

How Will We Know If House of Cards Was a Hit? - amalag
http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/netflix-house-of-cards-was-it-a-hit.html

======
corin_
> _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?)

~~~
sliverstorm
_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.

~~~
alaskamiller
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.

~~~
zecho
Investors would very much like to know how their $4 million dollar per episode
investment is panning out.

------
evan_
We'll have to watch it, and decide for ourselves whether it was good or not!

------
hayksaakian
Watch the money. If there's a season 2, it was a hit.

~~~
alaskamiller
They already bought 2 seasons.

------
troymc
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?

~~~
sliverstorm
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.

~~~
troymc
Yep, that's another one (number of Google searches for 'house of cards').

------
27182818284
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.

~~~
interurban
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.

------
fsckin
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>

~~~
amalag
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.

------
duaneb
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.

~~~
eob
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.

~~~
duaneb
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.

~~~
corin_
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.

~~~
duaneb
I more meant they don't have the advertiser problem.

------
Aron
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.

------
circa
Of course it's a hit. Who doesn't like radiohead?

------
edouard1234567
netflix has a row with popular shows called "popular on netflix", if it shows
up in the row it's a hit on netflix.

------
_dark_matter_
Dear Jesus, another House of Cards post?

~~~
geuis
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.

~~~
_dark_matter_
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.

~~~
defrost
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.

