Netflix's Problem

 

A lot of people are getting mad at Netflix. First they raise their prices, then they go and announce plans to split into two companies. Oh the Humanity! How could they treat us so? The comments against Netflix are staggering. In my opinion, too many people are focused on the price aspect (they doubled the price and now I have to go to TWO websites?). The point is, they're not trying to be greedy, Netflix is looking too far into the future. Yes, I said that Netflix is looking too far into the future.

Netflix is made up of tech geeks and early adopters who, I'm sure, are all streaming television. They may have even done what my household has recently done, cut all pay TV sources and go streaming only. When I tell most people that we have no cable and no satellite and we get all content via streaming or an OTA (over-the-air) antenna they don't get it. I'm asked questions like, "so can you get TBS with that antenna," or "how do you get ESPN?" I don't. I get network TV for free (yes they still broadcast it) and stream everything else. I can only assume that many of those making decisions at Netflix have done the same thing. They are likely streaming using Netflix to provide the majority of their entertainment content. If they're like my family, they're also relying less and less on the DVD service.

So what does this have to do with the split and all the changes? I think Netflix is imagining a world in the near future where everyone gets more content like this and sees no reason to ever get another DVD in the mail again. Face it, eventually, all of the content on DVDs is going to be sold digitally like music. Netflix is anticipating that by splitting into two companies. With streaming enabled TVs and DVD players becoming the norm, streaming is set to take off. With postal rates about to increase and Saturday delivery about to go away, service via mail is going to get more complicated. Additionally, new competition from kiosks like Red Box may make take over what is left of an increasingly less lucrative physical DVD business.

A lot of people are upset because they don't want to wait for content to get to streaming/streaming has a poor selection of movies/streaming quality stinks/etc. Again, Netflix is making a play based on the future. As more and more consumers stream, the companies that own the rights to this content are going to see the need to stream more content more quickly. Who cares about DVDs being the first thing out if nobody watches them anymore? All of these problems will eventually go away and fix themselves. Broadband will get better, the selection will get better, etc. The only danger here is if broadband companies start to throttle bandwidth or find a way around net neutrality. 

The thing most people don't realize is that Netflix is thinking like a successful technology company NOT a consumer services company. By looking to the future, they're anticipating how people will act tomorrow. Maybe their methods weren't the smoothest, but they're trying to distance themselves from DVDs in the mail and make a play for streaming entertainment directly to the consumer. By doing so, they're betting on the long-term viability of the company and trying to anticipate how the market will change instead of reacting too late (like Blockbuster).

On Reading

I saw a list today of the Best New Blogs of 2010 .I thought it sounded interesting so I went to check it out. One of the blogs is called Better Book Titles, which seems to be a tongue-in-cheek site that essentially gives books more descriptive titles that reflect the plot. The idea is semi-amusing.  The thing that annoyed me, however, was the synopsis of the blog: 

Better Book Titles takes the work out of that thing we (I) love to hate: book-reading. I don’t have time to read books: I have too many blogs to read, too many emails to mark as read. In the internet age, Better Book Titles is a public service. 

I really don't understand why people constantly slag books and reading. I enjoy skimming blogs, but I don't find blogs or e-mail to be a replacement for reading books or even newspapers. Reading is a wonderful, solitary act that offers a little solace in a world that is moving too fast.  Reading books offers an escape few other activities do. Personally, I think people who are decrying the death of books and reading must have been abused as children.  Forced to read like they were on a death march. Picture books stolen from them at an early age so they could slog through chapter after chapter of assigned reading.

My young son loves to be read to. Some days I think it's his favorite thing in the world. As he gets older I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure that his love of reading isn't snuffed out. In the internet age, maybe we should all unplug and curl up with a good book.

Lots of Chatter but What to Say?

As a blogger, I often have aspirations of writing more and better stuff. In the past I've written about stuff that bugs me, sports, a little about travel, pop culture, etc. To be honest, most of my blogging projects fail for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes I get bored with a topic and move on. Sometimes I'm distracted by, well, life. As a writer, each of my blogs is one of my babies. While none of them have generated any kind of readership, I still look back on each of them with a little bit of protectionism. I like the idea of them.

This blog has been a lot more casual and agnostic (partly due to the ease of posting) and in some ways more successful. Despite that, I still often find myself asking, what on Earth should I write about? It seems to me this is a common thread in online writing (even when the author doesn't really think it on a conscious level).

So why do I bring this up now in my 89th post? Well, I was thinking about quality writing today in response to the New York Times' decision to begin charging for access to its website in 2011. A lot of people online were angry about it. Some of the comments I read (and I am paraphrasing) included thoughts such as:
  • I hope the NY Times fails
  • I'll get my news elsewhere
  • You're dumb
  • I'm mad and I hate the NY Times
It seems this decision just made the internet unhappy. Personally, I found myself thinking it was a good decision (and I'm cheap). Why? Well, the New York Times puts out some of the best content in the world. From straight news, to honest reporting, to up to the second blogs covering everything from baseball to books. The organization puts out an incredible amount of information and content. Additionally, this content is reliable. They're not going to publish something stupid like, "Phyllis Diller named Secretary General of the UN." Why not? Because they are stocked with professionals who pay attention to what they do.  How good are their people?  A handful of them have started examining the Times and its practices to make sure that the organization upholds its own ethics.  Really!  Check them out on Twitter @NYTPicker.

So why do they do this? It's not because they're bored. These people all have homes and families and like to eat and buy things. It's a job, just like yours or mine. The Times needs to be able to pay for its reporters, pay for its offices, and pay to send objective reporters to the far reaches of the globe.  In order to do so, it needs money. As more and more news sources evaporate it means that fewer eyes are observing for us. Fewer voices are discussing events. Consumers get crappier and crappier information. Sure, you could go to CNN.com for your free news and get as many stories about John Mayer banging actresses as you would about the Senate election in Massachusetts. 

Good information is worth paying for.  Good news is worth paying for.  Free isn't always bad, but eventually news that is driven by advertising is going to be more interested in getting eyeballs than it will be in getting the facts right. That's never good.