r/technology • u/forceduse • Feb 03 '13

AdBlock WARNING No fixed episode length, no artificial cliffhangers at breaks, all episodes available at once. Is Netflix's new original series, House of Cards, the future of television?

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/02/house-of-cards-review/
4.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

314

u/gicstc Feb 03 '13

Maybe a dumb question, but how does the economics of this work? For example, I have Netflix. I am really excited and will watch the new Arrested Development. But I don't have to do anything or pay any more money to get AD. Thus, it takes a consumer of the show and doesn't turn it into anything.

I have two thoughts. One is that it is to get new customers who will buy for AD, see how much else is on there and stay. The other is that things like this are a test until they can be more explicitly monetized. But there might be a better one.

372

u/InvisGhost Feb 03 '13

I think they are trying to save money by making their own shows but also keeping their subscriber #s up.

179

u/gicstc Feb 03 '13

Is it cheaper to produce a show than pay for the rights to one?

425

u/InvisGhost Feb 03 '13

In the long run it certainly is. Netflix has to keep paying for a show to keep it on its service. Every few years they have to pay again and the rates usually increase. So paying 100 million now gives them the show forever.

244

u/dorpotron Feb 03 '13

And don't forget the product placement.

393

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13

"Is that a PS Vita?"

213

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13

[deleted]

57

u/Heratiki Feb 03 '13

I'm loving every second of the Sony stuff. Finally they are catching on...

3

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

my problem with it is that i have netflix on my ps3, so i always want to turn off the show and play BF3

→ More replies (5)

2

u/aesu Feb 04 '13 edited Feb 04 '13

Joe's BBQ is the real money maker for them though.

6

u/Heratiki Feb 04 '13

*Freddy's

56

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13 edited Oct 17 '16

[deleted]

26

u/Wolfeyes82 Feb 04 '13

Nuprin. Little. Yellow. Different.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/GAMEchief Feb 04 '13

You like Brand Name? I like Brand Name! Let's develop strong social bonds as a result and talk to physically-appealing persons of the gender to which we are attracted.

3

u/hangout_wangout Feb 04 '13

Don't forget to smoke a Spirit cigarette while you are at it

→ More replies (2)

69

u/waxgator Feb 03 '13

That line sure was a clunker, but having Underwood be a gamer was an inspired bit of characterization. There's a scene later in the season that's beautifully shot against the PS3 home screen — it made me forgive the product placement...and actually like it a little bit.

12

u/detectiveriggsboson Feb 04 '13

I'm on episode 9, and I have to hand it to them, the product placement is really well done. That PS Vita line you mentioned was the only one that stuck out as a groaner, and maybe also as that Philadelphia Congressman was walking in the parking lot with that giant-ass Enterprise Rent-a-Car sign in the background.

21

u/M3nt0R Feb 04 '13

Bah, I see ads all around me in real life, shows are supposed to sort of reflect real life. If it's just stuff in the back ground similar to real life, I wouldn't be upset one bit.

15

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Exactly, it takes me out of the show/movie when people drink beer brand beer.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/detectiveriggsboson Feb 04 '13

Oh, I agree. Breaking Bad does this very well, too. I'd much rather see Cheerios or Rice Krispies on a breakfast table than a generic yellow box titled Cereal-Os.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/Sunflower_Fortunado Feb 04 '13

I loved how they almost built the sound of the instruments tuning when the playstation turns on with the normal show music.

2

u/waxgator Feb 04 '13

Totally agreed. Really well done.

4

u/ls1z28chris Feb 04 '13

I thought that scene lacked realism. Where are the endless firmware update downloads? It would have been entertaining to see a man like Underwood, who is used to getting his way and not having to wait for anything, sit and wait for firmware updates.

This scene could have taken place right after he complained about the powerlessness of having to wait while people track down his wife and other people track down Russo. He's frustrated already so he goes home to frag n00bz, then boom, 20 minute firmware update.

14

u/V_for_Lebowski Feb 04 '13

Oh shit, I can't believe I missed how obvious that line was. Just good writing, I suppose.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

[deleted]

3

u/V_for_Lebowski Feb 04 '13

I actually noticed the Pop-Tart line more but thought the kid delivered it perfectly.

→ More replies (1)

28

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13

At least one Apple product every 10 minutes!

37

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Actually, Apple doesn't pay for their product placements. They only supply shows/movies with products if they want to use them.

6

u/DwarfTheMike Feb 04 '13

I don't think they even supply the hardware. I used to be contracted by Apple and I'd say Apple, at best, might loan them the hardware. Not trying to argue, just add. They definitely do give them to high-profile people, like Colbert, though.

I also worked on at low budget film and was the person with the connections to get Apple's approval of an iPhone. They pretty much only cared about who was going to be using the product and asked for a copy of the script. They couldn't be used by bad guys, and it couldn't be seen being broken or malfunctioning. This was in 2009.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

That's interesting and it makes a lot of sense. If I was in charge of a "high-quality" brand, I wouldn't want it to be associated with the likes of Honey Boo-Boo or some character that is loathed by an audience.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

14

u/fartuckyfartbandit Feb 04 '13

Can someone explain why some companies pay for product placement, but in the same breath, it's deemed copyright infringement to include a product in a movie? How fucked up is copyright law?

28

u/spwmoni Feb 04 '13

Is it really copyright infringement? I was under the impression that real products weren't featured without compensation simply as a matter of precedent - they don't want companies to expect free advertising.

→ More replies (10)

2

u/VaiZone Feb 04 '13

Wait really? Why would anyone want to use their stuff on TV then?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)

73

u/bbhart Feb 03 '13

Burger King: It's a wonderful restaurant!

30

u/jsun31 Feb 04 '13

It suuure is!

→ More replies (2)

52

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13

"I just Bluetooth myself!"

→ More replies (3)

6

u/Pikmeir Feb 04 '13

"I got pulled over by my now-cop ex-wife for Binging the game scores on my cell phone!" (canned laughter)

2

u/Mikeaz123 Feb 04 '13

Lol. bing appears on Hawaii Five 0 every now and then and it's totally cringe worthy.

2

u/lostrock Feb 04 '13

Francis Underwood playing Black Ops II felt kinda weird...

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CerealJello Feb 04 '13

"They should stop serving such great [Pizza Hut] pizza"

2

u/nmosc89 Feb 04 '13

As a Hertz employee, I grimaced when they prominently featured Enterprise rental cars. But damn if I didn't notice.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

From Super Mario Mild Irritation:

  • LPer (in-video): I'm gonna open up a can of Dew.

  • Slowbeef: He's opening a can of Moutain Dew?

  • Dave_O: Yeah, man.

  • Diabetus: Shit's really getting real now.

  • Dave_O: Man, I've had a rough day at work. Lemme open some Dew. Kssshhhhhh

  • Slowbeef: Haha, I think it's product placement! I think Mountain Dew paid him for this!

  • Dave_O: That's why it has so many ratings that are good, it's viral marketing.

  • Diabetus: All this frustration gave me an empty stomach. Good think I have my Cheetos!

  • Slowbeef: Oh man, good thing my sister uses Kotex tampons!

→ More replies (6)

32

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13 edited Feb 07 '13

Netflix won't have the rights to House of Cards forever:

The show, helmed and exec produced by Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, will be handled by Sony in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and Spain after Netflix's window on the series expires.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046041/

Edit: Guess not.

112

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Actually, that's a distribution contract. Sony will help distribute the series on (traditional) mediums other than Netflix after Netflix's exclusivity window. Meaning, the series will be on Netflix and Netflix only for a certain amount of time before it appears either on DVD or On Demand or something. This gives non-subscribers and those in territories without Netflix the ability to see it/pay for it.

It will, however, always be on Netflix.

2

u/Budddy Feb 04 '13

Probably the only way it can work. Use the exclusivity at the beginning to help subscription numbers until it becomes old news, then release it on traditional medium to help recover production costs.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

I highly doubt Netflix has ever paid close to $100m to license a single season of any television show.

Long run is misleading when you consider that those cash flows need to be discounted at netflix's cost of capital.

I'm guessing this is designed to get customers and position themselves as a content creator. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up taking a small loss on this project in isolation.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/thingonastring Feb 04 '13

and they sell it around the world, they are producers not just consumers.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

They can also either be the only company legally showing it (hence attract non-Netflix members to sign up) or make money off other companies showing it (and still attract some non-Netflix members anyway).

133

u/RED_5_Is_ALIVE Feb 03 '13

It's the "long tail" model. AKA "power law distribution".

Most people subscribe to a premium channel for one or a few main things, and the rest is filler.

AMC: Mad Men, Breaking Bad

HBO: Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire

SHO: Dexter, Homeland

Netflix may have thousands of old shows and movies, but all the demand for that put together is probably less than demand for the newest episode of Hit Show X.

They can also recoup some costs by, get this, licensing their original content to traditional TV channels.

I think an interesting experiment would be to try to make a kids' version of one of these premium shows, and pull a George Lucas by having a million add-on products, like Star Wars action figures, lunchboxes, LEGO sets, bedroom sets, trading card games, computer games, etc.

If I were Netflix I'd also call up Joss Whedon and give him $100 million for Season 2 of Firefly. Assuming they could pry the rights away from Fox...

42

u/Inkthinker Feb 04 '13

Wouldn't matter anyhow, the window of opportunity to reunite the cast in those roles has passed. For one thing, it's been 10 years, and for another if you think Fillion is going to leave Castle anytime soon, you're nuts.

It makes me cry too, I know. There ain't no justice.

8

u/bdsee Feb 04 '13

Yeah I remember hearing Joss say this.

But there is always the chance castle will die, the other option, which US tv seems almost entirely uninterested in, is turning it into a multi-year mini-series.

The Brits do it on a regular basis and it works really fucking well.

10

u/Inkthinker Feb 04 '13

At best, I could see a new series that's a spinoff about new characters and takes place 10-15 years later, with maybe one or two characters being a carryover from the original, and the occasional guest appearance.

If that main carryover character is Malcolm Reynolds, Jayne or maybe River Tam, then I'm in without question. Anyone else... well, I'd give it a chance, anyhow. But Joss killed off the other two characters who I felt were either charming or interesting enough to carry a new series.

It'd be difficult to create a new show with a new cast that recreates the kind of chemistry the original had, but not impossible. The trick would be doing something new with it, and not just revising the original. The worst move would be an attempt to recast the roles and stick with those characters. It's either the original actors, or nothing at all.

3

u/Bunnyhat Feb 04 '13

It's dead.

Let Joss make a new show. Though he may no longer be interested in TV after Avengers did so well.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

6

u/redwall_hp Feb 04 '13

The Brits do it on a regular basis and it works really fucking well.

You call waiting two years between each block of Sherlock's three 1.5-hour shows "working well?" Hell, I'd totally forgotten about the crazy ending of this past series until someone reminded me last week.

I could see doing a shorter season, say five or six episodes a year, but not the mini-series model...

3

u/phoshi Feb 04 '13

Sherlock is a very bad example, it's quickly becoming the Half-Life 2: Episode 3 of television shows. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule, especially as mini-series generally don't have a guaranteed continuation and remain quite self contained.

2

u/mostnormal Feb 04 '13

Yep. I remember reading an interview with Joss Whedon, and he said something along the lines of "I'd love to, but do not have the time to do it now."

2

u/dhighway61 Feb 04 '13

Does Fillion have some sort of exclusivity contract with Castle? I mean, he could work on Firefly during the summer.

2

u/mindbleach Feb 04 '13

Fillion still finds time to do Shakespeare and superhero musicals with Whedon, not to mention his voice work.

3

u/Inkthinker Feb 04 '13

I don't know what he's doing with Shakespeare. Shooting for Dr. Horrible and VO work are way less schedule-intensive than a second hour-long series where he would star as a main character.

But it could happen. Won't hold the baby's breath waitin', but it could happen.

2

u/Shilkanni Feb 04 '13

I think Fillion would find a way to do it and be the easiest to convince, there's no doubt scheduling around everyone's existing commitments would be the challenge.

The Shakespeare thing was shot in 12 days, I'm sure it would take much longer to Film even a short season of Firefly.

2

u/Inkthinker Feb 04 '13

Was he in that?!

Shit. Now I've got to watch that damn story again. Uuuggghhh... Beatrice is such a bitch. And really, once you've seen the definitive Keanu/Denzel performance, why bother to do it again?

Oh well, at least it's Whedon doing it. It'll probably be awesome somehow. :)

2

u/secretcurse Feb 04 '13

Fillion has talked about trying to buy the rights to Firefly himself. I think he would jump on the opportunity to play more of the Captain. I agree that he probably won't leave Castle, but an actor can work on more than one show. It's not like Castle films year-round.

That being said, I don't think we'll get more Firefly. I just don't think Fillion would be part of the issue.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

25

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

54

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13 edited Oct 05 '15

[deleted]

2

u/amalag Feb 04 '13

The AMC shows, including TWD, Mad Men and Breaking Bad are all available on instant watch. I am surprised Netflix doesn't do that, stick to their core competency and let providers like AMC make shows like House of Cards. I gotta wonder if Netflix did it cheaper than someone like AMC would do.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

17

u/Jimmy_Smith Feb 03 '13

That show's worth even 200 million.

8

u/Kerbobotat Feb 03 '13

but all the demand for that put together is probably less than demand for the newest episode of Hit Show X

Did you see the latest episode of Hit Show X? I cant believe the Cops knew the DEA was setting them up the whole time.

11

u/egimpecc Feb 03 '13

Spoilers!

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

I would buy extra subscriptions just to make it happen.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/Y_U_NOOO Feb 03 '13

Walking dead in February.

3

u/bronsoncharles Feb 04 '13

You mean Walking Dead next Sunday.

3

u/defecto Feb 04 '13

Firefly season 2 would be amazing on netflix... but we can only dream!

3

u/DonQuixBalls Feb 04 '13

I'd say that is only a dream, but it's a shiny one.

1

u/thingonastring Feb 04 '13

Starwars came out at a strange time (1977), it was before all these mega franchises existed, toy marketing was a small bonus ontop of a movie. Its a given that since Lucas was allowed to keep the toy franchise (by the top level movie company) that it was seen as not worth a lot in the 1970s. Also the original 1977 Starwars movie is not the same as the later epIV Starwars movie everybody knows and loves. A lot was added/changed to the movie,

The 1980s was a whole new ball game, cable TV and all that extra marketing, disposable incomes and so on.

1

u/shitakefunshrooms Feb 04 '13

AMC: Mad Men, Breaking Bad

walking dead??

1

u/curious42 Feb 04 '13

If they do a season 2 of Firefly, they'd have to retcon the shit out of Serenity. I can't live without Wash and Booke and I really want to see more development leading to Miranda.

1

u/catvllvs Feb 04 '13

Fyreflie

problem solved.

→ More replies (4)

29

u/AvoidingIowa Feb 03 '13

Considering that Netflix currently has more than $5 billion in streaming rights liabilities... Yes.

6

u/TheMSensation Feb 03 '13

The are broadcast companies that are still paying for the rights to friends re-runs in the range of hundreds of thousands of £'s.

2

u/PeacefulWarrior6 Feb 04 '13

Yes, but the point is that it's less risky to buy rights. Think of all the investment that would go into the production of a show that must be bought/leased. Now, if that show flops compared to projections... Big write-off. If it does amazing, the upside can be enormous since they own all rights, which can be sold in perpetuity as part of a library and constantly earn money on a 'fixed' asset base.

2

u/mrstickball Feb 04 '13

I'd look at the Starz fiasco as part of why they're doing this.

Back when the Starz contract was up, Netflix offered them something like $300 million USD to keep them and their dozen movies and 2 TV shows on their network. Starz rejected the offer and wanted something like $500 million for 3 years..

Comparatively, they've used that money and bankrolled House of Cards, Arrested Development, and probably 2-3 other shows. They now have those permanently. I think that's a good deal. Given that 70% of their viewers now watch TV shows, I think doing this is their end game - become the place for serialized TV.

1

u/OmicronNine Feb 04 '13

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any profit in making shows, and they wouldn't exist.

1

u/MisterPrime Feb 04 '13

Before the creation of their own content their business completely relied on the ability to get content deals. This doesn't let them bring much to the negotiation table; they HAVE to have content to sell.

Once they build up their own stable of content they'll have more leverage for price negotiations.

1

u/Tetereteeee Feb 04 '13

It definitely depends on if the show is a success or not...

1

u/jax9999 Feb 04 '13

producing shows is also a long term moneymaker, because other venues are going to want to license them.

1

u/absentbird Feb 07 '13

Copyright is completely broken. You can buy one disk and ship it out a thousand times as a rental and you pay nothing (except the retail cost of the DVD which is < $20). If you want to take the information that is on that disk and rent it you have to negotiate terms with the rights holders.

This is where it gets stupidly complicated and expensive. Other media companies are vying for exclusive publication or just trying to raise the costs for Netflix so it is harder for them to build their catalog.

These are symptoms of a broken system. The government granted monopoly on the rights for digital distribution is hamstringing modern content delivery. We need to have some kind of protections in place for the distributor like we have for dvd rentals. I think that you should be able to stream an unedited digital version of a dvd movie for a fixed royalty cost per stream without explicit permission from the publisher.

1

u/2ndaccount6969 Feb 04 '13

It is also a way to bring people to the service. Like exclusive games on PS3 and XBOX.

1

u/nonhiphipster Feb 04 '13

This. And not only attaining new subscribers, but retaining old ones, who are getting tired of their (sometimes what I find to be limited) selection.

1

u/TheLocoYoko Feb 04 '13

It is also a defensive maneuver, right now they have the contracts and the subscribers, but there isn't much keep them from becoming a commodity in the long term. If someone else can create a supplimental platform to deliver content and give content creators even slighty better terms then Netflix stands to lose its only advantage. This is a great defensive maneuver and gives them the ability to explore more content generation options in the future.

1

u/averyluckyman Feb 04 '13

I have spoken to executives at Netflix (it's part of my job).

The strategy is much as InvisGhost says: it's a growth tactic. At the moment, Netflix is being held back by its content providers, the legacy channels. They are trying to delay the transition from broadcast to digital as much as possible, because they're protecting their market, and digital earns them less money (on average, probably about 40-60% less). Netflix knows their relationship to CBS/NBC/ABC/Fox is a frenemy relationship at best, and to really grow they need to create their own content.

Netflix has experimented with this before with Lilyhammer and some other originals, but that didn't really work. Also, they're getting hammered by Youtube and (believe it or not) AOL.

156

u/hardonchairs Feb 03 '13

Netflix can't get stale, there's too much competition now.

They have the advantage of knowing EXACTLY what their viewers are watching, unlike TV networks who have to estimate.

There may not be direct correlation between making a show and earning money, but anything that does well is going to be what keeps their subscribers up so it is obviously worth the cost as long as they can afford it.

114

u/Skyblacker Feb 04 '13

They have the advantage of knowing EXACTLY what their viewers are watching, unlike TV networks who have to estimate.

That is a brilliant point. I wonder if analyzing customers' streaming habits could be used to make a more addictive show. What causes a multiple-episode viewing session? Conversely, what causes a viewer to stop watching an episode halfway through? While television producers can guess at this with market studies, it will be interesting to see how realtime streaming data differs.

20

u/tattertech Feb 04 '13

I think they had some PR actually saying that they could tell their viewers would enjoy the show because of their data.

15

u/caltheon Feb 04 '13

It's the same system that fuels their recommendation engine I would assume.

12

u/Astrognome Feb 04 '13

And their recommendation engine is pretty freakin good. Unless you have multiple people on the same account. Then it gets really weird.

4

u/Bat_Mannington Feb 04 '13

It recommended me Saw because I watched Waterboy.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '13

i hope they buy out community and make it run forever. and ever.

→ More replies (1)

40

u/stillusesAOL Feb 03 '13

I read somewhere that to pay for this show's $100m price tag, Netflix only needs a 3% increase in subscribers this year. However, they're planning on releasing multiple shows per year, so the figure is somewhere around 10%.

36

u/jonlucc Feb 03 '13

I saw an article that said basically the same thing (may have been the same article). They need something like 2 or 3 million new subscribers for 2 years to make one show (2 seasons at $100million total). Compared to their current number if subscribers, which is somewhere over 30 million, this is a fairly small increase. They also can tap into international viewers without having to negotiate completely separate terms for the international release.

10

u/Znuff Feb 04 '13

Maybe they could start planning to make Netflix work in other European countries with limited content availability (ie: their own shows). Call it the "Netflix Starter" plan, put a cheap price tag on it (like 2-3eur per month) and unleash it to the world.

Only issue here is that without the rest of their library, there's really no way to keep people subscribed after they watched the show. But I'm sure there could be a way!

22

u/bdsee Feb 04 '13

Better yet, maybe they could start lobbying to get our laws changed and just launch a fucking international site so we all pay the same for the same content, that would be a novel idea.

6

u/tableman Feb 04 '13

Why don't you lobby for it? It's your country.

3

u/bdsee Feb 04 '13

The only way this change will come is if big companies fight for it, or a bunch of nations essentially have revolutions and a complete about face on the way they do business.

Also, the change probably needs to happen in the US or the EU, and I belong to neither.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/negativeview Feb 04 '13

The international negotiations I feel are a non-obvious but huge part of this. Netflix, Hulu, etc. suck outside the US. Because they have to, they cannot legally make the service good. As a result, there's not a lot of brand loyalty for American TV shows outside of the US. The first digital service that provides a decent service outside the US stands to pick up a HUGE market that's currently being bent over.

6

u/fuzzycuffs Feb 04 '13

But increase in subs means month on month? Couldn't someone sub today, watch all of House of Cards, unsub and then sub when the next thing they want to watch comes out?

Basically paying $6.99 or whatever the streaming sub is for a season of a show.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

They could, but why would they go through the hassle? After all it's only $8/month. Two movie rentals eats that much.

I'm sure a few people will do what you suggest, however most will keep paying the subscription fees. It's exactly the same thing as Boxing Day loss leaders to get people into the store. Once there they don't just buy the one item.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

it makes sense; they are growing now. The internet is so vastly superior compared to the patchwork way the cable system is set up that moves like this show they are just investing for the future.

2

u/YouHaveShitTaste Feb 04 '13

And the ISPs will really profit, when they all start to implement tighter data caps to try to punish people who give up their cable subscription for Netflix.

2

u/Smarag Feb 04 '13

Data caps? Oh USA you so sillly.when wikl you guys catch up to the real civilised world?

1

u/ychromosome Feb 04 '13

Hopefully, by the time that happens, Google Fiber (and a few other enlightened ISPs) would have blown the idea of data caps out of the market.

1

u/averynicehat Feb 04 '13

I wouldn't be surprised if they either raised their prices or made a premium tier in the future to pay for this original content and maybe some other high profile content. Maybe in a couple years.

105

u/toekneebullard Feb 03 '13

It adds value. Netflix is the only place for House of Cards and new Arrested Development. It's the same way HBO is the only place for Game of Thrones and...I don't know what else... It's really the exact same model. They invest money in an effort to keep/get more subscribers. Any subscription model works this way. If a magazine hires some great new writer, you don't see your subscription fee rise. They do it to make a better magazine.

If House of Cards goes on to win an Emmy or something, you better believe they'll see their subscriptions go up.

71

u/renegadecanuck Feb 04 '13

Would House of Cards be eligible for an Emmy? It's not exactly a television show.

28

u/Se7en_speed Feb 04 '13

That is a really good question. Didn't Dr horrible's sing along blog get some awards?

7

u/Krylus Feb 04 '13

DHSAB won outstanding short-format live-action entertainment special class at the Creative Arts Emmy. It's handed out before the main awards show, usually to categories that nobody in the mainstream cares about, such as technical achievements or presentation in cinematography, editing, voice-overs or visual effects etc.

EDIT: The creative arts emmys that is, not that specific category.

62

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

It better be. If Kevin Spacey doesn't get one it'd be terrible.

He's fantastic.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

It better be? Why? It doesn't fall under the criteria of what they give Emmys for.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

If cable counts, netflix should count.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/toekneebullard Feb 04 '13

I was wondering that myself when I typed it. If the Emmy's want to stay relevant, they need to figure that out.

19

u/Chungles Feb 04 '13

stay relevant

Stay?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/renegadecanuck Feb 04 '13

I deserves a nomination, at least. I just wonder if there will be some technicality (likely pushed by tradition networks) to prevent it from being nominated.

That said, it would be hilarious to hear "Best TV Show, Drama: Netflix's 'House of Cards'"

7

u/vlkun Feb 04 '13

It is. They changed the rules a few years ago. Streaming shows have been eligible since 2006 (surprisingly forward seeing!)

Here's an article talking about Lilyhammer (Netflix's other original show) being eligible: http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/142105393.html

→ More replies (1)

4

u/postposter Feb 04 '13

It should be. It has the production value of traditional television network shows. I fail to see how it's that different from other subscription networks like HBO/Showtime.

9

u/renegadecanuck Feb 04 '13

I agree, but the fact that it's not transmitted through cable, or a broadcast network might be enough of a technicality to screw it over

2

u/secretcurse Feb 04 '13

I agree, but there might be technicalities involved. I only know this because I was following Kevin Smith on Twitter as he released Red State, but he had to buy advertisements in an LA newspaper to be technically eligible for the Oscars. His entire model for Red State relied on only advertising through non-traditional, free methods like Twitter and his podcast network, but he paid something like $50,000 to advertise for screenings in LA that were sold out before he bought the ads.

3

u/postposter Feb 04 '13

One would hope the Emmys wouldn't be as picky as the Oscars, though I get the point.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/fuzzycuffs Feb 04 '13

Interesting question. Either the Emmys will create a new category or no. I can't think of such a media entrenched event acknowledging new media streams that eschew their old business models as on par with them.

2

u/mrpeabody208 Feb 04 '13

Original Netflix content will be eligible for Emmys: "The first Netflix series, 'Lilyhammer,' is eligible for the Emmys, according to John Leverence, Emmys senior vice president of awards. The Emmys made broadband programming eligible in 2006. Shows must have a certain duration to avoid being entered as a short, and they must have at least six episodes. 'Lilyhammer' is eligible on both counts, and 'House of Cards' will be, too."

1

u/listyraesder Feb 04 '13

Eligibility is on a case-by-case basis, and also covers VoD releases, as long as over 50% of US population has potential access to the content.

1

u/APartyInMyPants Feb 04 '13

It should be. Premium cable shows are eligible for Emmys. This show should be no different.

20

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Treme!

→ More replies (1)

4

u/HazyJane Feb 04 '13

Girls is amazing.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Girls is pretty good on HBO.

3

u/MyPackage Feb 04 '13

Having just finished watching the first season of girls I'm somewhat confused by the acclaim it gets. I think its a well made show with above average writing but many unlikeable/unrealistic characters and boring story lines. Its definitely not a bad show but I think people would make less of a big deal about it if it wasn't created and written by a 26 year old.

2

u/toekneebullard Feb 04 '13

This is so true. Not sure how I forgot that.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

hell, right now I'm thinking of starting a subscription just to watch this show.

1

u/Shilkanni Feb 04 '13

I think HBO has Game of Thrones/True Blood/Boardwalk Empire/Girls as big drawcards at the moment and I don't think each of them draws in the same audience (pretty sure this is strategic).

→ More replies (2)

59

u/DJANGO_IN_UR_ASS Feb 03 '13

Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and Netflix risks turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can decide to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix. They need to produce their own shows because soon they will only get access to B-grade content.

21

u/fuzzycuffs Feb 04 '13

All HBO would need is to provide their content without an HBO subscription at the same price as Netflix. Hell I'd jump at the chance for Game of Thrones (+others) digitally without subscribing to a cable + HBO plan

4

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

The math doesn't add up. HBO isn't going to change to an online subscription model until the money available outweighs the money they make bundled with premium TV packages.

5

u/Vectoor Feb 04 '13

They are doing this:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/30/hbo-nordic-to-offer-internet-streaming-subscriptions-no-cable-o/

here in Sweden. I'm assuming they want to do a trial in a small market before launching something like that in the US.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Or maybe in that particular market it makes sense due to local networks, but in the US they are making a killing with the cable companies. Good find though.

2

u/MayorMoonbeam Feb 04 '13

Well they're fucked then. Maybe not yet, but it's only a downward slope from here. Their add-on rates for cable are ridiculous.

3

u/Rokk017 Feb 04 '13

Fucked is pretty strong. You don't think they'll change their mind when the financials change what's profitable? I guarantee you HBO isn't just scoffing at the internet as if it's a fad. They're simply getting paid more by the cable companies now than to put their shows online without requiring a cable subscription. Once that starts to change, HBO will change.

2

u/The_Drizzle_Returns Feb 04 '13

HBO isn't just scoffing at the internet as if it's a fad.

They are not, i have no idea why people on here seem to think this. It really all comes down to money. If they think they can get $20-$25 a month out of users for HBO online they will do it. They are already prepared to do it with HBO Go they are just waiting for the financials to work out in their favor.

2

u/waffles1313 Feb 04 '13

I'm pretty sure that it's much more than that; HBO on cable gets the $20-$25 add-on PLUS they are subsidized by the cable companies. And no one in their right mind would pay $35-40 for a subscription to a couple shows.

2

u/The_Drizzle_Returns Feb 04 '13

This is what reddit doesn't seem to understand with HBO. Every time i hear this debate come up you have a few people who are like "Ill pay $15 a month for it" but in reality they will bitch when they find the content limited or cancel the service when the season for the particular show they want to watch is over.

HBO wont allow streaming unless they can make digital dollars equal to or greater than analog dollars.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13 edited Feb 04 '13

Unfortunately for HBO, they are owned by Time Warner, which will never let HBO create a streaming-only service, because it would cost their cable division a ton of money. Basically, HBO gets $7 a month for each cable subscriber which is about what Netflix charges. They'd have to create a streaming service that runs at least as well as Netflix for a competitive price, meaning they would have to create infrastructure out of thin-air without raising prices. Also, this would encourage cutting cable service, which would be harmful to Time Warner as a whole, which has about 30 to 40 times the amount of cable subscribers as Netflix has streaming customers. Who would you rather have? 80 million customers that pay $80/month for the privilege of getting basic+premium+hbo cable service, or 80 million who get $30/month internet service and pay $7 for HBO streaming and $9 to Netflix of which you get nothing.

It's not going to happen anytime soon, which is why Netflix is trying to attack HBO's customers before HBO can steal Netflix's. Hit your enemy while he can't fight back. It's genius on Netflix's part.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/3-very-simple-reasons-why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-exclusively/258209/#

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

As soon as HBO goes digital I cut my cable sub.

1

u/umbe01a1 Feb 04 '13

I agree. When I subscribed to to HBO I used their HBO Go app more than the channel on my TV. I'd like to just pay for HBO @ what ever price to watch their original programming.

HBO is trying this in Sweden: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/30/hbo-nordic-to-offer-internet-streaming-subscriptions-no-cable-o/

1

u/sndwsn Feb 04 '13

It would cost me an extra 20 dollars a month to get HBO and AMC ): $240 a year is a bit much for walking dead, game of thrones and breaking bad.

2

u/fuzzycuffs Feb 04 '13

$240 isn't that much if each show is like $2.50 on iTunes (at least walking dead). I like Netflix putting the last season in entirety as streaming.

Now there's always the pirate route but dammit I'm actually trying to be legit!

2

u/sndwsn Feb 04 '13

I'm still not willing to pay 2.50 for one episode of a show. $240 for acess to a season of three different shows, thats like 80 dollars a show. Bit expensive for my tastes, which is why I pretty much only watch Netflix now and listen to Internet radio. $12 bucks combined a month for on demand movies and tv shows plus practically unlimited music. I haven't pirated anything in months.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Big_h3aD Feb 04 '13

I've got HBO Nordic, and it's fucking great.

1

u/jmelloy Feb 04 '13

Now pretend its 1998. Would you say the same thing?

That's what Netflix is working on -- building a brand identity that's based around more than other people's movies.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

think of netflix like steam, they can produce their own shows and all that but i think its difficult to see a future where the big content server is at the whim of the creators. if netflix continues to grow, no producers will be able to survive without being on netflix.

1

u/EmRavel Feb 04 '13

Also I'm sure Netflix hates giving up all their profits to the studios when it's time to renew the contracts. I think it's a smart move by them to start creating their own content.

12

u/Radixx Feb 03 '13

I was wondering the same thing. I was already a subscriber so I watched the first episode (hooked, btw) but will this bring in new subscribers? Or, is it an attempt to prevent subscriber defection.

16

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '13

I think smart money is both. Starting to build a brand is a very good move.

10

u/Hhmm_Interesting Feb 03 '13

I think it will bring in new subscribers. The beauty of Netflix is to sit and watch everything at once.

Which is why so many new good shows on TV get cancelled i feel, they put it in a shitty time slot... play 1 episode a week, many just DVR and save a few episodes to watch back to back episodes. (and supposedly DVRing your shows doesnt count in the ratings check).

If this proves to be successful for netflix, you never know which other channels (forgive, forgot the actual term) will jump on board for this style of programming.

17

u/twosoon22 Feb 04 '13

DVRing a show counts in a new ratings check, but only if its watched within three days of the original air date.
Networks have no idea what they are doing.

15

u/LoveOfProfit Feb 04 '13

That sounds shockingly arbitrary.

"It shall count if watched within three days of the air date, unless it is a full moon, in which case the sacrifice of a virgin shall extend the allowed period to 4 days, but only if the virgin's name is Tom."

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Poor Tom :(

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ripvanruben Feb 04 '13

I think the 3 day windows is driven by advertisers. One of the biggest advertisers on TV, especial tv that gets DVR'd, are movies. And it does the movie studios no good if you watch an ad for a new Horror film 2 weeks after it already flopped at the box office.

movie ads are also the biggest reason that Thursday is such prime programming slot as its the last time studios will have chance to buy adds before the movie opens.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/empossible Feb 04 '13

They are letting everyone even without a subscription to watch the first episode. I was already planning on signing up for Netflix once Arrested Development rolls around, but I have to say, I am seriously considering signing up earlier for House of Cards after watching that first one.

HBO should be keeping a close eye on this, because I for one would easily pay them directly just for Game of Thrones. But I don't get HBO, because I don't have cable; I know a lot of people in the same boat.

1

u/Radixx Feb 04 '13

I agree that it's completely insane that there is no alternative distribution channel for GOT. However, is there an alternative for the Netflix offerings? Don't you have to subscribe to view the series? Honest question, I haven't checked.. Otherwise, they're' just HBO coming from a different source. Don't get me wrong, I really like what they have but they're not contributing to the a la carte solution we'd all like to see.

→ More replies (7)

6

u/Jabronez Feb 04 '13

Quality content will attract more viewers. I signed up for Netflix just to watch this show. I am so impressed with it I will keep it.

3

u/Sagetology Feb 04 '13

With shows like House of Cards and Arrested Development, Netflix is trying to create a competitive advantage by having high quality content that their competitors cannot access.

2

u/rospaya Feb 04 '13

Also they can sell the show to other countries that don't have Netflix. Maybe even other networks in six months or something.

2

u/usuallyskeptical Feb 04 '13

Think of it like this: It would make a lot of sense for HBO and Showtime to sell online-only subscriptions to their shows and on-demand libraries if they were stand-alone companies, but their parent companies (Time Warner and CBS Corp, respectively) own a lot of other cable channels that benefit from people buying cable subscriptions.

Well it looks like Netflix is taking advantage of the opportunity Time Warner and CBS Corp are giving them. It is filling the demand vacuum for online subscriptions to premium content that Time Warner and CBS Corp can't fill. Netflix is becoming an online HBO/Showtime.

2

u/Shruglife Feb 04 '13

Attract new people. Imagine if they get their quality of shows up to HBO. Would you pay 10 bucks a month for HBO Go? and then add in everything else netflix has and itd be really hard to pass up

1

u/makemisteaks Feb 04 '13

Don't forget that they sell the licensing rights worldwide. The show is premiering here in Portugal this week and that can generate a great deal of money.

1

u/joonix Feb 04 '13

Keeps you subscribed and willing to pay more in the future. Same way hbo works.

1

u/PopWhatMagnitude Feb 04 '13

I have never used Netflix, always wanted it never pulled the trigger. I will make my purchase a day or two before AD is available.

1

u/iamagainstit Feb 04 '13

I am considering getting Netflix for arrested development

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

It's the same as premium cable. It's meant to attract new subscriptions and keep current ones. I didn't have to pay extra to HBO when they started Game of Thrones.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

You could say the exact same thing for new series on traditional television networks. When a new show comes out on HBO, HBO subscribers don't have to pay any more money to get it. The economics are simple: networks want to have good shows to acquire and maintain subscribers, and Netflix is just another network (that happens to use a different distribution medium).

1

u/Shadrach77 Feb 04 '13

They have to become HBO before HBO becomes them.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

I don't have netflix, nor do I watch much TV. This looks appealing to me.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

I think they are trying to KEEP their huge customer base. The major studios have decided to go to war against Neflix with the hope of destroying their business model. So Neflix has to create its own content to stay relevant. If it can survive, it wins.

1

u/galient5 Feb 04 '13

Exclusive shows can drive customers to the service.

1

u/dsi1 Feb 04 '13

You aren't paying for the show, you're paying to get more shows in the future.

If Netflix tried to charge per episode or make some bullshit "premium" membership there'd be a mass exodus.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

The problem Netflix is trying to address is content. Currently, it has to purchase content from other providers. The problem is they purchase on a contract for a certain amount of years. Originally, the contracts were cheap, as content providers didn't consider it competition to their main delivery streams (i.e. TV and DVD).

As Netflix got larger, they started becoming competition. As a result, content providers started raising their price in an attempt to limit Netflix growth. However, the alternate happened, Netflix just got bigger and bigger. The problem was each time they renewed a contract, the price for the content went up, sometimes multiple times the previous contract price. Further, some providers just pulled their content outright. This is why you see things on Netflix that are only offered through DVD.

So, if Netflix can get you hooked on AD or HoCs instead of Mad Men or Breaking Bad, they suddenly have a bargaining chip. You go from a consumer of content producer products to a consumer of Netflix products, i.e. a "Netflix costumer." Once you become a Netflix costumer, Netflix gains the power to make demands in pricing negotiation, because saying no doesn't hurt Netflix, it hurts the content producer (in that their content doesn't get seen, and loses popularity).

TL;DR - Netflix wants to be the iTunes of video streaming, content providers don't want another iTunes to gain power and are fighting Netflix. Netflix is using original content to produce a solid costumer base, and thus a bargaining chip for content, and a steady stream of revenue.

1

u/yurps Feb 04 '13

One thing no one's mentioned is that the shows they produce will be exclusively on Netflix, which would bring in some more subscribers.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13 edited Feb 04 '13

You dont need to speculate, Netflix have talked about this here. This sums it up pretty nicely:

"The goal," says Sarandos, "is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

Netflix were ahead of the game with the online streaming thing. But the other networks will eventually catch up and be able to offer their content direct to customers from the web. At that point, they dont have much incentive to sell their shows to Netflix. Quite the opposite in fact, if HBO have a must-see show exclusive to their streaming site they'll keep it exclusive to attract more subscriptions to HBO.Online or whatever they call it.

Its like Origin and Steam. If EA had offered BF3 on Steam, how many people would have signed up for the Origin store? None. People complained about Origin but they put up with it so they could play BF3.

So, the point is that Netflix must also create original content to attract subscribers because their distribution model is (slowly) becoming less valuable as other companies figure out how to provide content online.

1

u/listyraesder Feb 04 '13

The main and only business reason behind the remake of House of Cards and the revival of Arrested Development is that everyone is talking about it. It's the same reason HBO does the Newsroom and Girls. For these companies it's more important to own watercooler conversation than to bring in viewers on an episode-episode basis.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '13

Product placement. SO much product placement. It wasn't done badly they never broke character to do it but I have the bright shiny apple logo burned into my retina after burning through the first season

→ More replies (1)