How Will We Know If House of Cards Was a Hit?(vulture.com)
vulture.com
How Will We Know If House of Cards Was a Hit?
http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/netflix-house-of-cards-was-it-a-hit.html
55 comments
I think there are a variety of external measures. The # of likes on the show, the critic reception, the avg rating on Netflix, the google trends for 'House of Cards' (close to 'game of thrones' last I looked).. probably twitter activity. Could probably get a decent model out of all that.
We'll have to watch it, and decide for ourselves whether it was good or not!
Watch the money. If there's a season 2, it was a hit.
They already bought 2 seasons.
The original material went on to three novels and three series in the UK.
Though it might be hard to translate To Play the King into an American context.
Though it might be hard to translate To Play the King into an American context.
> FX chief John Landgraf [...] "How will you determine if something's a hit?"
The real question is why does anybody outside of Netflix need to know whether it's a hit or not?
> Remember, with a subscription costing about $100 a year, adding 10 million subscribers over the next few years would bring in an addition $1 billion to Netflix's coffers.
Am I missing something, or is this the most irrelevant sentence ever written in journalistic context? Genuine question. (Not to mention the fact that it seems to mix annual subscriptions to a one-off bank-balance boost?)
The real question is why does anybody outside of Netflix need to know whether it's a hit or not?
> Remember, with a subscription costing about $100 a year, adding 10 million subscribers over the next few years would bring in an addition $1 billion to Netflix's coffers.
Am I missing something, or is this the most irrelevant sentence ever written in journalistic context? Genuine question. (Not to mention the fact that it seems to mix annual subscriptions to a one-off bank-balance boost?)
Investors might want to know. Consider the social utility of not propping up (via ignorance & secrecy) the stock price on a company that is cratering.
Yeah they might, but since when have companies given out every single aspect of their private information just to appease investors?
Exactly. I tell my investors lots of things I don't put on our website or pitch a reporter with, especially if it's part of a long-tail strategy.
Isn't that pretty much the point of the entire elaborate SEC apparatus of reporting requirements? Making companies disgorge private information to enable the markets to judge them?
> The real question is why does anybody outside of Netflix need to know whether it's a hit or not?
If you're in the media journalism industry (as, say, a writer at Vulture), of course you want to know whether it's a hit or not. Ratings numbers are the perfect excuse to write weekly opinion pieces about how Netflix is doomed/thriving to drum up pageviews.
If you're in the media journalism industry (as, say, a writer at Vulture), of course you want to know whether it's a hit or not. Ratings numbers are the perfect excuse to write weekly opinion pieces about how Netflix is doomed/thriving to drum up pageviews.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question - actually no, I was: why does anyone need to know, not want to know. Like in my two examples about why FX and I might want to know, journalists might also want to know, and again there's plenty of things they want to know without having a right to know.
There are quite a few ways to answer your question, so I'll do my best to address all of them that come to mind.
First, why does anyone need to know anything? There's a favorite passage of mine in Walden about news being gossip, and those that read it being women over their tea, which cuts to the trivial nature of most news, but Thoreau failed to recognize some things because his focus was on living his own life and not worrying about the lives of others. He had no use for the type of information he derides, but never acknowledged that others may have use for such information.
So, with that in mind, let's think about this from a few perspectives beyond our own myopia.
The audience. Audience can be broken down into various sub-groups, but I will focus on the likeliest readers of Vulture.
Media professionals may need to know this information because this information gives them greater insight into their own work. If Netflix produced and distributed a popular show in a novel way, I would very much like to know details like exactly how popular this show has been.
Media consumers may like to know this information as well. If a new show (let's call it Jumping Off A Bridge) airs and it is reported that 5 million people watched, perhaps the show is good. If 5 million people are watching Jumping Off A Bridge, perhaps I would enjoy Jumping Off A Bridge, too. Such is the world of entertainment news, which is most definitely not hard news, but clearly has an audience.
(Let's also not forget that audience is what advertisers want.)
Which gets me to why journalists would need this information. There is a particular news value called magnitude. If something affects a large portion of their audience, then the news should be reported. As Vulture is a media blog, of course their audience is likely the one or both of the subgroups I mentioned above. However, this information has little value on, say, the front page of The Minneapolis Star Tribune or even most pages of The New York Times, as the number of viewers could not possibly affect a sizable number of their readers in general. Cultural proximity matters.
Do journalists have a right to know this information? Sometimes, sometimes not. That's really irrelevant to journalists. The purpose of their work is to provide relevant information to their target audience, whether that is tech start ups or the 112 people of Podunk, Kansas or the citizens of the United States who expect and need a fourth estate as watchdog over its governing bodies.
First, why does anyone need to know anything? There's a favorite passage of mine in Walden about news being gossip, and those that read it being women over their tea, which cuts to the trivial nature of most news, but Thoreau failed to recognize some things because his focus was on living his own life and not worrying about the lives of others. He had no use for the type of information he derides, but never acknowledged that others may have use for such information.
So, with that in mind, let's think about this from a few perspectives beyond our own myopia.
The audience. Audience can be broken down into various sub-groups, but I will focus on the likeliest readers of Vulture.
Media professionals may need to know this information because this information gives them greater insight into their own work. If Netflix produced and distributed a popular show in a novel way, I would very much like to know details like exactly how popular this show has been.
Media consumers may like to know this information as well. If a new show (let's call it Jumping Off A Bridge) airs and it is reported that 5 million people watched, perhaps the show is good. If 5 million people are watching Jumping Off A Bridge, perhaps I would enjoy Jumping Off A Bridge, too. Such is the world of entertainment news, which is most definitely not hard news, but clearly has an audience.
(Let's also not forget that audience is what advertisers want.)
Which gets me to why journalists would need this information. There is a particular news value called magnitude. If something affects a large portion of their audience, then the news should be reported. As Vulture is a media blog, of course their audience is likely the one or both of the subgroups I mentioned above. However, this information has little value on, say, the front page of The Minneapolis Star Tribune or even most pages of The New York Times, as the number of viewers could not possibly affect a sizable number of their readers in general. Cultural proximity matters.
Do journalists have a right to know this information? Sometimes, sometimes not. That's really irrelevant to journalists. The purpose of their work is to provide relevant information to their target audience, whether that is tech start ups or the 112 people of Podunk, Kansas or the citizens of the United States who expect and need a fourth estate as watchdog over its governing bodies.
"If Netflix produced and distributed a popular show in a novel way, I would very much like to know details like exactly how popular this show has been."
You know who else wants to know? Netflix's competitors. If their show was wildly popular, that's something you don't want to reveal lest others try to replicate.
"Media consumers may like to know this information as well."
I'm not convinced that media consumers change their habits based on the number of viewers in america. Number of viewers in social circle, sure, but in all of america?
To put that in perspective, Fox News is watched more than MSNBC but the MSNBC viewers won't jump to Fox based on that fact.
Ultimately, the reason why numbers were released historically was for advertising purposes. Shows and networks could demand more money for advertisements if they had more views, and companies like nielsen emerged to give a third-party view (akin to credit ratings agencies). That's not relevant in the internet age, where you can precisely count how many ads are shown and where they are shown (and possibly a bit more about the people watching).
You know who else wants to know? Netflix's competitors. If their show was wildly popular, that's something you don't want to reveal lest others try to replicate.
"Media consumers may like to know this information as well."
I'm not convinced that media consumers change their habits based on the number of viewers in america. Number of viewers in social circle, sure, but in all of america?
To put that in perspective, Fox News is watched more than MSNBC but the MSNBC viewers won't jump to Fox based on that fact.
Ultimately, the reason why numbers were released historically was for advertising purposes. Shows and networks could demand more money for advertisements if they had more views, and companies like nielsen emerged to give a third-party view (akin to credit ratings agencies). That's not relevant in the internet age, where you can precisely count how many ads are shown and where they are shown (and possibly a bit more about the people watching).
"Am I missing something, or is this the most irrelevant sentence ever written in journalistic context? Genuine question."
Really? I cannot believe that is a genuine question. You actually think that there is more than a 1 in 1,000 (or 1 in 10, you pick the odds) chance of that being the most irrelevant sentence ever written?
Really? I cannot believe that is a genuine question. You actually think that there is more than a 1 in 1,000 (or 1 in 10, you pick the odds) chance of that being the most irrelevant sentence ever written?
I was clearly being somewhat hyperbolic, my "genuine question" was assigned to "Am I missing something", as in that wasn't rhetorical, I really want to know if that sentence is as stupid as I think it is. (And even within my hyperbole, you missed my "in journalistic context"!)
Somewhat? Moreover, I caught your "in journalistic context[sic]" and I still thought your hyperbole was comical. It was almost as if you were attempting some sort of existential/postmodern parody of the original sentence by writing something that was even more absurd and irrelevant. Fluff journalism is all around us; a sentence that brings up the poorly understood economics of an expensive TV serial produced by a dotcom is hardly the most irrelevant sentence written in the last week, let alone ever.
I'm not sure why you felt the need for that "[sic]".
I felt the need to use "[sic]" because that is the correct way to identify an intentionally transcribed error (An error in any context outside of twitter and txt speak).
I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it. Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed.
Side note for when you've pointed out my error: in many places [sic] is extremely useful, in contexts such as this it serves as a rather passive aggressive way of complaining about a typo.
Side note for when you've pointed out my error: in many places [sic] is extremely useful, in contexts such as this it serves as a rather passive aggressive way of complaining about a typo.
You have edited this post three or four times now. It is tough to know how it will read in a few hours. I thought it was odd that someone would criticize another's work as being the most irrelevant sentence and yet they would make a basic grammar error twice. You failed to include the indefinite article "a" after "in" and before "journalistic context" (adjective+noun).
1) I edited it once, immediately after initially posting it - to add a new sentence at the end.
2) Do you honestly care about something that is technically slightly incorrect when really it's fine in an informal setting?
3) Not sure how it would be odd, even if my coment had been litered with speling mistakes. I was commenting on the content of that sentence, not how it was written. Feel free to be a pedant the next time you see my bitching about someone's spelling or grammar.
2) Do you honestly care about something that is technically slightly incorrect when really it's fine in an informal setting?
3) Not sure how it would be odd, even if my coment had been litered with speling mistakes. I was commenting on the content of that sentence, not how it was written. Feel free to be a pedant the next time you see my bitching about someone's spelling or grammar.
1. Seriously? I cannot sleep so I will play along; you edited the post at least three times. At first I got an email from hnnotify[1] with:
"I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it."
When I visited the "my threads" link on HN you had included:
"Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed."
Then I clicked "link" because the thread was so nested we had hit the cool off period and there was no reply link in the long discussion page. At that point you had included the "passive aggressive" line. I typed my response and did a "select all + copy" followed by a reload just to make sure you had not edited it again. I thought it looked like it was typeset slightly differently but I could not identify precisely what had changed. At that point I changed the "three" to "three or four" and submitted my answer.
2. Yes. Before I charge someone (who writes for a living) with producing the most irrelevant sentence I am at least going to try and meet the standards of my 8th grade english teacher. It is funny that the person who knows "what should have happened" is always the arm-chair quarterback.
3. "even if my coment[sic] had been litered[sic] with speling[sic] mistakes." Are you screwing with me? If so well played because I almost woke my girlfriend up when I realized what you did with that sentence.
[1] HNNotify sends almost instantaneous email notifications when you have a reply. It is a great way to avoid clicking "threads" every 15 minutes. But it also comes in handy for petty discussions like this. My favorite is reading comments that get deleted shortly after posting. http://www.hnnotify.com
"I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it."
When I visited the "my threads" link on HN you had included:
"Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed."
Then I clicked "link" because the thread was so nested we had hit the cool off period and there was no reply link in the long discussion page. At that point you had included the "passive aggressive" line. I typed my response and did a "select all + copy" followed by a reload just to make sure you had not edited it again. I thought it looked like it was typeset slightly differently but I could not identify precisely what had changed. At that point I changed the "three" to "three or four" and submitted my answer.
2. Yes. Before I charge someone (who writes for a living) with producing the most irrelevant sentence I am at least going to try and meet the standards of my 8th grade english teacher. It is funny that the person who knows "what should have happened" is always the arm-chair quarterback.
3. "even if my coment[sic] had been litered[sic] with speling[sic] mistakes." Are you screwing with me? If so well played because I almost woke my girlfriend up when I realized what you did with that sentence.
[1] HNNotify sends almost instantaneous email notifications when you have a reply. It is a great way to avoid clicking "threads" every 15 minutes. But it also comes in handy for petty discussions like this. My favorite is reading comments that get deleted shortly after posting. http://www.hnnotify.com
1) I thought you were referring to my original comment, i.e. the one whose grammar we were discussing, not a different one that wasn't being discussed. That one, yes I edited it twice, firstly because I felt my one-sentence reply was overly blunt, then again because having decided my original comment wasn't nice, I then felt neither was your [sic], so I added in my point about that too. Not sure it really matters too much when, one again, I made these edits within a minute of posting. I'll show an "edit" mark in my comment if there's a chance someone might have replied and therefore been misrepresented, but why bother when hardly anybody will have read it yet? (You two make changes like this, I notice you at first missed "litered" and "speling".)
2) Again... relevance? The reason I "was screwing with you" was to make the point that spelling and grammar are not the be all and end all. A good point can be made with terrible spelling, and nonsense can be written impeccably skillfully. "Im board of this discussion now" vs. "This discussion fascinates me", one of those is a valid statement, the other is grammatically correct.
2) Again... relevance? The reason I "was screwing with you" was to make the point that spelling and grammar are not the be all and end all. A good point can be made with terrible spelling, and nonsense can be written impeccably skillfully. "Im board of this discussion now" vs. "This discussion fascinates me", one of those is a valid statement, the other is grammatically correct.
Initially I missed "coment" and "speling," so I was not sure if you were screwing with me. I almost woke my girlfriend up when I noticed the trifecta. (The "you two[sic]" was not as funny)
In my opinion spelling/grammar mistakes are indicative of an author who has not put much effort into something because they do not care about the outcome. If someone is willing to take the extra thirty seconds to read over what they wrote I take that as a signal that the writing is worth my time. But I might be in the minority here. My first job (and 2nd and 3rd) was at a restaurant and it was ingrained in me that the little things add up. I can still remember my boss saying "Doogie, if we do not take the time to lay the forks out straight, why should customers expect that we took time to prepare the food well?"
In my opinion spelling/grammar mistakes are indicative of an author who has not put much effort into something because they do not care about the outcome. If someone is willing to take the extra thirty seconds to read over what they wrote I take that as a signal that the writing is worth my time. But I might be in the minority here. My first job (and 2nd and 3rd) was at a restaurant and it was ingrained in me that the little things add up. I can still remember my boss saying "Doogie, if we do not take the time to lay the forks out straight, why should customers expect that we took time to prepare the food well?"
The real question is why does anybody outside of Netflix need to know whether it's a hit or not?
If they can prove it was a hit, that's good marketing material.
If they can prove it was a hit, that's good marketing material.
It also encourages other streaming companies to follow suit with more original content.
How is Netflix not using something for marketing purposes a problem for us or for FX?
Sure, there's arguments for releasing it, but I don't see any arguments for that "but it's my right to know!" feeling.
Sure, there's arguments for releasing it, but I don't see any arguments for that "but it's my right to know!" feeling.
Would be classier if they don't, great speaks for itself. But I don't doubt they would share the numbers when they re-pitch every top tier Hollywood talent.
Investors would very much like to know how their $4 million dollar per episode investment is panning out.
Dear Jesus, another House of Cards post?
On the other hand, there have been at least three posts relating to Stoicism on the front page today. Fortunately, both topics are interesting.
I hear where you're coming from. It can seem annoying. But look at it as a coal mine canary. If no one was interested in the show, no one would talk about it.
What multiple postings show has less to do with which show Netflix produces, but rather that Netflix is making its own show(s).
We live in the transitional period of high price, high production content mainly being distributed via traditional means and lower quality content being produced by independents on places like YouTube and distributed independently.
Netflix is one of the first major companies that bases it's business on Internet distribution rather than cable. That company is now making high production, high price content and distributing that online. People are interested to see how this experiment will pan out, thus generating things like multiple postings about House of Cards.
What multiple postings show has less to do with which show Netflix produces, but rather that Netflix is making its own show(s).
We live in the transitional period of high price, high production content mainly being distributed via traditional means and lower quality content being produced by independents on places like YouTube and distributed independently.
Netflix is one of the first major companies that bases it's business on Internet distribution rather than cable. That company is now making high production, high price content and distributing that online. People are interested to see how this experiment will pan out, thus generating things like multiple postings about House of Cards.
Extremely valid points. I was in no way demeaning the value of the experiment, or of the show itself; it was just my initial reaction to seeing the post.
Anytime a company decides to shakeup the establishment (in this case, cable and pay-per-view), it is extremely interesting to the community as a whole.
Anytime a company decides to shakeup the establishment (in this case, cable and pay-per-view), it is extremely interesting to the community as a whole.
This specific submission dovetails nicely with a recent submission about visualizations, summaries, and comparisons of HN user karma (aka cumulative instantaneous reactions); Netflix is rejecting TV karma in favour of sustained quality load.
While Netflix may not release viewer numbers, there are plenty of other ways to tell if HoC is a "hit." How often is it mentioned in blogs, forums, Facebook, newspapers, Twitter, magazines, podcasts, etc.? Do fan groups, forums, and meetups emerge? Is there fan fiction? Does Netflix pursue merchandising, book versions, a video game, or a feature film?
It's almost like Google built a tool that tracks exactly that sort of thing!
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=house%20of%20cards
Don't worry, I forgot about it too until just now.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=house%20of%20cards
Don't worry, I forgot about it too until just now.
Yep, that's another one (number of Google searches for 'house of cards').
Television would probably be far better without ratings. Just imagine if CNN didn't need to worry about viewers: they could actually report news instead of providing entertainment.
This is an interesting statement to think about. At first, I nod in agreement. Upon second thought, I realize that it points right at the age-old debate about what makes art "art".
Is good art that which sells, or is good art that which connoisseurs find taste in?
Perhaps the only reasonable response is to admit that there is value in both definitions, and it would be a good thing if the television market allowed for both approaches to flourish.
That said, even if public investors aren't provided viewership numbers, you can sure bet Netflix is paying attention internally. So this is probably just a more private version of the same old ratings game.
Is good art that which sells, or is good art that which connoisseurs find taste in?
Perhaps the only reasonable response is to admit that there is value in both definitions, and it would be a good thing if the television market allowed for both approaches to flourish.
That said, even if public investors aren't provided viewership numbers, you can sure bet Netflix is paying attention internally. So this is probably just a more private version of the same old ratings game.
News is not art. Or more accurately, art is not news. Sure, there's value in many things on the spectrum from trashy celebrity gossip to ground-breaking scientific reporting to reality television and music videos and much more - not all of it is news.
In art, wine, whisky, software, many areas it's fine to argue whether quality or popularity is king ($20 blended vs. 30yo single malt, beautiful code vs. news.arc), but not in news. There's good news and there's crappy news, and sadly it seems crappy news is the more popular, but that doesn't mean it's better.
It may generally be a snobby view to take, but I think I'm reasonably unbiased in that I light trashy celebrity gossip and shit entertainment forms as much as anyone.
Side note: Sorkin's The Newsroom tackles the debate of quality vs. ratings when it comes to televised news. It's an absolutely fantastic show (at least it is if, like me, you share the creator's left-leaning politics, I've no idea if people with differing views would necessarily enjoy it as much as I do.)
In art, wine, whisky, software, many areas it's fine to argue whether quality or popularity is king ($20 blended vs. 30yo single malt, beautiful code vs. news.arc), but not in news. There's good news and there's crappy news, and sadly it seems crappy news is the more popular, but that doesn't mean it's better.
It may generally be a snobby view to take, but I think I'm reasonably unbiased in that I light trashy celebrity gossip and shit entertainment forms as much as anyone.
Side note: Sorkin's The Newsroom tackles the debate of quality vs. ratings when it comes to televised news. It's an absolutely fantastic show (at least it is if, like me, you share the creator's left-leaning politics, I've no idea if people with differing views would necessarily enjoy it as much as I do.)
Well, I think ratings will always be useful—not all new shows are good, and ratings help weed the failures from the successes. I just hope for a future where ratings don't dictate income, as they currently do via advertisements. Netflix doesn't have this problem because they aren't beholden to advertisers. I hope they get The News Hour or something soon, I would watch the fuck out of it.
Ratings for Netflix shows may impact revenue less directly, but they still very much do, else they wouldn't be making them at all. A good show could bring subscribers in, or convince subscribers to keep paying, while a bad show.. well, it probably won't drive people away on its own, but it certainly could bring in / keep less subscribers than it cost to make.
I more meant they don't have the advertiser problem.
"they could actually report news instead of providing entertainment."
For one hour a day, the major broadcast networks are required to report news.
For one hour a day, the major broadcast networks are required to report news.
It's hard to construct a working business model where programming isn't funded according to its popularity.
Sort of like PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer?
My favorite news program! Wish it were on netflix so I could watch it on my TV.
Of course it's a hit. Who doesn't like radiohead?
One could argue by their logic that Lilyhammer (the first original Netflix content) was a hit, now that House of Cards is out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer
I am surprised noone else is mentioning that series as the first original content. I was so bad I couldn't watch the first episode.
We'll know it is a hit more than any other show newly released show, right?
I mean Netflix could actually sort out the viewing habits and see who gave it a try and then stopped, and who ended up hooked and watched five episodes the same afternoon they watched it for the first time.
That's super powerful in my opinion.
I mean Netflix could actually sort out the viewing habits and see who gave it a try and then stopped, and who ended up hooked and watched five episodes the same afternoon they watched it for the first time.
That's super powerful in my opinion.
The point is that Netflix will, but unlike traditional broadcast and cable, we won't. Unless I'm mistaken, Netflix isn't included in any sort of ratings, the main source of our information about television viewership.
Netflix will indeed have some of the most powerful analytic tools available to apply to their programming, but we have no way of independent verification. Well, I suppose they may break it down in a quarterly report, but they may not have any reason to.
I think lots of people are interested in the viability of this model. Television format entertainment hasn't been significantly "disrupted" by the internet yet and this could be a step in a new direction, but it'll be hard to tell without Netflix releasing their numbers.
Netflix will indeed have some of the most powerful analytic tools available to apply to their programming, but we have no way of independent verification. Well, I suppose they may break it down in a quarterly report, but they may not have any reason to.
I think lots of people are interested in the viability of this model. Television format entertainment hasn't been significantly "disrupted" by the internet yet and this could be a step in a new direction, but it'll be hard to tell without Netflix releasing their numbers.
Indeed. They have the 21st century equivalent of Nielsen ratings.
netflix has a row with popular shows called "popular on netflix", if it shows up in the row it's a hit on netflix.