I always thought Netflix really new how to build and grow a business. Having watched them from their early days (and as a customer myself), it seemed as if they knew they were the underdogs and worked hard to organically acquire customers. I got impatient with the lack of streaming knowing full well it probably wasn't their fault with the licensing issues and all. Fast forward a few years to today where I can get Netflix on my iPhone, iPad, & PS3.
But what impresses me now is how Netflix still operates with the customer in mind. From their algorithm contests to the multi-platform streaming options, they make sure they're the best at what they do. And just this morning, I read that Netflix spends a lot of time and money on interface design and custom programming to ensure a great product. They experiment and try new things.
When I read the headline, I thought of the UK gossip mag/newspaper/tabloid The Sun and thought she might have found a loophole with their domain registration or incorporation filing or something.
Then the title would have been Windows Doesn't Work For Me or Won't work. Its all in the grammar. It would also say that Windows doesn't work for anyone... period. :-P
First, I don't buy DVDs much at all anymore. They take up too much space in my apartment and I almost always watch a movie once or twice ever. If I buy a movie, its for a really good movie that's destined to be a "classic."
If I'm looking for something to watch, I'm going to use my delivery method of choice to find something. I'm not looking for a specific movie per se. I'm looking for something to fill time - almost anything will do. I have no intention of buying this movie and wouldn't "rent" a movie I want to buy. I'm not going to Blockbuster or even RedBox because that requires me to actually get up out of my chair and spend energy on travel.
So I'm going to stream. But because I don't care about the latest releases (again... just passing time here), I don't care how long the window is. If a movie isn't available on Netflix Streaming (or even as a DVD for that matter) I won't know the difference - or care. Plus, the "window" just changes the "release date" for people like me. Its no different than WB pushing back the actual sale back 30 days or whatever. The release date is relative and since movies are always getting released, I don't care that one title was delayed 28 days but available for stream vs some other movie thats in retail stores but not streamable. It will eventually so why should I care?
The issue the movie companies are facing is indifference to the effort needed to see a movie. Who wants to go to Target or Best Buy, pay $30 plus for a movie, stand in a long line, greeted by unskilled "employees" where I'm usually treated poorly, and have to walk or take the subway home to enjoy what I just spent an hour or more buying something I'm only going to watch twice if that.
I suppose this long rant was to say that instant gratification is what people want. If they can't give them that or delay titles, that's fine. They'll find alternatives to the content they want with legal streaming or the actual content they want through less than legal means.
If they want to use windows, fine. It won't change the way people are consuming content in their homes at all.
In my studies of ethics and morality in college, one of the things we discussed was this very concept and how it affects societal beliefs. Those beliefs almost always translate into interpretations of the law. Its not unreasonable to think that the concept of majority rule & opinion - no matter who embodies them with quotes and sound bites - would be the most moral and ethical way of problem solving and decision making.
I also like how a Texas court (I know, not THAT court) references transformative works to prove a point.
And FWIW, I think if Spock's logic were applied to many of the topics we discuss here, we wouldn't have many problems to discuss.
Also, I'm not a Star Trek fan... just in case anyone was wondering if I'm a Trekkie; I'm not. But I greatly appreciate the discussions I had in college about the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" constructs that were proposed by the early Greek philosophers.
Freetards? What are we? Third Graders? It would be nice if you came to the discussion with civility.
But beyond your childish name calling, they are customers... they are lost customers. They are people you failed to convince your content is worth paying for. Offer value and, more often than not, they'll buy. You have to earn your paying customers with respect good value for their hard earned dollar.
You're competing against a diverse amount of global content; the competition for a persons time and money is fierce and you can't waste your efforts pissing people off. You won't convince anyone to buy your wares that way.
You certainly deserve to earn a living; no one says you shouldn't. But with your name calling, its going to be hard for you to earn a living.
I heard that News Corp also blocked Cablevision customers from getting to Fox.com. Since Fox does offer updates on its programming via their website - perhaps for MLB coverage or for their regular broadcast shows, blocking Hulu wouldn't be enough.
I'm a Cablevision subscriber and didn't test it out over the weekend. If they blocked all of fox.com for Cablevision users, would that be a "net neutrality" issue?
And on a side note, I seriously wish we could get a-la-cart cable sometimes. I know there are good and bad points to it. But I'd seriously love a breakdown of my per channel costs. If Cablevision published that list, people could compare the before and after price of a Fox cost increases, they'd know where their money goes and could make a choice.
If really true, I can't believe we spend our tax dollars to have someone friend random people on Facebook. Can't they get the information they want some other way?
And if someone ignores their friend request, do the Feds get a warrant? Is that reasonable suspicion of a crime or obstruction of justice? Tampering with an investigation?
First, you're in marketing so its easy to just dismiss everything you say as spin and conjecture. And you don't understand your audience so your idea is flawed; usually marketers what to get their product in the hands of as many people as they can. Windows limit consumption. Period. They are counter intuitive to what marketing wants.
But beyond that, you're actually saying that increasing your costs (by hiring people) just to "educate" them on the movie being available for purchase is the way to a profitable business. Why would you increase your costs like that? You just hired over a million dollars in resources on top of your normal production costs (figure $80 to $125k base salary & double that for benefits). And its only going to net you a few sales, if that, because people will know it will be out on Netflix for rental or stream for free in a month.
Those that want to buy the physical copy (or digital if they want) are going to do so with or without the window. Those who would never buy the DVD download illegally if they want it right away or wait for Netflix - 28 days in a queue of 100s of movies isn't going to phase ANYONE.
So you just increased your costs and got nothing for it. Good job!
Also, your promotion example ignores the fact the movie is already available for free on the internet. And streaming to a TV will happen with or without a coupon.
Your job as a marketer is to get that movie to as many eyeballs as possible. Don't limit it by DRM, windows, targeted release partners, or whatever the heck they are.
I'm not sure most Americans know this bill exists outside of a few tech-knowledgeable people. I also bet that most Americans don't equate speech on the internet to "free speech" at all - its that scary.
Most parents fear the internet. "Think of the children!" they say. They don't realize how much we rely on the internet and they don't understand how much speech traverses it. And they certainly don't worry about losing something they take for granted.
Its hard to respect a law that contradicts the 1st Amendment and goes against our very nature. If anyone really cared about "respect for the law" they wouldn't make ridiculous laws that cause people to lose respect for it. And no one is going to start assaulting random people on the street because they don't want to be censored and ignore content filters.
That "reasoning" is just silly and I question your "logic."
First, the whole three branches of government thing is supposed to protect us from this. It might pass but at some point, the SCOTUS or some other court will find this a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Second, once information is out there... its out there. There's no going back. You take down one site for content you don't like, that same content gets posted somewhere else again and again. And the Streisand effect will bring that content into the spotlight.
Third, I think it would be hard to implement and enforce. I know that other countries have filtering and content blocking but it doesn't work and they get that limited filtering because they have a small number of ISPs providing service. The US has dozens of large and small ISPs; there are alternate DNS servers (outside of the US) that people can choose from. You can block some but not all.
Fourth, eventually, this will get out of hand. The temptation to filter everything will become too great to ignore. Also, people will get overzealous and block whole IP ranges and filter too much of the net. People and the companies that rely on those services will become vocal and the problems with this bill will become obvious.
Maybe I'm too optimistic but I'm not worried about this bill that much. I still oppose it and hope it doesn't pass. But the reality is that it won't be very effective.
I can't get Google Translate to work but I wonder if the fees increase with the HD size or is it a flat fee for anything over 750GB. If its a flat fee, then you encourage people to purchase a larger hard drive to lower your per GB costs.
So they’re driving up the costs of hardware, not solving the "problem" of infringement, saying to the consumer you're a criminal and this fee pays for your infringement which encourages more infringement, and making larger hard drives (to store all of the infringing files you paid for with this fee) more attractive.
This is a brilliant idea!! I’m sure it’s going to help them in the long run.
For me, Good = Efficient systems where up and coming startups get the appropriate valuation and strong backing from healthy investors vs. a weak system where there isn't much competition and everyone gets screwed but one or two groups.
I know that business is a kill or be killed world. I've worked on Wall St. for years at all types of companies & roles; I know its not always pretty. But I still felt as if a good startup with real potential would be something VCs would want to nurture - and not just give them low valuations to save money now or make more down the road.
Besides, a lot of people who start these companies what to be passionate about what they do. The VCs want good terms but if there isn't a happy middle, no one will get what they want. The founders feel screwed, they lose interest in their goals, the startup fails, and the VCs lose money. Everyone loses.
I have to say I've always like TechCrunch and Arrington. They've always seemed like straight-laced reporters. I know lots of people don't like Mike and his news organization but they cover and scoop the stories that interest and matter to me the most. And they appear to do it with integrity.
Every industry has a dark side - most of us can't see it and therefore, we forget its there. I'm sure this article hasn't made them more friends. In fact, I think I saw some tweets about this last night but didn't understand the context because I haven't read TechCrunch since yesterday afternoon - NY time.
The sad part for me is that I've always thought the startup cultures and the VC industry in general was mostly a good system; I forgot about the dark side myself.
I hope the participants of this meeting are exposed somehow and their reputations tarnished. And let's hope the feds don't feel the need to regulate VCs anymore than they already want to. VC investors would be wise to not attract the government with oligopolistic practices.
NYC's water is not filtered so additional impurities add to the taste. And I suppose you could create a method to reproduce it but I think it would be pretty hard to be exact. But even then, the pipes add to the flavor.
It would be hard to replicate it. NYC has the best water.
On the post: Just As Record Labels Resented Apple For Dragging Them Into The Internet Age, Movie Studios Resenting Netflix
Netflix Gets It
But what impresses me now is how Netflix still operates with the customer in mind. From their algorithm contests to the multi-platform streaming options, they make sure they're the best at what they do. And just this morning, I read that Netflix spends a lot of time and money on interface design and custom programming to ensure a great product. They experiment and try new things.
The article is here: http://mashable.com/2010/12/03/netflix-html5/
The reason they succeed is because they try new things and have the user in mind.
The reason the labels fail is because they don't care about the user as much as they care about more ways to control.
On the post: Woman Claims Legal Loophole Means She Now Owns The Sun... And She Wants You To Pay Up
Thought of the Newspaper
When I read the headline, I thought of the UK gossip mag/newspaper/tabloid The Sun and thought she might have found a loophole with their domain registration or incorporation filing or something.
Silly me for thinking that instead of the star.
On the post: Nicaragua Accidentally Invades Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps
Next time... blame the GPS device.
On the post: Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays
Re: Re: Why Windows Don't Work For Me
On the post: Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays
Why Windows Don't Work For Me
If I'm looking for something to watch, I'm going to use my delivery method of choice to find something. I'm not looking for a specific movie per se. I'm looking for something to fill time - almost anything will do. I have no intention of buying this movie and wouldn't "rent" a movie I want to buy. I'm not going to Blockbuster or even RedBox because that requires me to actually get up out of my chair and spend energy on travel.
So I'm going to stream. But because I don't care about the latest releases (again... just passing time here), I don't care how long the window is. If a movie isn't available on Netflix Streaming (or even as a DVD for that matter) I won't know the difference - or care. Plus, the "window" just changes the "release date" for people like me. Its no different than WB pushing back the actual sale back 30 days or whatever. The release date is relative and since movies are always getting released, I don't care that one title was delayed 28 days but available for stream vs some other movie thats in retail stores but not streamable. It will eventually so why should I care?
The issue the movie companies are facing is indifference to the effort needed to see a movie. Who wants to go to Target or Best Buy, pay $30 plus for a movie, stand in a long line, greeted by unskilled "employees" where I'm usually treated poorly, and have to walk or take the subway home to enjoy what I just spent an hour or more buying something I'm only going to watch twice if that.
I suppose this long rant was to say that instant gratification is what people want. If they can't give them that or delay titles, that's fine. They'll find alternatives to the content they want with legal streaming or the actual content they want through less than legal means.
If they want to use windows, fine. It won't change the way people are consuming content in their homes at all.
On the post: Texas Supreme Court Cites The Wisdom Of Spock On Star Trek
Ethics & Morality
I also like how a Texas court (I know, not THAT court) references transformative works to prove a point.
And FWIW, I think if Spock's logic were applied to many of the topics we discuss here, we wouldn't have many problems to discuss.
Also, I'm not a Star Trek fan... just in case anyone was wondering if I'm a Trekkie; I'm not. But I greatly appreciate the discussions I had in college about the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" constructs that were proposed by the early Greek philosophers.
On the post: Hadopi Already Up To Sending Out 25,000 'First Strike' Notices Per Day
Re: Re: 50K angry customers a day
But beyond your childish name calling, they are customers... they are lost customers. They are people you failed to convince your content is worth paying for. Offer value and, more often than not, they'll buy. You have to earn your paying customers with respect good value for their hard earned dollar.
You're competing against a diverse amount of global content; the competition for a persons time and money is fierce and you can't waste your efforts pissing people off. You won't convince anyone to buy your wares that way.
You certainly deserve to earn a living; no one says you shouldn't. But with your name calling, its going to be hard for you to earn a living.
On the post: Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily
Fox.com, too?
I'm a Cablevision subscriber and didn't test it out over the weekend. If they blocked all of fox.com for Cablevision users, would that be a "net neutrality" issue?
And on a side note, I seriously wish we could get a-la-cart cable sometimes. I know there are good and bad points to it. But I'd seriously love a breakdown of my per channel costs. If Cablevision published that list, people could compare the before and after price of a Fox cost increases, they'd know where their money goes and could make a choice.
On the post: US Gov't Relying On 'Narcissistic Tendencies' To Get People To Accept Facebook Friend Requests To Spy On You
Nothing Better To Do?
And if someone ignores their friend request, do the Feds get a warrant? Is that reasonable suspicion of a crime or obstruction of justice? Tampering with an investigation?
On the post: Obvious News Is Obvious: Polls That Only Call Landlines May Be Biased
Dewey Defeats Truman
On the post: Warner Bros. Claims That Annoying Customers With 28-Day Rental Delay Is Working
Re: Why are you complaining?
First, you're in marketing so its easy to just dismiss everything you say as spin and conjecture. And you don't understand your audience so your idea is flawed; usually marketers what to get their product in the hands of as many people as they can. Windows limit consumption. Period. They are counter intuitive to what marketing wants.
But beyond that, you're actually saying that increasing your costs (by hiring people) just to "educate" them on the movie being available for purchase is the way to a profitable business. Why would you increase your costs like that? You just hired over a million dollars in resources on top of your normal production costs (figure $80 to $125k base salary & double that for benefits). And its only going to net you a few sales, if that, because people will know it will be out on Netflix for rental or stream for free in a month.
Those that want to buy the physical copy (or digital if they want) are going to do so with or without the window. Those who would never buy the DVD download illegally if they want it right away or wait for Netflix - 28 days in a queue of 100s of movies isn't going to phase ANYONE.
So you just increased your costs and got nothing for it. Good job!
Also, your promotion example ignores the fact the movie is already available for free on the internet. And streaming to a TV will happen with or without a coupon.
Your job as a marketer is to get that movie to as many eyeballs as possible. Don't limit it by DRM, windows, targeted release partners, or whatever the heck they are.
On the post: Astronaut Sues Dido For Using His Photo In Album Cover
More Importantly...
Oh...
On the post: RIAA Claims That If COICA Isn't Passed, Americans Are 'Put At Risk'
Re:
Most parents fear the internet. "Think of the children!" they say. They don't realize how much we rely on the internet and they don't understand how much speech traverses it. And they certainly don't worry about losing something they take for granted.
Sad.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn't You?
Re: Re: Re: Not Too Worried
That "reasoning" is just silly and I question your "logic."
Sorry.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn't You?
Not Too Worried
First, the whole three branches of government thing is supposed to protect us from this. It might pass but at some point, the SCOTUS or some other court will find this a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Second, once information is out there... its out there. There's no going back. You take down one site for content you don't like, that same content gets posted somewhere else again and again. And the Streisand effect will bring that content into the spotlight.
Third, I think it would be hard to implement and enforce. I know that other countries have filtering and content blocking but it doesn't work and they get that limited filtering because they have a small number of ISPs providing service. The US has dozens of large and small ISPs; there are alternate DNS servers (outside of the US) that people can choose from. You can block some but not all.
Fourth, eventually, this will get out of hand. The temptation to filter everything will become too great to ignore. Also, people will get overzealous and block whole IP ranges and filter too much of the net. People and the companies that rely on those services will become vocal and the problems with this bill will become obvious.
Maybe I'm too optimistic but I'm not worried about this bill that much. I still oppose it and hope it doesn't pass. But the reality is that it won't be very effective.
On the post: Austrian Collection Societies Want A 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On Hard Drives
Sliding Scale?
So they’re driving up the costs of hardware, not solving the "problem" of infringement, saying to the consumer you're a criminal and this fee pays for your infringement which encourages more infringement, and making larger hard drives (to store all of the infringing files you paid for with this fee) more attractive.
This is a brilliant idea!! I’m sure it’s going to help them in the long run.
On the post: Are Silicon Valley Angel Investors Colluding Over Deals?
Re: Re: Attracting Attention To Themselves
For me, Good = Efficient systems where up and coming startups get the appropriate valuation and strong backing from healthy investors vs. a weak system where there isn't much competition and everyone gets screwed but one or two groups.
I know that business is a kill or be killed world. I've worked on Wall St. for years at all types of companies & roles; I know its not always pretty. But I still felt as if a good startup with real potential would be something VCs would want to nurture - and not just give them low valuations to save money now or make more down the road.
Besides, a lot of people who start these companies what to be passionate about what they do. The VCs want good terms but if there isn't a happy middle, no one will get what they want. The founders feel screwed, they lose interest in their goals, the startup fails, and the VCs lose money. Everyone loses.
On the post: Are Silicon Valley Angel Investors Colluding Over Deals?
Attracting Attention To Themselves
Every industry has a dark side - most of us can't see it and therefore, we forget its there. I'm sure this article hasn't made them more friends. In fact, I think I saw some tweets about this last night but didn't understand the context because I haven't read TechCrunch since yesterday afternoon - NY time.
The sad part for me is that I've always thought the startup cultures and the VC industry in general was mostly a good system; I forgot about the dark side myself.
I hope the participants of this meeting are exposed somehow and their reputations tarnished. And let's hope the feds don't feel the need to regulate VCs anymore than they already want to. VC investors would be wise to not attract the government with oligopolistic practices.
On the post: Bagel Company Sued For Claiming It Had Patented Process For Making 'Brooklyn Water'
Re: Brooklyn Water ...
It would be hard to replicate it. NYC has the best water.
On the post: Bagel Company Sued For Claiming It Had Patented Process For Making 'Brooklyn Water'
Re: Re: Re: Plus...
*buses
Next >>