Has Netflix Peaked? (1 Viewer)

A collapsing House of Cards? Some reviews of the third season of "House of Cards" have not been flattering either. Critics have complained that the show was not as fun and exciting in its third season.

Michael Wolff had perhaps the harshest indictment in USA Today.


Wolff wrote that "'House of Cards', which appeared to usher in the golden age of Internet-produced, over-the-top-delivered television, could already be signaling its end."

Click to expand...

Seems like the hit House of Cards isnt helping netflix and with more competition on the horizon the bubble may start to deflate.

But the stock has fallen nearly 15% since Netflix's popular political drama returned for its third season on February 27.

Click to expand...

Not good for catalogue titles especially for the evergreen ones:

According to reports, Netflix has bowed out of the bidding for "Seinfeld."

Click to expand...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/16/investing/netflix-stock-house-of-cards-seinfeld/

In a play on the title of Netflix's other big hit, Evercore ISI even has an image of a poster from "Orange is the New Black" in its report that replaced the word Orange with Red.

Click to expand...

Do they mean "peaked", as in the stock price? I think Netflix will always be the SVOD leader (at least for many years to come) and so it will be growing quite a bit. They have three main advantages: 1) they are already big, 2) have great name recognition, 3) millions of remotes have a dedicated Netflix button. Of course all of those advantages are due to them being first. And the old saying is true this time: the early bird gets the worm.


The rest of the SVOD market is hopelessly fragmented and that is to Netflix's benefit. However I do think they are overdoing it on original programming and need to have a better balance between it and buying rights to content. There is already a huge glut of content providers.

The article is a hit piece. Any writer worth his/her salt would mention Netflix' upcoming programming, including the Marvel Universe TV series' that are coming out. Starting with Daredevil next month. Instead the writer rants about old shows like Seinfeld and Friends.


As far as season 3 of House of Cards goes, it received a 76 out of 100 score from the critics at Metacritic and 76% score from the critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Ratings from the users of both sites were 7.2 and 73%. Not exactly what I'd call bad ratings.


The only real "evidence" the writer has that's legit is the stock price. Stocks rise and fall. I don't see how it pertains to Netflix "peaking" or not.


As Bruce mentioned above, Netlix has a large user base, and will continue to have one for years to come. The service is installed everywhere from TV's, Blu-Ray players, streaming devices, etc.

revgen said:

Instead the writer rants about old shows like Seinfeld and Friends.

Click to expand...

If the cost per episode of Seinfeld is $500,000 (as has been quoted) is accurate then they were right to pass. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger Seinfeld fan than me but to pay $90 million for one 20 year old show would be moronic.

I will say though that their service is not quite what it used to be. They have closed their distribution center here in Richmond, Virginia. What this means is that it takes longer for a disc to return to them and have another one sent. For almost 15 years I could put a disc in the mail on a Monday, they would show it received on Tuesday, and I would have a new disc on Wednesday. Now the closest center is in North Carolina so this process now takes closer to a week. Streaming is great but not everything is available and I prefer seeing things on blu ray in any case. I imagine over time the disc service will give way completely to streaming. Overall in the time I have used Netflix their service has been great and for a long time they stocked just about any title one could imagine. Too bad this is changing but that is the way the market is going.

revgen said:

The article is a hit piece. Any writer worth his/her salt would mention Netflix' upcoming programming, including the Marvel Universe TV series' that are coming out. Starting with Daredevil next month. Instead the writer rants about old shows like Seinfeld and Friends.


As far as season 3 of House of Cards goes, it received a 76 out of 100 score from the critics at Metacritic and 76% score from the critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Ratings from the users of both sites were 7.2 and 73%. Not exactly what I'd call bad ratings.


The only real "evidence" the writer has that's legit is the stock price. Stocks rise and fall. I don't see how it pertains to Netflix "peaking" or not.


As Bruce mentioned above, Netlix has a large user base, and will continue to have one for years to come. The service is installed everywhere from TV's, Blu-Ray players, streaming devices, etc.

Click to expand...

I know that Netflix has some upcoming show that I am interested in but are they good that is the question and we dont know yet. I dont think the recent season of House of Cards played that well . Hearing people at work talk about the show I think it lost some of its shine. The writer says peaking and uses not just a stock price but also mentions how only a few shows have been considered a hit. I also believe that with HBO and Apple coming in line in the next several months the people who finance and buy stocks are thinking that this will be a bad thing for Netty F.


BTW... Many think that Netflix produces House of Cards but they do not. Its produced by company(s)

Media Rights Capital

Trigger Street Productions
Wade/Thomas Productions
Knight Takes King Productions


Netflix is the distributor only. So blaming Netflix for show failures like the writer does is kind of unfair in my opinion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_%28U.S._TV_series%29


That also goes for shows like the newer Marvel ones. Not a Netflix production just distributed by them and the window is only for streaming not digital download to own (EST) and physical media.

Jim*Tod said:

I will say though that their service is not quite what it used to be. They have closed their distribution center here in Richmond, Virginia. What this means is that it takes longer for a disc to return to them and have another one sent. For almost 15 years I could put a disc in the mail on a Monday, they would show it received on Tuesday, and I would have a new disc on Wednesday. Now the closest center is in North Carolina so this process now takes closer to a week. Streaming is great but not everything is available and I prefer seeing things on blu ray in any case. I imagine over time the disc service will give way completely to streaming. Overall in the time I have used Netflix their service has been great and for a long time they stocked just about any title one could imagine. Too bad this is changing but that is the way the market is going.

Click to expand...

The problem with their stream service is that many people originally felt that it was the end all and be all of video repositories and that they would eventually have everything. On this very forum and others like it some people were selling their watched video collections and spouted that they didnt need them anymore because Netflix is all you need. How wrong they were. The only way to make sure that your favorite shows will be available to watch when you want is to make a purchase of the content via EST or Physical media.

Netflix catalogue is very spotty with many series having only a few seasons and not ones in order (season 4 and 7 for example). I have also started watching series only to find out that the next episodes are no longer available because they lost the rights to stream the program. In fact my husband and I started watching Shameless UK version only to find out after 120 episodes that Netflix doesnt have the final season so I had to purchase the DVD from the UK.

Netflix is like the cheap seats at a ball game or the nosebleed sections where every once in a while you will get a home run ball but the view is usually sub par. You get what you pay for and it does have its purpose I suppose.

I wonder if NF didn't already get Friends for the same price as the asking for Seinfeld if they would have went for Seinfeld

and if they regret or would rather have it now instead.

Towergrove said:

BTW... Many think that Netflix produces House of Cards but they do not. Its produced by company(s)

Media Rights Capital

Trigger Street Productions
Wade/Thomas Productions
Knight Takes King Productions


Netflix is the distributor only. So blaming Netflix for show failures like the writer does is kind of unfair in my opinion.

Click to expand...

We've said this for ten years now: If your mail isn't interesting, don't blame the mailman, he doesn't write it.

Netflix is only a disk-jockey of a distributor; it doesn't produce, archive, master, own, edit, or in any other way control the destinies of the titles it licenses. The disks-by-mail, it can store, the digital files, it can only license for a certain window from whoever provides them.


I haven't seen a single anti-Netflix article that doesn't accuse Netflix of not giving them the good stuff personally, like the kid who didn't get that bicycle from Santa.

The difference between NF and Santa Claus, kid, is that Santa actually makes the stuff he delivers.

The article is a hit piece. Any writer worth his/her salt would mention Netflix' upcoming programming, including the Marvel Universe TV series' that are coming out. Starting with Daredevil next month. Instead the writer rants about old shows like Seinfeld and Friends.

Click to expand...

And ignores the basic mindset of the sVOD base to begin with:

Yes, although it's nice to have House of Cards and Daredevil (okay, haven't watched Cards), it's been, as Tower says, a bubble for Netflix, Hulu and Amazon to fight over original programming--all believing they're going to get Cards's ratings, Orange's trendiness and Transparent's Emmys--before the numbers even came in and forgetting the question of where the profits were going to come from.

But the rise of Netflix, Hulu and Amazon is fueled by customers cutting the cable, and if you ask them, most will brag about the money they're saving, but will confess that they dropped cable to get AWAY from original programming.


If we're getting the hit pieces, it's an early sign that the audience that wanted the trend is now ready to turn on it the second it bleeds, while the longer term audience that wanted Seinfeld and Friends, and other archive material, will continue searching the back catalogs, hoping the cluttering "distraction" will soon be over.

There's not a lot of customer love out there for new series unless they're mind-blowing (anybody remember that Netflix's "first original series" wasn't Cards, but Lillyhammer?) And if it's parasitically taking money and boardroom interest away from NF's ability to license catalog material--which is its biggest tactical advantage against Hulu's lack of catalog and Amazon's tunnel-visioned exclusive deals--sVOD's leaving themselves open to being the next victim of cable's disease.

But before the numbers even came in and forgetting the question of where the profits were going to come from. the rise of Netflix, Hulu and Amazon is fueled by customers cutting the cable, and if you ask them, most will brag about the money they're saving, but will confess that they dropped cable to get AWAY from original programming.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The Marvel acquisition is not just about ratings or emmy awards. Many cord cutters are young people who can't afford large cable bills. The Marvel titles appeal to that sector.


Is there a sector of the population who don't want sports, and other programming, but want to watch catalog series? Sure. But are they worth spending $500,000 an episode on as TravisR explained above? Unlikely.


NF still acquires catalog titles. They just recently acquired the first five seasons of M*A*S*H. Which was probably more reasonable than what they would have had to pay for Seinfeld or Friends.

I don't think NF has peaked. I think, merely, others have caught on(both creators of services and customers).

I subscribe to...

Netflix
HuluPlus
Amazon
FilmMovement (technically not the same thing)
Fandor
Popcorn Flix
Crackle
Acolyte Cinema
Grindhouse
Warner Archive
Bigstar

Because of these varied services have found craptons of movies.

Many...nowhere near a disc.

So NF dropping disc...

For me, is a useless point.

If the name of the game is to get as many eyeballs to watch as a service can then wont netflix be hurt in the end when more online options like apple tv service, slingtv, playstation vue and all these others come online and start marketing in full? I would think that answer would be a "yes".

Towergrove said:

If the name of the game is to get as many eyeballs to watch as a service can then wont netflix be hurt in the end when more online options like apple tv service, slingtv, playstation vue and all these others come online and start marketing in full? I would think that answer would be a "yes".

Click to expand...

I think what will (need to) happen is consolidation.

NF buys a few smaller ones while keeping them independent.

Like Fandor. Can't imagine they have 10% of the subscription base. Doubt they pay much for their content either.

revgen said:

Not necessarily. The Marvel acquisition is not just about ratings or emmy awards. Many cord cutters are young people who can't afford large cable bills. The Marvel titles appeal to that sector.

Click to expand...

Think it was more a case that Daredevil and Jessica Jones were a different (and let's not forget to mention, cheaper) producer from Disney/ABC/Marvel, and was never intended to have the same agenda for being tied in to big-studio movie canon as Agent Carter and SHIELD. If they were, they'd get the network money, but as they're not, they're on their own.

Made-for-streaming programming is trying to present themselves as having the same "Not ready for the networks" grittiness as cable drama, but they can't escape the image that they're just itinerant syndicateds who couldn't get a network. For every Orange is the New Black, there's a Bojack Horseman, and a half dozen British and Canadian imports on Hulu--Like Amazon's pilot-voting season, they give the distinct impression of begging.


And while the Young People Who Want To Rent Everything aren't prepared to tie themselves down to expensive digital-cable packages, the rationale they give for saving that investment usually involves some joke about cable reality shows, as resentment for losing everything they grew up with on cable as kids in the late 80's and early 90's.

(And usually involving some reference to Honey Boo-boo, despite the fact that she's been off the air for a year now.)

As a film historian and teacher, I first subscribed to their streaming service as a way to see all the rare Republic and UA titles included in their offerings back then, films which had not been released on home video and indeed hadn't been seen anywhere for decades. When "Streamageddon" happened most of those disappeared and my watch list went from 275 to 80. Since then their CLASSICS section is ridiculously paltry, so it's obvious they don't care about replenishing catalog titles and serving those who are interested in them. If it weren't for my girlfriend's attachment to the UK series they have, I would have stopped subscribing years ago. So for me, yes, it's peaked and only added more proof to my conviction that physical media cannot be replaced at the present time.

Netflix was all movies when they first started. Today they stream more TV series than movies.

I don't personally believe Netflix has peaked. While I have had issues with the poor Customer Focus that they have shown in the last 3 years I believe they made choices that were ultimately necessary for the survival of the company and pulled the bandaid off TOO fast. Even with all of that I have remained a subscriber and enjoy moderate use, tho I don't take advantage of it as much as I should.


I wonder tho, assuming the rumors are true, if Apple does significantly revamp its Apple TV product line this June, if that will be a rising tide for Netflix or a typhoon that will help wipe it out.

Ive mentioned Subsrciption Fatigue before but here is someone talking about Netflix Fatigue. Interesting read...

That’s a huge expense for a company that charges its customers less than $10 a month for unlimited access to all this content, but with international expansion high on its agenda Netflix seems bent on making a splash in whichever new markets it enters, at the same time casting a wary eye over its shoulders at U.S. consumers and hoping and praying they don’t come down with “Netflix fatigue,” particularly now that Amazon Prime is nipping at its heels.

Click to expand...

But if there’s a word of caution I could throw out here, it’s that if you’re No. 1, everyone and his brother are going to want to unseat you. Amazon Prime is just one of a growing legion of competitors, big and small, broad and niche, hungry for a bite of the Netflix-dominated OTT pie. And while Netflix is smart to look overseas to further expand its reach — in January the company, currently in 50 countries, said it wants to be in 200 by the end of 2016 — the growth potential is not unlimited.

For Netflix, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, these truly are the best of times, and the worst of times. About all Netflix can do is continue to pay big bucks to feed the beast —realizing the beast is growing hungrier all the time and hoping it won’t one day turn on its master.

Click to expand...

http://homemediamagazine.com/tks-take/2-billion-cure-netflix-fatigue


Given that Apple has something interesting coming in the next few months that may just turn the entire industry (cable industry) upside down. It wouldnt surprise me.

Towergrove said:

Ive mentioned Subsrciption Fatigue before but here is someone talking about Netflix Fatigue. Interesting read...


http://homemediamagazine.com/tks-take/2-billion-cure-netflix-fatigue


Given that Apple has something interesting coming in the next few months that may just turn the entire industry (cable industry) upside down. It wouldnt surprise me.

Click to expand...

That article displays an analyst's profound buzzword-ignorance of just what exactly "Subscription fatigue" is.


All Netflix has going for it--and it's enough--is for the majority of customers who want a "subscription fatigue" cure for all the exclusive/specialized sites by subscribing to only one source, that's so diverse enough that it CAN be one source:
Hulu let reruns go to its head, ignored its movie catalog and never escaped its cheap-PD-site roots, while Amazon let Emmys go to its head, and is stocking itself with original programming, while their TV section is still an isolated collection of Viacom channels, and the movie selection is getting more random by the day.


The other sites are wanting too much, and with all the pressure put on them by analysts who want to see who'll win "the new cord-cutting battle", we're facing some Great Day of the Remote point where services will reap what they're not sowing in their other sections.

Netflix, meanwhile, is getting by on doing what they had been doing back when no one else was doing it, and with only enough funds to jump into a few original series on a respectable budget without going all Amazon about it.