Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absolutely HBO quality and would likely have been an HBO show if Netflix hadn't outbid by such an absurd amount (granted it was the right strategy to make but I get why HBO didn't match)).
Aside from Arrested Development, however, nothing on their current slate looks like it will rise above Starz quality. And that's a problem if you expect people to consistently pay $8 a month.
See, what happens with Netflix, HBO, Showtime -- even regular cable -- is that subscriber churn happens. It's often cyclical. One of the reasons HBO staggers its release schedule for its programming is to try to get people to pay year-round (it's also why they introduced HBO Go -- in essence they gave up their home video revenue, or greatly limited it -- in exchange for keeping people subscribed year-round because of all the content they could get anytime).
Netflix's own figures show that they can jump and fall by the millions per quarter.
If you want people to continue to subscribe every month -- and not cancel after they see the show they like -- you have to have a constant swath of new and original programming.
I'd literally pay 3-4x as much for the non-original content. Again, that is only 6-16hrs of content Netflix has to serve up, that is only remotely interesting. The convenience and paying for the business model I believe in does the rest.
If HBO offered its service unencumbered of cable subscriptions, I'd still find it less valuable than Netflix.
That's a brilliant pricing structure; one I never pay any attention to. They easily could get more out of me a month for the amount of value I get from it (and likely even more than that number if the quality of their unique content continues to shine).
The originally programming is meant to pull in new subs and keep current subs engaged at higher levels so that they are less likely to churn. If you want to cancel your subscription for whatever reason already, it may not matter if they have 100 original series, you'll still cancel.
It's all about increasing the lifetime value of each subscriber. One way is to keep them longer (e.g. reduce churn). The other is to upsell them to higher pricing tiers. We're not seeing that with the original content (yet), but what if Netflix managed to (for sake of discussion) get the rights to Firefly and made another season of it but only for people who signed up for a new "Premium Streaming" package. You'd see some complaints, but a slew of "Shut up and take my money" memes. I don't know if they'll ever do this, but it's the next logical step once they've established the original content as desirable.
I only use it a couple times a month, I find it hard to actually browse their catalog, but they do an okay job of suggestions. And I can usually find something interesting in a pinch. Most of all, I'm paying to keep them around, because of how good the experience was when I did cancel.
Contrast this to XM, when I had 3 radios, and only wanted to cancel one. Took three phone calls, with hold times of over 40 min each, to be mysteriously disconnected when they couldn't convince me to keep service on a radio in a car I no longer had. After that, I cancelled the whole thing.
HBO has a quality seal of approval that has taken 15 years to cultivate. That can't be bought or earned overnight from one show. HBO consistently gets more Emmy nominations than every other network -- once Netflix is able to counter in that area, then it will happen.
Still, getting over the hump can happen. Look at AMC. Before Mad Men and The Walking Dead, they were best known for the terrible original series Remember WENN (don't ask, it sucked and I was in 7th grade when it premiered). Now it's easily one of the best networks on TV. Same for FX. Justified, Always Sunny, Sons of Anarchy, Archer, The Americans are all fantastic and this was a brand that was best-known for playing Fox reruns until about 7 years ago.
EDIT: I think my post addresses filmgirlcw's point well. Yes, it took 15 years for HBO to cultivate their seal of approval. But that is partially because cultivating a seal of approval required HBO to build its subscription base, which takes time. Netflix already has its subscription base, so it only needs to convince that subscription base to watch its content. It can do that by 1) advertising prominently within Netflix (near zero cost), and 2) producing quality content, so that once people watch the first episode of a Netflix show, they want to watch the second. Therefore, the highest cost to Netflix is that of producing quality content. But as long as they can do that, they will succeed because they already have the audience. Of course, they do need to recognize that they only have a small window of opportunity to show that they can, in fact, produce quality content -- or else they will lose the willingness of their subscriber base to watch their originals.
I'm also not sure if you understand that HBO has has subscribers in the tens of millions for decades. That's my point, they've cultivated this premium brand but have been a part of many customers lives for years. I'm 30 and I've never NOT had HBO.
My parents have had HBO literally since 1972. 41 years. I realize that's an extreme example but the network has a strong brand.
HBO and Netflix aren't in a zero sum game; both can succeed. It's just that as Netflix moves into HBO's pool, it's going to have to face the issues HBO already faxed, whereas HBO won't have as hard of a time shifting to over the top once the business model makes sense.
Scale -- HBO is significantly larger when it comes to production capacity. HBO can also have far more shows in production at one time. That scale is partially a product of capital, but also one of point number 2:
Experience -- This one can't be underestimated. HBO first started toying around with original content and series in the early 1990s but it wasn't until Larry Sanders that the show really started to resonate beyond the periphery. Even then, the established TV world didn't start to pay serious attention to HBO until the late 1990s, when you had a swath of hits become bonafide cultural phenomenons (Sex and the City and The Sopranos were hits of a massive global scale beyond anything that cable, let alone premium cable, had seen up to that point).
Netflix has had to start from ground zero. They are essentially right now where HBO was in 1997, when HBO started to shift from acquiring content to paying for original content (Larry Sanders) to making the content in-house (Oz).
Now, granted the current world moves faster -- and Netflix is already potentially approaching the 1997 spot in just two and a half years with this strategy -- BUT content is also now more expensive (The Sopranos and Sex and the City were not $100m shows for a total of 26 episodes like House of Cards is), competition is fiercer than ever and the overall economics of television are not as advantageous as they once were.
I would also say that a third advantage is cable. Yes, cable is an advantage. Why? Because cable often serves as free (or nearly free) advertisements for HBO shows and the bundling of HBO for 3 months free or half-off or whatever is a huge driver in subscribers. Now, Netflix can replicate this, but they'll need to do it at a price and obviously they'll need to assess if giving the cable companies 30% of their monthly revenue is worth the advantages of being bundled.
None of this is insurmountable, but just as starting a movie studio from scratch is hard -- pivoting from a pure distributor into an original content creator/distributor is hard too.
These premiere shows had a much different feel than normal "big 3" network TV shows. They tend to be much more serial, with story arcs that go for whole seasons or even longer. They also tend to have much shorter seasons (generally around 8 to 12 episodes). This serial style really lends itself well to in-depth story telling and the shorter seasons means more attention is spent on each episode (since they don't have to constantly churn out new episodes all year).
An interesting technique that many of the shows use is to base themselves off a book series but make the entire 10 to 12 episode season cover a single book. Dexter, Game of Thrones, and True Blood all seems to do this with reasonable success. It allows them to get much more detailed than a 2 hour movie based on a book could possibly be.
Is there anyone on hn who hasn't checked out Game of thrones?
IMHO, looks like didn't.
I also haven't read the books.
Somehow I am not able to make HBOGo work on my Mac with all the tweaking and hence I pirate it(Sad :'( )
I wish they had an app that would just make it work magically - something like PnP!
Shudder.
then they certainly have a hand to play