman, I think you hit the nail on the head! I am with you in the "uncool" range. But they are a key source for the younger set!
Netflix has an excellent focus, right pricing, and good content - they are on a roll! Joe Stanganelli
4/16/2016 12:30:58 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@DHagar: Their prices are on the rise again, though. At some point, it's probably cheaper to just buy the DVDs of the stuff you like and stop paying the monthly fee. Especially now that they no longer care one iota about analyzing your preferences and recommending stuff that you'll actually like, like they used to.
DHagar
4/18/2016 2:15:16 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
@Joe Stanganelli, well there you go - that's what will cause them to fail. Thanks for update. I fully agree, they will lose the value they are providing if they don't stay current and keep their pricing competitive. There are too many other options.
That's where companies lose their market share is when they start to "coast" and cash in on their customer base without uping their game. Joe Stanganelli
4/23/2016 8:46:36 AM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@DHagar: But, oooooohhh, Netflix has an updated UI now that makes some of the icons bigger and closer and more obnoxious and even more confusing than the last UI change! Oh, boy!
*Cancel my account* DHagar
4/25/2016 12:57:09 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
@Joe, Whoa!! What a deal!
Sounds like they have lost touch with reality then - that's what happens when they begin thinking they know what's best for the company. Or - they think they can coast and do "all of the above". If they are going to be a "content" company, then they need to focus on that and not try to coax the consumer into mediocre services. I would cancel my subscription as well. Note: Maybe that is why Amazon is making inroads into the subscription services. Joe Stanganelli
5/2/2016 11:05:39 AM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@DHagar: Amazon still has some catching up to do though, I think. As Family Guy recently observed about Amazon Prime, "[It's,] like, the eighth best way to watch TV."
DHagar
5/2/2016 1:55:18 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
@JoeS, I believe you are right. They have a learning curve ahead of them. The content world is quite different than the supply chains. Their success will be how well they are able to adapt and learn what those differences are.
Ariella
4/19/2016 7:33:17 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
< At some point, it's probably cheaper to just buy the DVDs of the stuff you like and stop paying the monthly fee. Especially now that they no longer care one iota about analyzing your preferences and recommending stuff that you'll actually like, like they used to.>
@Joe Yes, it would make sense to own what you want to watch over and over again to be sure you have it accessible. I don't subscribe to any of these services myself, so I don't know first-hand what changes they've made, but I have seen some people complain that Netflix has dropped some of their favorite shows. Joe Stanganelli
4/23/2016 8:48:14 AM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@Ariella: Indeed, whereas some moan about how cable "forces" you to buy too many channels, I feel like you have to subscribe to multiple providers to get *all* of the content you want.
 JohnBarnes
4/23/2016 1:09:47 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
Joe, both can very easily be true, and at the same time: you can find you have to buy more just to get what you want at the same time you are forced to buy things you don't want to get the things you do. This can even happen in a theoretical economy with just one consumer good; in fact for nearly all observers, that's nearly always the case (see "consumer surplus" and "producer surplus" in any microeconomics textbook).
Many things can and will change from classical markets as more information becomes cheaper, but I suspect that one will be with us always, and that our great-grandchildren will complain about having to get the Tour of the Solar System live coverage direct brainfeed in order to receive the direct brainfeed from a brilliant musicologist listening to Mahler (or vice versa). Joe Stanganelli
4/24/2016 9:02:20 AM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@John: Fascinating. I used to date someone with an economics degree. She would explain these concepts to me whenever I questioned them.
But I have to wonder about the demand for both tour of the solar system coverage (unless by "tour" you mean some form of interplanetary space golf (IPGA = Interplanetary Golf Association?)) and direct brainfeed for someone listening to a composer's work (and Mahler of all people!). I suspect it will be more along the lines of having to get one of those when all they really want is the direct brainfeed from someone playing Super Mario Bros. 1 Million. JohnBarnes
4/24/2016 1:49:49 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Overstatisticianization
@Joe, same principle, though. Unless and until the economy is able to become so niche-ified and unique that on every transaction, every person is able to buy exactly what they want in exactly the quantity they want exactly where and when they need it, there will always be some slippage off the mark of quantity/quality/price/timing, and despite all the ways we devise to minimize or recapture that slippage, some of it will remain. A bit like entropy, friction, or copying error, actually; despite our best efforts, some of our expenditures will be useless to us. The form the uselessness takes can be moved around and the amount can often be reduced, but overall we're stuck with at least some of it.
Joe Stanganelli
5/1/2016 11:33:18 AM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@John: Indeed, demand for one single niche channel can only be sold so many times, but when many are bundled as a team, the rising tide can lift all their ships.
Although there are definitely a few channels I wonder about... Ariella
4/24/2016 9:27:33 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
<at the same time you are forced to buy things you don't want to get the things you do. >
@JohnBarnes Exactly, that's the way many of the bundles work. In fact, I find that for some of the internet service packages, they also bundle what I don't want. I'm only interested in internet and phone service, not the TV bundle as well, But I have only a choice of two in my neighborhood and neither is offering a bundle that makes sense for the two. So now I pay for internet alone and take another service for VOIP. Joe Stanganelli
4/16/2016 12:29:53 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
Marco Polo is decent, but it's clearly Netflix trying to capitalize on the fascination with Game of Thrones. Plus there are a lot of historical inaccuracies, and they haven't had a second season in quite some time now.
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is okay but the sense of humor is a little too Tina Fey-ey for my taste. House of Cards is great (I *finally* started watching it about a month or so ago)...but it jumps the shark a little bit in Season 3. Haven't seen the others (except I watched Season 1 of Lilyhammer and it was OK... just Steven Van Zandt being typecast) and I really have no interest in them, short of one or two comedy specials. (Emphasis on ONE OR TWO. Netflix, stop pushing every original comedy special from every two-bit hack who's had 15 minutes of fame, please!) Netflix certainly has quantity, but Game of Thrones alone makes HBO more valuable than Netflix IMHO (not to mention Silicon Valley, plus old shows like The Sopranos and Big Love for those who missed them the first time around). I'm thinking of canceling Netflix and sticking w/ HBO. Joe Stanganelli
4/16/2016 12:34:33 PM User Rank Author
Re: Overstatisticianization
@Brian: Indeed, the emphasis in the study was on media streaming.
I suspect many HBO fans still prefer to watch their content in the traditional, on-the-TV via old-fashioned cable way.  mhhf1ve
4/16/2016 7:37:46 PM User Rank Platinum
room for competition...
If Netflix can build up original content and start winning awards for its shows, then it looks like we're going to get more and more wannabes who will try, too. So I expect a "boom" in original content, but also a "boom" in mediocre shows that wouldn't normally make it beyond a pilot.
Ariella
4/16/2016 9:59:26 PM User Rank Author
Re: room for competition...
@mhhf1ve I'm certain you're right about that. When a strategy appears to be successful, others follow it, though often not quite as well. There's a famous folk tale about it that goes like this:
A poor man was once walking the streets, when he was struck by a delicious aroma. From out of the kitchen window of a huge mansion wafted the smells of a rich man's meal of blintzes.. Looking through the window, he watched carefully as the cook mixed the ingredients and prepared a pile of cheese blintzes. He ran home and told his wife, "We must have some delicious cheese blintzes. T. Can you make me some? All we need is French pancake mix, milk and eggs, some butter to fry them in, and cheese for the filling." His wife agreed, though when she looked into her pantry for the ingredients, she found that she didn't have them. "We'll have to be a bit creative about substitutions," she thought. "I haven't got any French pancake mix, but a little potato flour should be just as good. We are a little low on milk. I'll just use water. We certainly can't afford butter for frying, but I have some old oil that I used last week; I am sure it can be used again. And cheese costs a fortune these days. We will have to settle for some mashed potatoes instead of cheese—that will be close enough." She prepared the "blintzes" in that way and presented them to her husband. He took a bite and then declared, "I don't really get what those rich people see in blintzes. They aren't that good." JohnBarnes
4/16/2016 11:15:53 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: room for competition...
Don't assume that the best shows always got made and the worst always died, or that there is more than a wobbly relationship between the "propensity for greenlight" bell curve and the "overall quality" bell curve. The great creative periods in pop culture are mostly the ones with low entry barriers, in which there is a huge variety of content and the audience gradually sorts it out; dead periods tend to be the ones governed by Price's Law ("if losing a customer costs more than gaining a customer pays, innovation and novelty decline to zero") because of high entry barriers.
Dilution by spreading across too many franchises happens in sports, because you can rank players pretty precisely and the poor franchises don't have enough talent to supply interesting play. But in literature and the performing arts, that ain't dilution, that's the blue ocean. DHagar
4/18/2016 2:18:40 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: room for competition...
@John Barnes, excellent insight. So that proves the point that the Blue Ocean remains with "original creativity", not just those looking to capitalize on what has been created.
JohnBarnes
4/19/2016 9:04:30 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: room for competition...
@DHagar, well, kind of. Abundant outlets means lots of room to discover what works. For example, almost all the commercial genres -- sci fi, horror, romance, etc. originate in their modern forms in magazine fiction between about 1900 and 1940, because at that time launching a magazine (and later, a comic book) was incredibly cheap and usually made at least a little money, so there was room for a huge amount of experimentation, and all sorts of odd magazines could flourish. Then for a while paperbacks served the same literary purpose; for a brief few years, Spillane and Spinoza shared a publisher, and it worked out pretty well, at least for Spillane.
But when it's really costly to put anything new out, you get things like mainstream pop in the 70s, television in the 60s, or hardcover book publishing now: lots of playing it safe and minimal deviation from formula. It's more that the market structure opens or closes the throttle on creativity/originality, I think, than that people actually prefer the original and the creative. It's just that there's a certain minimal amount of creativity that has to go into even the most pedestrian work. But the producers always make money, whether it's tenth-generation copied schlock or bold new innovations, and the creators who can get their work through the producers to the audience always make money. (And the audience always spends money, bless their hearts). It's just who gets to play that differs from game to game. DHagar
4/19/2016 10:02:46 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: room for competition...
@John Barnes, excellent reflection on the industry - I see your point. The opportunity is Blue Ocean, but the profit cycle dictates the proven money makers. Noting that the publishers make profit all ways, being the holders of the "real estate" (networks and channels for the content).
I guess then that it takes real effort to truly be creative and drive the Blue Ocean opportunities and transformation, but when one does, they definitely open up new doors. Goes to prove the statement that "Luck is preparation for opportunity". freehe
4/26/2016 8:34:16 PM User Rank Platinum
Patience
If you work hard and are persistence you can get to the top. Kudos to Netflix. Customers want options and HBO is losing customers by continuing to use the same model it has for years. They will lose all their customers if they don't become customer centric and innovate. Change is good.
DHagar
4/26/2016 9:18:15 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Patience
@freehe, well stated. The competition winner is the one who can best deliver what the customer wants. Netflix is responding to the customer. HBO thinks they own the customer. That's ripe for offering a better alternative.
Here's for Netflix! dlr5288
4/27/2016 8:47:53 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Patience
I agree with you.
I feel like companies today are afraid of change. They find what works for them and they stick with that. That's okay, only the world and technology are always changing. Companies have to keep up and keep things fresh for their customers. DHagar
5/2/2016 1:52:58 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Patience
@dir5288, very true. And the focus on selling what we have created, rather than selling what the customer wants to buy, is a total different proposition. The old days of push selling I believe are gone. If you don't offer what the customer wants someone else will be happy to.
Joe Stanganelli
5/5/2016 7:39:55 AM User Rank Author
Re: Patience
Indeed, @DHagar... Thus the success with Millennials and hipsters of Spotify over such "push-music" services as Pandora.
DHagar
5/5/2016 2:28:24 PM User Rank Platinum
Re: Patience
@Joe Stanganelli, great examples! Clearly, a fast-paced changing world!
Joe Stanganelli
5/1/2016 11:34:46 AM User Rank Author
Re: Patience
If change was always good Netflix's stock wouldn't have dipped almost 70% a couple of years back.
In any case, there is enough content and enough demand to go around for all of the major players, I think.  clrmoney
4/18/2016 11:28:30 AM User Rank Platinum
netflix in the league
I think that netflix is taking over alomost everything so they will be competition for HBO will be a challenge.
dlr5288
4/25/2016 7:50:14 PM User Rank Platinum
How far
It's crazy to me how far Netflix has come! I remember when someone introduced it to me years ao and I had no clue what it was. Now it seems like everyone has a Netflix account. It's inspiring to see something like that grow into something so huge. It's not surprising to me that Netflix topped the list!
|
Latest Articles
Italy's 5G auction could exceed a government target of raising €2.5 billion ($2.9 billion) after attracting interest from companies outside the mobile market.
The emerging-markets operator is focusing on the humdrum business of connectivity and keeping quiet about some of its ill-fated 'digitalization' efforts.
Three UK has picked Huawei over existing radio access network suppliers Nokia and Samsung to build its 5G network.
Verizon skates where the puck is going by waiting for standards-based 5G devices to launch its mobile service in 2019.
 On-the-Air Thursdays Digital Audio ARCHIVED | December 7, 2017, 12pm EST
Orange has been one of the leading proponents of SDN and NFV. In this Telco Transformation radio show, Orange's John Isch provides some perspective on his company's NFV/SDN journey.
 Special Huawei Video  Huawei Network Transformation Seminar The adoption of virtualization technology and cloud architectures by telecom network operators is now well underway but there is still a long way to go before the transition to an era of Network Functions Cloudification (NFC) is complete. Video
The Small Cell Forum's CEO Sue Monahan says that small cells will be crucial for indoor 5G coverage, but challenges around business models, siting ...
People, strategy, a strong technology roadmap and new business processes are the key underpinnings of Telstra's digital transformation, COO Robyn ...
Eric Bozich, vice president of products and marketing at CenturyLink, talks about the challenges and opportunities of integrating Level 3 into ...
Epsilon's Mark Daley, director of digital strategy and business development, talks about digital transformation from a wholesale service provider ...
Bill Walker, CenturyLink's director of network architecture, shares his insights on why training isn't enough for IT employees and traditional ...
All Videos
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
Tweet This