# Netflix plans to make half of its content original programming



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Netflix plans to make half of its content original programming: http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/09/netflix-plans-to-make-half-of-its-content-original-programming/


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

That goal can also be accomplished by reducing the amount of licensed content.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I hope they succeed. NF original programming has some really good shows, I think. Where else can you find content such as _Marco Polo_ or _Bloodline_? I realize that other NF shows don't come close to those two series, but a good part of their original NF content is very well done.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In truth Netflix, Amazon Prime, Acorn TV, etc. are just cable TV channels (ironically in my case delivered over Comcast Xfinity cable TV company's cable as internet service). They have original programming and what we call "syndicated" shows from others. Also they have lots of movies like many cable TV channels. The only real difference I see is that you don't have to "tune in" or "set a DVR timer" to watch a show.

I'm not quite sure what the announcement means. Going back to the original Variety story...



> Netflix is driving toward having half the content on its streaming service be original productions over the next few years, with the other 50% representing licensed TV shows and movies, CFO David Wells said.
> 
> In 2016, Netflix expects to launch 600 hours of original programming, up from 450 hours in 2015, content chief Ted Sarandos said at the start of the year. The company has projected content spending on a profit/loss basis to rise from $5 billion this year to more than $6 billion in 2017.
> 
> The original TV series and movies will continue to be a mix of content owned and produced by Netflix, as well as co-productions and acquisitions, Wells said. The company is "one-third to halfway" toward reaching the 50% originals target, he said. Not every show needs to be a breakout hit, he added: "We don't necessarily have to have home runs&#8230; We can also live with singles, doubles and triples especially commensurate with their cost."


...doesn't really clarify it. When I think of Netflix available content I liken it to a warehouse with stacks of DVDs. If the goal is to have half the stacks be original content that's great. But whether it means piles and piles of content produced in previous years, well that's like broadcast network shows being syndicated for repeat on other channels. The real test each year will be if half of the content newly available on Netflix consists of new episodes of original programming.

Not that it is going to help as I'm already in overwhelm trying to figure out what we're going to be watching this fall given new content as new episodes of old shows and new shows on broadcast channels, cable channels, and streaming channels. My brain is too old to cope with this. Not that I'm complaining.... :sure:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

All Netflix has become is a new HBO of the 80's.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> All Netflix has become is a new HBO of the 80's.


But at a bargain price, and they don't advertise anything - even their own shows.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

To me, this appears to be a very bad thing. On Instant Watcher, I see about 50,000 titles. If that translates to about 50,000 hours of content, and Netflix produces an average of 500 hours of new content per year, in 5 years, that's 5% of what they offer now. This has to mean they intend to drop 90% of their current content.

I don't want to have to subscribe to 20 different services at $10+ a pop. This is a big step backwards for the consumer, IMO. All the more reason to chuck it all and go OTA only.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Wilf said:


> But at a bargain price, and they don't advertise anything - even their own shows.


I pay $10 a month for HBO through Dish and $9 a month for Netflix.



mdavej said:


> To me, this appears to be a very bad thing. On Instant Watcher, I see about 50,000 titles. If that translates to about 50,000 hours of content, and Netflix produces an average of 500 hours of new content per year, in 5 years, that's 5% of what they offer now. This has to mean they intend to drop 90% of their current content.
> 
> I don't want to have to subscribe to 20 different services at $10+ a pop. This is a big step backwards for the consumer, IMO. All the more reason to chuck it all and go OTA only.


Actually, the big gain from streaming has been the ability to add/drop/add back/drop subscriptions without packages. You could literally budget streaming at around $25± a month and do "month-binges" on seasons of shows. If you have OTA with an OTA-DVR plus that $25±/mo you have access to a lot of content.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wilf said:


> But at a bargain price, and they don't advertise anything - even their own shows.


Not really a bargain. Their line up right now is maybe around that of an encore premium with a few starz programs and say tv land. It's no where near the level of today's HBO yet. So much of their streaming is old. And their library is slowly shrinking of non original content that is newer as they increase their Original stuff.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

phrelin said:


> I pay $10 a month for HBO through Dish and $9 a month for Netflix.
> 
> Actually, the big gain from streaming has been the ability to add/drop/add back/drop subscriptions without packages. You could literally budget streaming at around $25± a month and do "month-binges" on seasons of shows. If you have OTA with an OTA-DVR plus that $25±/mo you have access to a lot of content.


That's getting more and more difficult and a lot of movies would be a moving target now that the Windows they are on these services isn't much different than the windows a movie is on HBO. Except the really old stuff

For original programing sure that's going to always be there. But that's the only type of show you can really count on now.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> That's getting more and more difficult and a lot of movies would be a moving target now that the Windows they are on these services isn't much different than the windows a movie is on HBO. Except the really old stuff
> 
> For original programing sure that's going to always be there. But that's the only type of show you can really count on now.


To each his own. I don't see this "That's getting more and more difficult" of which you write. I am a very long way from running out "non-original" stuff to watch. What happens in the future is pure speculation, except that change will continue to occur. For me commercial free, without ad kipping gimmicks, is huge.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

Exactly, NF isn't intended to be a permanent repository of everything. I never had difficulty watching movies on HBO. If it's in rotation that month & I want to see it, I simply watch it. If I haven't watched it by the time it's yanked, I probably didn't really want to see it all the bad in the first place.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Eddie501 said:


> Exactly, NF isn't intended to be a permanent repository of everything. I never had difficulty watching movies on HBO. If it's in rotation that month & I want to see it, I simply watch it. If I haven't watched it by the time it's yanked, I probably didn't really want to see it all the bad in the first place.


My point was it was suggested you could rotate what streaming service you have constantly and get everything. That's what I'm suggesting would be very difficult.

I've said for a long time if you didn't watch sports and had both streaming and blu ray rental with Netflix that's all you would need ever. You wouldn't even need over the air IMHO.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wilf said:


> To each his own. I don't see this "That's getting more and more difficult" of which you write. I am a very long way from running out "non-original" stuff to watch. What happens in the future is pure speculation, except that change will continue to occur. For me commercial free, without ad kipping gimmicks, is huge.


Are you saying using skip to skip commercials is a gimmick?

And it's not pure speculation. It's already happening today. Look at CBS. It's where we are headed.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not even sure what this Netflix statement means... they aren't a linear channel. They stream whatever you want to watch in any given moment. IF they made "half" of their content "original" only... the only way I can see to do that is substantially reduce (i.e. drop) all the other content... because even if you add up ALL their existing original program content thus far, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what already exists. They would be dropping down to next to no content basically, wouldn't they?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> My point was it was suggested you could rotate what streaming service you have constantly and get everything. That's what I'm suggesting would be very difficult.


There is no way I would want, nor have I enough hours in a day, to see all that NF offers. I have no desire to "get everything."



inkahauts said:


> Are you saying using skip to skip commercials is a gimmick?


Yes, watching with your your finger poised over the skip/FF buttons on the remote is a gimmick. I prefer my TV as a seamless, without interruption or hiccups, experience.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And it's not pure speculation. It's already happening today. Look at CBS. It's where we are headed.


Streaming probably _is_ the future. I hope NBC and ABC follow CBS's example. Something upon which we agree.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not even sure what this Netflix statement means... they aren't a linear channel. They stream whatever you want to watch in any given moment. IF they made "half" of their content "original" only... the only way I can see to do that is substantially reduce (i.e. drop) all the other content... because even if you add up ALL their existing original program content thus far, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what already exists. They would be dropping down to next to no content basically, wouldn't they?


I agree. Their original content is small compared to what they have from other sources and I don't see how they can make enough NF content to get to the figure they're trying to reach.

Rich


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stew said:



Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not even sure what this Netflix statement means... they aren't a linear channel. They stream whatever you want to watch in any given moment. IF they made "half" of their content "original" only... the only way I can see to do that is substantially reduce (i.e. drop) all the other content... because even if you add up ALL their existing original program content thus far, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what already exists. They would be dropping down to next to no content basically, wouldn't they?


Whereas, three days earlier, and in fewer words to save space, I said:



Nick said:


> That goal can also be accomplished by reducing the amount of licensed content.


Can't an old fart get some respect around here?! :alterhase


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hey... Nick... I did like your post the other day! And I liked your follow up too.  And by "like" I mean not just that I liked it... but I clicked the "Like" button and officially "liked" it!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Since we're not Facebook but a Forum on TV technology it seems rather than a "like" button we ought to have a "two thumbs up" button or some sparks or maybe super dish or something. :sure:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wilf said:


> Streaming probably _is_ the future. I hope NBC and ABC follow CBS's example. Something upon which we agree.


As long as they leave what's here now too. Streaming only will get so much more expensive so fast. So much more expensive. People just don't seem to see this coming for some reason. This isn't the music industry. And this isn't them being forced into a change. This is them instigating change. When has Hollywood ever instigated change that didn't cost us more money?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I agree. Their original content is small compared to what they have from other sources and I don't see how they can make enough NF content to get to the figure they're trying to reach.
> 
> Rich


We'll have you noticed how much new stuff gets added monthly and how much old stuff disappears? Tons. I expect they are talking about new stuff being added on a monthly basis. Which would point to them being more strategic in what they add regularly. They want the bigger fish to bring people in like HBO has always done, and why epix is in existence and so forth...

Some stuff will last decades. But the bigger ticket stuff is extremely expensive. I expect Netflix streaming to be 20 a month in five years. Why? Because of what I just said about how they are choosing the big ticket stuff. Need proof? Think of their latest big ticket item they got a hold of and what that company will be doing over the next decade alone.... oh and in case people forget who I'm talking about... Disney.... 

There is a reason stuff doesn't stay there forever though. Hollywood is treating them more and more like HBO... and.... your local over the air station that is all syndicated shows that where mediocre or have been in syndication for three decades...


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I watch a lot more stuff on Netflix than I do on HBO. The "no commercials" part of both services is what is appealing. Right now I'm in the middle of the fifth season of Cheers and about to start watching the fifth season of Longmire.

Yes, I use the skip feature on recordings to skip commercials but as another poster mentioned this approach is not seamless; it's much better not to see the commercials at all.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Hey... Nick... I did like your post the other day! And I liked your follow up too.  And by "like" I mean not just that I liked it... but I clicked the "Like" button and officially "liked" it!


...and like you, Stew, I liked that you liked it!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Since we're not Facebook but a Forum on TV technology it seems rather than a "like" button we ought to have a "two thumbs up" button or some sparks or maybe super dish or something. :sure:


Couldn't resist the Like button for your post... :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

billsharpe said:


> I watch a lot more stuff on Netflix than I do on HBO. The "no commercials" part of both services is what is appealing. Right now I'm in the middle of the fifth season of Cheers and about to start watching the fifth season of Longmire.
> 
> Yes, I use the skip feature on recordings to skip commercials but as another poster mentioned this approach is not seamless; it's much better not to see the commercials at all.


I use HBO Now for HBO content and it's a bit wonky at times. I dropped my HBO sub a couple years ago and just use HN for series content. I prefer NF or AP if I can get the HBO content on them (don't recall seeing any HBO content on NF).

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Nick said:


> ...and like you, Stew, I liked that you liked it!


And it just gets harder and harder to not hit the Like button... :rolling:

Rich


----------

