With House of Cards recently winning an Emmy, alongside its soon-to-be released second season, I think it is a perfect time to revisit an unpublished post I had written earlier this year...
Would you rather start a fire from trying to predict when lightening will hit something or research where fire already exists, and replicate that environment? Consider your answer and then read the fascinating piece from Fast Company and Salon about how/why Netflix developed the American version of House of Cards.
The truth is, they didn't necessarily know if the show was any good, but they did have a mountain of analytical evidence that demonstrated that it would be a hit based on the viewing habits of their subscribers (specifically those that watch streaming video). They collected the information, determined what was being watched, found some commonalities, found a show that they could afford with many of those themes, and put it together.
This concept is a spinoff of the concept that television networks have been using for generations, known as, well, the spinoff: Based around the idea that viewers loved one or more characters from a popular show so much that they would migrate over to a new program with them, the Netflix concept takes it to the next (and more successful) level.
Too often, I think studios and producers go after the "lightening in a bottle" mentality for finding a hit, which I applaud. Truth is, while I appreciate the Netflix model, I wouldn't want this strategy used throughout the industry. If it were, nothing innovative would be developed. It would be an array of catering to the masses. But, to expect producers and studios to ignore new data that can help in the conceptualization of a show is foolish. Their careers depend on knowing what viewers want and filling that void.
So who will win out?
