> Their technology advantage is being commoditized away
is totally true, but this:
> production + marketing has not been their forte.
strikes me as questionable. They've had standout hits with some first rate production, and if I were guessing, even some of the longer tail of lower impact/quality in-house productions has been targeted towards audiences likely to enjoy it.
Massive battle is right, especially vs Disney's catalog and franchise power. But Netflix has an amazing incumbency position. There's a reason why Disney's still got some well-placed content positioned on Netflix for its viewers.
Most content on Disney+ has already made a sizable profit before it even gets to the channel and afterwards between theaters, video on demand, dvd rentals and sales etc.
Also there is the “flywheel”. Comic tie ins, theme parks and merchandise. Both Apple and Amazon have money to burn they don’t really need their streaming service to be profitable.
Hulu is also for all intents and purposes owned by Disney and it makes more from people who watch the ad supported tier than those who subscribe to the No Commercial options. It is also the successful over the top “cable provider”.
I'd automatically axe any show proposal about zombies.
It made the impossible and did something fun and original with the concept.
No, it didn't :)
For you may be, for me was... how do I say it?... trash
Extending a show? Most of your viewers will be long time Netflix subscribers who are already unlikely to churn.
Buy an existing show/create a new one? Now you're pulling in people who aren't already Netflix subscribers. Some of them will remain long term users.
Plus -- you're creating an asset (the show) that you can sell once it's run its course.
They could have a thousand things you think are awful and ten that you think are great to get you as a customer. You'll just ignore the things you don't like. So long as your money pays for the shows you watch it doesn't matter if you don't like the other stuff. That content is there to attract someone else.
Netflix would fail if any one of their customers liked everything they make, because there'd be thousands of other customers who didn't like any of it. There has to be a mix.
It seemed to me that most movies don't break even, but a few hits have 20x and higher returns.
Compared to that, Netflix's production just looks normal.
Look at Disney.
> It’s difficult not to look at Disney’s record-breaking year, securing eight of the top 10 highest-grossing films of 2019 domestically
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/23/21034937/disney-star-war...
It seems to be a well oiled machine.
Their streaming service is no exception. The Mandalorian show, run by Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man and The Lion King) is the most streamed television show in recent history, eclipsing the popularity of Game of Thrones and Netflix's darling, Stranger Things—and that's their first at bat.
https://observer.com/2019/12/the-mandalorian-episode-5-disne...
The only media sector where Disney's dominance isn't currently felt is video games—the biggest sector of entertainment by total revenue—where Disney's strategy seems to have been lacking for decades, and where it has not been able to acquire itself out of muddling performance. They were able to outsource a hit with the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order game however, so maybe that will change.
Netflix has taken on enough debt to finance original content that their performance track record in that domain should make investors ask these questions.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-debt-junk-bond...
Disney/Touchstone's "massively higher hit-rate" is not representative of most of the companies Netflix competes with ergo a comparison of Netflix to only Disney is not particularly apt. Netflix hasn't matched Disney's success, but neither have most of Disney's rivals.
So are you talking licensed stuff or original material? Netflix has licensed plenty of good content (incl. Adult Swim stuff).
'The Mandalorian earned nearly 40 million “demand expressions” during the week of Nov. 10-16, according to data provided to Observer by research firm Parrot Analytics. The firm tracks video streaming, social media activity, photo sharing, blogging, fan and critic rating platforms and other consumer demand sources to put together a composite of viewership and growth. Demand expressions represent the total audience demand being expressed for a title within a market and not specific viewership statistics.'
Which sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo presented by a 'research firm' wanting to get customers.
By contrast, Netflix has 60 million US subscribers. HBO Now has 9 million US subscribers, but their cable service overall has over 50 million. 24 million users is an incredible growth rate for Disney's service, which has only existed since November 12.
The game stories were so, so much better. One of the only games I’ve played that seriously emotionally impacted me. And changed my perception of games forever.
Honestly it's really hard to do it, to appeal to both the gamers and the wider audience who never touched the game (inc the critics)
I'm playing games since the late 80s and seen so many movies and TV shows failing.
This list is perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_g...
LOL, it isn't based on video game at all. There is a series of actual fantasy books written by Andrzej Sapkowski that serves as a basis for the show. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher
However, they made a rookie mistake and started filming Sapkowski's source material in the order it was written, i.e. starting with short stories, which is why the show does not make sense: each episode is a separate story, not connected to previous episodes. They should have started with the 5-book saga, and maybe throw some of the short stories as flashbacks.
Show also lacks the proper introduction of characters and the world's mythology. I am a fan of the books, so it all made sense to me, but wider audience might have a trouble making sense of all Wither abilities, Law of Suprise, etc.
Some people aren't comfortable to be challenged, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The issue was just bad writing. So much bad writing. Cliche moments everywhere, terrible dialogue, completely and utterly predictable plot, bad screen time allocations.
I think the screenwriters should first figure out how to write one engaging plot before trying to figure out how to interweave three.
Compare the very first ep of GoT with Witcher. The first does a wonderful job gradually introducing you to its world, the characters and the background of the story. The latter just immediately dives you into a bunch of unfamiliar names, places and jargon. Confuses the novice at the very first episode.
Also Witcher rated 16?
I remember when House of Cards came out.
It did show that they (Netflix, a technology company) could produce, had big money and a willingness to spend, would do something that was different and unconventional (a political show, released at once). Plus it demonstrated that people were willing to signup for a subscription service just for a particular show.
All the rest I found anywhere between drivel and mostly forgettable.
Though I can’t deny that HoC was an important moment in media history.
Think house of cards, mind hunter, kingdom, death love and robots, the witcher.
There were issues with the audio, writing, pacing, costumes and at times bad cgi. Really hope they get things together for season 2.
Almost a decade later I'm bearish. Their technology advantage is being commoditized away, and production + marketing has not been their forte. It's possible they'll turn it around, but even so they've got a massive battle on their hands against the likes of Disney and other big content producers who have almost a century of experience in this exact arena. It's not that I don't think they'll be successful, but the current price is over-inflated because Tech—they've got a long way to go to justify the valuation.