Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos walked a tightrope this morning as he tried to assure cable execs at the industry’s annual convention that he’s their friend. It’s debatable; Cox Communications chief Pat Esser, who joined Sarandos on a panel at The Cable Show, referred to the streaming service as a “frenemy.” But the Netflix exec assured the audience that his service — which is so important to cable’s broadband customers — is no threat to their traditional TV business. That includes Nickelodeon, where ratings are down 30% so far in Q2 vs the same period last year – many believe because kids now can watch SpongeBox Squarepants and iCarly on Netflix. “People’s tastes are so diverse that no specific network and no specific show has such high viewing concentration that you’d see that kind of cause-and-effect on ratings,” Sarandos says.
Related: Viacom CEO Says Netflix Isn’t Tied To Nickelodeon’s Ratings Drop
Sarandos adds that Netflix can take credit for helping shows such as AMC’s Mad Men. “In the gap between Season 4 and Season 5 we brought maybe 1M new viewers to AMC. There were people who had four years to watch the show and didn’t. Because we gave them a good opportunity and a well-priced model (they were able) to catch up on the show.” The lesson, he says, is that “there’s an artful way to pick the right content in the right window in the right license fee that can be purely additive to cable.” He also says that cable doesn’t have to worry about Netflix’s acquisition of original programming — such as the upcoming drama House Of Cards — in some cases in competition with HBO, Showtime, and Starz. “The things we’re doing in originals are very centered around the one-hour serialized dramas that are very expensive to produce for networks and the best place they land is in the premium subscription space….We’re spending a little bit producing originals, but we’re spending a lot more licensing that content from the networks.”


Producing shit original content like Lilyhammer is idiotic. Pay for better content produced by people who know content development and stick to being a distribution platform.
I completely agree with Jane. If Netflix thinks they are suddenly content makers and start nixing non-exclusive content, they will start seeing subscribers tanking their memberships. I for one included. I haven’t watched House of Cards nor am I interested. Netflix is just a distribution platform! Stick with it!
Jane, I don’t know you but I can’t help but feel like you’re saying that because you have a vested interest in the system as is. Even if Netflix is bad at content production — and I’m not convinced it is — it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to see that the middle man of content production is going away.
If not now, soon. If not Netflix, then it’s someone else. So they’re smart to get in the game while the getting’s good.
Every year people say this, it gets louder & louder, and then no one actually succeeds at it.
Your ‘middle man’ is actually a “curator,” to use the preferred internet buzzword. All this ‘unmiddled’ content ends up being digested, pooped out and then it’s on to the next thing. There’s no real there there, no matter how many times the tech industry swears that they can make quality entertainment, they fail. How’s that big Amazon movie project coming along? It ain’t.
There’s this thing about working your way up and getting experience and understanding quality control that will survive the latest tech fad. It’s more basic than that, Jonathan.
Also, there is no evidence of real correlation between netflix and Nickelodeon ratings. None. More Netflix BS jackassery.
If you truly think the studio and networks act as “curators” of content, then I understand why you’d oppose web content creation. Who’s going to make thirty NCIS spin-offs for people who watch TV primarily while making dinner if not the meddlers?
The rest of us will be quite happy to get content created by smart people and delivered directly to us.
By the way, your post was respectful and polite so I hope you take mine in the same spirit. This is a contentious issue and we couldn’t be on more opposing sides.
I agree with Sarandos’ statement regarding Netflix bringing in viewers. I’d seen the promos for Dexter, but never watched it. Then at some point between season 3 and 4, I was home sick as a dog and there was literally nothing else on, so I shrugged my shoulders and gave a watch. I was all caught up in two days.
Sadly, Showtime pulled Dexter from Netflix last year, but I’m thankful it was there to begin with because it’s now one of my favorite shows (even though the last two seasons have been less than stellar) and Netflix gets all the credit.
This is a huge problem actually. Showtime pulls its shows. Starz pulls its movies. Unless you like CNBC documentaries from 2006 and AMC shows, you’re running out of reasons to keep Netflix.
Yes there is a drop in ratings On Nick… But not on Disney which is growing and added a new 24 hour Disney Jr. channel this spring???? Netflix may play a role, So do video games and iPads. I’d look at traditional competition first.
I say BS to Nick blaming Netflix for the viewership going down. I have a 9 yr old daughter and she and all her friends are RABID Disney channel viewers. Shows like “Good luck Charlie, Shake it up, Jesse and ANT FARM are to her friends what 24 was like to me and my friends (when it was good). Viacom has spent to much time producing crappy, evil reality shows like for MTV and left Nick to very young kids (Spongebob). None of their shows for the 9-12 yr olds are compelling to that audience now…at least from what I see w/my kids. The gap if they were smart would be for boys in that age group as my 12 yr old son thinks GLC is funny when he walks in on his sister watching it but there is nothing that speaks to preteen boys on Nick or Disney the way the above shows are capturing the girls. Both studios should also be looking at movies for this audience w/live actors instead of cartoon animals. Movies that dont talk down to them or debase their morals but are funny, compelling and cool (to them anyway).