Subject: Did Netflix Just Blow $90 Million? | LinkedIn
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:22:25 -0500

A shame the reviews aren’t that good.

Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC
1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Suite 705
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-1880
[email-masked]
P Consider the environment before printing this email.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141204172910-283620963-did-netflix-s-just-blow-90-million?trk=tod-home-art-list-large_0

Did Netflix Just Blow $90 Million?

In an obvious attempt to “follow in the footsteps”, i.e. rip off, the success of one of the most successful shows on television, Game of Thrones, Netflix is releasing its own Middle Age-set, highly-expensive dramatic series on Dec. 12, Marco Polo.

Despite the show’s introductory season being a mere 10 episodes, it costs $90 million to make, making it one of the most expensive shows in the history of television. It is a massive chance by Netflix to try to lure (and, more importantly, retain) viewers with its own original content, which could work if not for one small detail…

The show, according to the reviews so far, is terrible.

“Full of blood and breasts, and generally devoid of brains, Marco Polo is the sort of project designed to appeal to the largest possible audience, which is probably why I can’t for the life of me imagine it appealing to anyone,” Grantland TV critic Andy Greenwald wrote in his review of the show.

“So while Marco Polo possesses scope, scale and an inordinate amount of exposed skin, the series exhibits only a sporadic pulse,” Variety TV critic Brian Lowry wrote in his.

There’s a lot going on here, from a business perspective, aside from just a bad show. First off, there is the part Netflix got right, that an investment like this – at least in principle – is a good idea. But second, there is the part that Netflix got wrong, where it put too much emphasis on data and not enough on the human element.

What Netflix Got Right

Netflix is smart to invest big money in creating its own content. Although the company is doing well now, with revenues of $4.37 billion last year, it is facing a lot of competition from networks that are starting to limit content to their own video streaming channels (like FX Now, for example).

So yes, Netflix has users now because it is serving as essentially an aggregator of other networks’ content. But if more and more networks create their own channels and less content goes to Netflix, there isn’t going to be anything left to attract customers.

However, if Netflix can create its own, great content, it will be able to lure and retain customers with that. And so far, it has been successful doing exactly that, creating smash hits like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards.

That is, until they created Marco Polo, which has all the makings of a bust. And that leads us to exactly what Netflix did wrong – they depended too much on data.

What Netflix Got Wrong

Want to hear something crazy? Netflix committed $100 million to two seasons of a show – House of Cards – without ever watching a pilot. Their data showed that Kevin Spacey as an actor combined with director David Fincher would make a smash hit, and the data proved right.

Netflix used the same model to green light four other shows it produced in the past few years. The other four were all relatively successful as well.

Marco Polo followed a bit of a different path, as it was originally created for Starz, but after some issues, Netflix eventually bought it. But it was clearly a data-driven, strategy decision to buy the show, not a creative one, for several reasons.

First, seeing the success of Game of Thrones, Netflix picked the show because it was similar in many ways: epic in scope, set in the Middle Ages, filled of political maneuvering and, most importantly of all, there was plenty of nudity. Secondly, they picked a show filmed in Asia about Asia at the same exact time they are trying to expand into the Asian market.

Coincidence? Somehow, I doubt it.

So yes, Marco Polo makes a ton of sense on paper - $90 million of sense, to be exact. But like the 1992 Mets proved, it doesn’t always come down to what makes sense on paper. Sometimes, no matter how good of an idea something sounds like it might be, it isn’t executed properly and it just doesn’t work.

The Takeaway

It is hard to chide Netflix for having one bad show, when they’ve done so many other things well. And despite it being bad, it doesn’t mean it won’t be popular, as maybe the Asian market and others will like Marco Polo.

But there’s clearly a lesson to be learned here. Yes, big data is the future and decisions should be data-based. But they can’t be so data-based that the forest is looked at exclusively, without analyzing any of the trees.

So yes, look at the data, no doubt. But don’t forget that people matter, too.

About VoiceGlance

VoiceGlance is a cloud-based hiring tool used by forward-thinking companies to hire smarter, instead of harder. Learn more here.