Feast or Famine: The next move for Netflix?

Something interesting happened recently in entertainment; there was a slight shift in the balance of power.

Netflix, traditionally a channel for reaching the content of other networks  became a producer in their own right.

Their new production, "House of Cards" was a shot across the bow for the likes of HBO and more traditional networks and at the moment it seems their $100m gamble is paying off with generally positive reviews.

A Netflix spokesman is quoted as saying:-

"We’re not releasing any data, but we are happy with the reception the show has gotten in the media, on social media and from our members in reviews"

This is a big deal for Netflix and they know it.  Ted Sarandos, Chief Content Officer is quoted as saying:-

"The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

While this is interesting for the entertainment market, what's more interesting for me is the potential impact this series will have on both customer acquisition and retention for Netflix.

Clearly, unique, exclusive content is a major acquisition tool for Netflix, helping them draw in both new and lapsed customers.  This is a tried and tested model used by the likes of BSkyB who would in many cases pay over the odds for subsequent series of shows like 24, Heros or more recently Mad Men that had previously aired on free-to-air channels, hoping to bring those hooked customers across in the process.

Indeed, customers such as respected blogger Dave Winer who had previously (and publicly) turned off his Netflix account then made an about turn and switched it back on specifically because of this new content.

So there is no question that exclusive content can be a big draw for new customers.  However with "House of Cards" Netflix is also chalking up another first.

They have launched the whole of the House of Cards series in one go.  Original programming made available like a box set from the get-go.

This is really significant as traditionally broadcasters would utilise a high profile series to draw in audiences regularly at an appointed time; keeping viewers restricted and waiting with baited breath for the next episode.  For commercial broadcasters these episodes would be timed to maximise the audience and hence the revenues from advertisers.  It would also provide the opportunity to gain from the halo effect of viewers staying tuned into the channel for longer pre/post airing.

For Netflix however, this doesn't matter;  their revenue comes from subscriptions, not advertisers.  Without this restriction they have provided a veritable feast of television, allowing subscribers to binge on the whole series in one sitting if they like.  Whilst figures aren't available from Netflix directly, it has been reported that a "significant portion of fans binged on the entire series in the first weekend".

It's worth contrasting this with another form of entertainment, that of social games.

I'm currently hooked on the popular social game "Clash of Clans" which uses all of the best gaming mechanics to keep me playing, progressing and in the flow.  The more I play the more I unlock.  If I had access to everything all at once - if I could feast on all it offered - then I'd tune out pretty quickly.  It would be fun, but there would be no challenge.  Instead, they try to balance the game play, including the strength of foes I have to battle based on my current experience and level achieved.

In discussing the winning formula of the game design, the blog Deconstructor of Fun highlights how the game supports different types of play, saying:-

"Not all of the parts of the core loop are equally important as the importance of each part is influenced by [the] player's ongoing goal in the game, which creates different style[s] [of] game play [,] from resource gathering and building, [to] heavy [and] active battling"

Creating this "flow" within social gaming that ensures players are hooked with a fun and entertaining experience takes data.  They need to constantly monitor usage of the game and adjust the mechanics as users progress or they see usage drop at certain points.

Now Netflix are not short of data but i'd argue they're not really getting the maximum value from it as game designers do.

They are well known for their detailed data analysis of their customers viewing habits in order to serve up better and more targeted content.  Currently, around 75% of Netflix customers select content to watch based on their recommendations and Netflix aim for this to be higher.  Mohammad Sabah, Netflix Senior Data Scientist is quoted as saying:-

"The ultimate goal is to show Netflix customers content they’ll view to completion and then recommend the next thing they’ll view to completion"

The problem Netflix have though is the classic situation all retailers face; the consumer has choice.

There is an increasing plethora of streaming services and so whilst recommendations are important and so is exclusive content, the real key is that consumers "value" Netflix.   The stickyness from content only lasts for as long as the content is "exclusive".  Letting customers essentially burn through that exclusive currency too quickly may in fact reduce the time period its effective for but also the extent to which customers actually value the content.

PSYBLOG recently reported on an interesting study that looked at how consumers valued chocolate based on how they consumed it.

In the study, the consumers were split into 3 groups with one told to give it up completely for 1 week, the next given a big bag and told to gorge and the final group, acting as a control, given no chocolate related instructions at all.  At the end of the study, the groups were given more chocolate and asked to rate the experience.

Those who abstained reported getting more pleasure from the chocolate than either the gorging group or the control group.  Not only that, but they also savoured it more - in essence they valued it much more because they'd been restricted.

Getting the balance between feast and famine is key to keeping customers involved and ensuring they continue to value your product/service.  

It's early days for the Netflix experiment but it will be interesting to see if they start to introduce some of these restrictions on consumption to gain additional loyalty; managing the flow of their customers.  You could easily see top rated Netflix consumers - those who watch more shows, over more hours and engage more with other viewers via social media - being given the ability to watch new exclusive content more quickly than others.  This would then provide social currency into the mix, ensuring those customers stay loyal longer and encouraging others to strive to level up.

If you want to stop your brand falling down like a House of Cards, it's worth looking at how game mechanics can strengthen those bonds.

Game mechanics are not just for games.

Curiosity = Loyalty3

cu·ri·os·i·ty - noun
1. A strong desire to know or learn something.
2. A strange or unusual object or fact
3. An app that has hooked over 500k people

That last point is strongly linked to points 1 & 2 and also provides some interesting lessons for loyalty programme design.

In case you missed it, Curiosity is a new iOS and Android app in which people slowly destroy layers of a huge cube with the mission to reveal what's inside.  It's like a multi-player pass the parcel in which there can only be one winner.


The cube is apparently made up of 64 billion tiny blocks which users have to destroy one block at a time until a single layer is completely removed and then they begin on the next layer.

Thats it - In terms of gameplay, it could be argued that it's a little lacking.

However, if thats all you got from it - a Zen like feeling from destroying blocks and making patterns in them - then I can't imagine it would be anywhere near as popular as it is.  Instead, the game locks onto some powerful gaming mechanics employed by more complex ecosystems like Farmville to provide a rewarding and addictive experience.

These can be summarised as:-

• Social - Everyone taking part - like a shared experience.  Connect it with your Facebook account and you can see how your friends are doing.
• Reward - There is something to aim for even though no one knows what that something is.
• Gamified - There is skill involved and you can "level up" to get a perceived advantage.  Destroying more blocks earns coins and these in turn can be traded for tools to destroy even more blocks.

It's these 3 points combined that make Curiosity both an interesting take of gameplay as well as a great model for Social Loyalty.

People will download and play with the app for different reasons, either because they've heard about it and are curious (social element) or are intrigued by the possibility of the final prize (reward).

Whichever path brings them into the app, both then play a part in retaining them.

The "gamified" element though is also very important in keeping people playing - essentially keeping them loyal.  Users will very quickly tire of simply destroying blocks one at a time.  Instead, by recognising their activity and rewarding this with coins that in turn can be used to purchase tools to increase their activity, Curiosity is looking to maintain "flow" in the gameplay.  Keeping users somewhere between boredom and anxiety.

This is enhanced further, as these additional tools give users an advantage over others, something expressed within the social element by being able to compare your stats to friends.  Solo gameplay is rarely as rewarding as that played against others.

Just using these 3 simple mechanics, Curiosity shows us in a stripped back, minimalist way how to engage and harness peoples attention.  There's no fields to plough, crops to plant or farms to build - it's as basic as it gets, and yet it still works.

The lesson for us in loyalty is that it's not about how complex your programme is or how many rewards it has - it's all about the design and how this too can engage and harness the customers attention.

Many loyalty programmes today are one dimensional - simply using rewards as the mechanic to drive people forward.  Increasingly though Social Loyalty programmes look to harness the power of social currency as expressed and magnified through a gamified experience to add depth to the programme and turn into into a more rounded, 3-dimensional experience.

It's Loyalty³.

Do loyalty points kill the relationship?

A recent blog article on Harvard Business Review discussing the concept of the "gift economy" provided a great example that stopped me dead in my tracks.  It said:-

"To understand a gift economy, consider the example of moving into a new apartment.  When friends help you move, you express your appreciation by providing pizza and beer — really good pizza and beer. When you hire professional movers, you pay with money. Offer your friends money instead of pizza and beer, and they are likely to be offended. Offer to pay the movers in pizza and beer, and they won't unload the truck. Your friends are operating in a gift economy; the movers in a market economy."

Take a moment to think about that example and then think about some of your favourite loyalty programmes.

Would your loyalty programme be operating in the gift economy or the market economy?

In the HBR article, author Mark Bonchek goes on to point out how in the market economy the focus is on transactions.  You receive a service or product and hand over money in exchange.  Market economies are normally between strangers and the trust lies within the currency. This is reinforced by the the latin term for money which is "specie", literally meaning "payment in kind".  

Gift economies in contrast are much more focused on relationships and are typically between friends or close communities.  It's not about the value of the gift or the expectation of return, as Mark points out the purpose is "not to execute a transaction, but to express a relationship".

Loyalty programmes  normally look to operate in this space, creating an emotional connection with members and typically stating that the desire is to develop a relationship which transcends the basic transaction.  Tesco for example state on their website that the Clubcard loyalty programme is "our way of saying thank you for shopping with us"

Yet despite this, many loyalty programmes simply reward a purchase with a set number of corresponding points; it's a transaction - a payment in kind.

While this works well and the customer understands the principle, it is essentially an exchange between strangers.

Using the example listed at the start, imagine if every time you called a friend it was to ask for something and you then responded to their help with a payment in money.  It's not difficult to see that this relationship would very quickly end or turn into a supplier/customer one; and this is exactly what we do within a basic loyalty programme.

This doesn't mean however that we throw away traditional points recognition - it serves a purpose in both helping to establish the initial relationship and keeping a focus between the member and the brand on the "value" of the relationship.  We do however need to recognise its limitations in that it is a transactional relationship and like all transactions, customers will be free to make the next one with your competitor.  Loyalty points help to simplify decision making (all things being equal, I'll use the store with invested points value), create goal directed behaviour and form part of the price comparison - but they don't build relationships.

To develop a relationship in part requires the programme to operate within the gift economy.  The programme needs to be able to express the relationship and demonstrate a different kind of value, a different kind of currency.  The gift economy operates on a Social Currency and can be expressed simply as:-

• Things that help me belong
• Things that help me feel significant

If when designing a loyalty programme, we build in components which align to these requirements, the programme will start to operate in both the market and the gift economies and move from being purely transactional to being emotional.  Whether it's providing benefits, surprise and delight, badges and achievements, access to information or membership of clubs, there are many ways to augment the basic loyalty design to create a social currency that is not directly linked to monetary value.

There is nothing wrong with points and indeed these form a crucial part of recognition.  We simply need to make sure that if the aim is to create a loyalty programme and not simply an incentive programme then moving the interaction from being transactional to being emotional is important.

Pinterest taps into the active lurker

Another week, another social network explodes onto the scene. Barely 2 years old and picture collecting social network Pinterest is growing rapidly and making headlines.

Despite being a simple concept - you essentially pin or bookmark pictures onto one or more boards - it is strangely satisfying. I'm by no means an avid user but there is something slightly voyeuristic about browsing image after image to see what takes your fancy. Whether its architecture, fashion, food, travel or technology, there is something for everyone.

I also think it taps into some basic needs in this current financial climate. While there is less money to go round and less desire to be seen flaunting it, people still like beautiful things. Pinterest taps into this, letting you like it, collect it and show it. Friends can still marvel at your good taste and ability to find something unique - just without the need to actually buy it. You're also able to "own" a collection of things that form part of your wish-list, even if most of those wishes have no chance of coming true.

What's makes Pinterest really appealing though is how it engages the active lurker.

Within social marketing we're aware of the 90-9-1 principle which states that typically 1% of people actually create new content, 9% of people curate this content (adding value/re-posting) and 90% simply read/consume it. A recent blog post however from enterprise social network provider Yammer commented on how this 90% might not be quite so passive. Discussing a research study from MIT Sloan, the blog pointed out how upto 50% of these lurkers may actually be active. This may not be directly within the community in terms of posting, but instead are active in terms of how they use and pass on the information.

Within Pinterest though, they seem to use a number of techniques to lower the hurdle for engaging these lurkers directly within the community.

Firstly they have an invite only acquisition process which is something I wrote about in a previous blog. This is becoming increasingly common for these start-ups and social networks as not only does it help them control acquisition (and the associated traffic), but it also helps build up demand and create social currency. As existing members can invite friends, this invite only mechanism helps bestow value on the membership and members are then more likely to recommend it to friends and/or brag about being part of it.

The second interesting feature within Pinterest that looks to create more engagement is how they use "endowed progress". Giving people value up front in the form of a welcome bonus is nothing new within loyalty programmes, however Pinterest takes a different angle on this endowed progress. Rather than a points currency, their currency is measured in friends and so on joining, they automatically link you to people you might want to follow. You're obviously free to unlink from them at any time, but this "instant network" based on your stated interests ensures you see content immediately and don't start with an empty profile. It's a simple idea that really helps you to feel engaged and a part of something straight away - it also helps to power with the final feature, re-sharing.

Pinterest makes the process of collecting very easy, lowering the hurdle to taking part.

You don't have to be the 10% of curators/creators who go out seeking new content to pin from across the web. Instead you can simply browse what others are posting and just pin whatever takes your fancy. This is something that is really interesting and not dissimilar to the Facebook "Like" activity. The difference however with Pinterest re-sharing is the curation part of it - your likes are essentially built up into a collection which you maintain and continue to share with friends. Amazon does something similar with it's Listmania service - but you'd be hard-pressed to find it given it's buried at the bottom of the page.

Pinterest have shown however how to bring this functionality front and centre and really engage members around it. They are obviously doing something right given they are the fastest growing social media site in history and have already got a presence on almost 10% of the top 300 online retailers.

With an increased desire to both share and consume information, the opportunity here for brands is how to engage this 90% of lurkers in an active way - and Pinterest certainly provides some interesting ideas.

After 25 years - Amex games card loyalty

Back in 1985 there was a revolution in computing which although small at the time went on to dominate our everyday lives - this revolution was Windows.

For many, Windows 3.1 was the first version that will be remembered and this was also the first version that could be extended to support TCP/IP - or essentially the internet. 

While it has been full-steam ahead for both Windows and the internet since this time, there has also been major change with the likes of Apple and Google increasingly innovating - whether this is new operating systems, new hardware or new ways of distributing applications.

There was however another revolution that started 25 years ago - credit card loyalty schemes.

In 1984 Diners Club launched "Club Rewards" which allowed card holders to earn frequent flyer miles or merchandise rewards based on card spend. This was closely followed by Sears who launched the Discover Card. Although quite revolutionary at the time as it had no annual fee, higher credit limits and most importantly for wider acceptance lower merchant fees, the big innovation was the inclusion of a cash-back rewards programme - giving card holders 2% of spend back.

What's interesting however is that while Windows 1.0 would be unrecognisable for many today, the Diners Club and Discover Card loyalty programmes they pioneered are pretty much the same used on all loyalty credit cards today.

In fact the latest programme from Chase called Ultimate Rewards has all of these features including a new one "Pay Yourself Back" which allows you to offset any qualifying spend on your statement with points - something which is essentially what Discover introduced 25 years ago - namely cash-back.

It was great then to see Amex breaking the mold and doing something different.

Their new scheme Social Currency has partnered with foursquare to allow card holders to check-in to retail stores to share purchases with friends.

Using a dedicated iPhone app, members can then share what they purchased, what they want to purchase and photo's of the event/product.

Keeping with the foursquare gameplay, members are rewarded for taking part with a selection of unique badges based on their behaviour such as the "Thrifty Spender" badge or the "Chinatown" badge.

I've discussed recently that loyalty is changing and that adding a gaming layer to loyalty programmes is one of the most important changes to loyalty in the last 25 years. It's great then to see an industry that once pioneered loyalty now embracing the next phase.

Amex may have been a little late to the party with it's original loyalty offering, "Membership Miles" back in 1991, but it's certainly at the forefront now. I wonder how many other banks will be brave enough to follow suit.

What we (and Guns N' Roses) can learn from Google Instant

Google Instant has launched amongst mixed reviews. However, love it or hate it - it's part of an increasing trend amongst consumers to have have everything now. In the launch PR, the main selling point for Google instant was that it saved the worlds internet users the equivalent of 11 hours per second or 111 years per day.

On an individual basis this is just 2-5 seconds per user, and yet this is the main selling point.

It's easy to see why Google would want to minimise any possible wait time; in a recent survey, two-thirds of us have stated that we've walked away from buying something because we were fed up of queuing and 51% of us wouldn't even enter a store if we spied a queue.

This apparent impatience at having to wait for things also seems to be increasing. In the same research it was reported that British consumers are now only prepared to queue for up to two minutes - down from five minutes just six years ago. (At that rate we'd expect instant service by 2014)

This isn't necessarily just an impatience with queuing though - it's an impatience with anything that stands in the way of getting something now.

In a recent Experian survey it was noted that young people tend to use offline channels for purchases, despite researching them online simply because they "want it now" and don't want to wait for it to be delivered.

Even our leisure time doesn't escape this level of impatience as the legendary band Guns N' Roses recently experienced. At a concert in Dublin they were booed and bottled off stage after only performing four songs due to a late start to the concert. Keeping fans waiting for over an hour, they were shown peoples impatience when they did finally arrive on stage.

So with an increasingly impatient consumer, how do loyalty programmes fit which require a longer term commitment.

Many loyalty programmes work around annual timelines, with quarterly statements, annual tiering and rewards which take at least 12 months to make viable. This can make it hard to engage consumers early on when they are impatient for recognition from the programme they've joined, leading to disengagement.

For loyalty programmes to engage an impatient consumer they need, like Google Instant, to provide faster and more relevant recognition.

The standard response to this is to give more value more quickly. Giving double points, welcome point bonuses, hero rewards, instant discounts, merchant offers - anything which can bring the loyalty value exchange forward.

However, while I'd agree we need to make recognition faster and more relevant, I'd argue that the rewards tied to this recognition don't need to have a tangible value.

You don't need to give discounts, priority queuing or a £10 voucher to MAKE a customer feel special - you just need to make them LOOK special.

Giving someone a Black credit card might make them feel special - letting them show it to others makes them look special - and this in turn really makes them feel special. This is known as "Social Currency" and is defined as:-

• Things that help me belong
• Things that make me significant

Making loyalty programmes social so that peoples achievements can be shared allows this social currency to be leveraged. Using different achievement mechanics which have their roots in gaming dynamics, such as unlocking badges/levels or the use of leader-boards allows for many options to recognise and engage customers quickly and early on, without the need for monetary rewards.

Seth Priebatsch, CEO of SCVNGR recently wrote about some of the gaming dynamics which help form this social currency saying:-

Game dynamics are fast becoming a critical currency of motivation. Their power lies not in connecting us to our friends, but in directly influencing our individual behavior. Smart companies will take this time to look at their product portfolios and community behaviors through the lens of game dynamics.

Google is a smart company and is constantly looking at ways to improve its products and services to further engage consumers and stay one step ahead. If we don't want to be booed and bottled off the loyalty stage, then we also need to learn the same lessons; recognising and engaging consumers more quickly and more relevantly.

The use of social currency is one way to do this and is set to become the "Google Instant" for loyalty.

Social Currency Marketing

What do erotic balloon animals and dancing commuters have in common?

They have both been used by brands to provide a social currency which can be exchanged for consumer attention.

As more and more information is created, we struggle to consume it and so give it less and less attention. Simon Herbert first talked of this issue in 1971 when he stated that "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention". It's ironic though that with all the demands on what is essentially a scarce resource – our attention – we choose to become ever closer and more connected by streaming information on each other through tools like Twitter or Facebook.

But is this really so surprising? As we are increasingly bombarded by external media with its demands on our time and attention aren't we simply forming a virtual "circle of wagons" – huddling together with those we trust (or would like to trust) to present a united front against the wider world.

This does though create a challenging opportunity for information providers - they might have to fight harder for the attention of consumers in the first place, but once they get it from a small number then it can spread like wild fire through the most effective peer-to-peer word of mouth "recommendation" in a matter of minutes. Using this blog as an example, I saw a 700% increase in visits in just one day when one of my articles got linked to someone's status update within twitter - much of that coming within just a couple of hours. And I wasn't even trying.

For a brand that is trying to find ways of breaking into these ever tighter virtual communities a commodity exchange is required that takes them from external threat (or worse still, a nonentity!) to a trusted (or at least accepted) insider. Continuing the analogy of the early pioneers, brands are finding things to trade. And where in the late 1700's it was mirrors, nails and buttons – in the 21st century the shiny objects are access, entertainment and kudos – creating essentially a social currency.

Looking at the recent viral campaign from Durex it's clear to see how this provided a valuable exchange – the video is extremely funny, and for those finding it first and forwarding it on to their friends, there's an element of kudos.

Durex have created an item to trade with potential and existing consumers which gives them access to a viral community and to a share of that most scarce resource – attention. In getting that attention they will have generated unexpected awareness and doubtless approval, as well as reminding people of a brand which of late may have been seen as less relevant than its competitors.

Mobile telco brands have really embraced this. In the UK, T-Mobile recently created an advert set in Liverpool Street railway station, with dancers mixed amongst the commuters who suddenly start dancing. This really captured the imagination of those who were there - sharing the event via their mobile and the video itself being posted to YouTube and receiving over 1.3m hits. With the strap line "Life's for Sharing" its clear they are trying to capture a share of consumers attention with something that can be talked about and traded.

The issue with these types of campaign is that although it breaks into the consumers consciousness, it is very quickly replaced by the next 'cool thing'. By its very nature it's difficult to maintain this kind of awareness through viral activity as the nature of this kind of interaction is that it is always looking for the next new thing, the next cool thing. Repetition is impossible – it's unremarkable – it's 'has-been', or worse still 'me-too' if you're the competitor brand.

Another way of gaining access to these hard to reach consumers is to not try and break in at all but instead to become part of their everyday life. Looking at another mobile operator O2, they have done this through their £6m per year rebranding of the Millennium Dome in the UK to the O2. This has allowed them to provide "access" for its customers such as priority booking for shows – allowing bookings 48 hours before non O2 customers - as well as bringing exclusive entertainment to their phones. They back this activity up with the ability to gain 4 free SIMS, allowing customers to introduce and share O2 with their friends.

With the Orange Wednesday promotion in the UK which provides 2 for 1 cinema tickets every Wednesday for Orange customers, this mobile telco operator has found an innovative way to really become part of their customer's everyday life whilst ensuring that their friends are introduced to the brand as well – providing a social currency through free films. This connection between their customer and their social network really does tie into everything they do, from the inclusion of free Facebook within their Dolphin package to the recent rebranding of Orange around the "I am" theme which focuses on how peoples social connections make up all that they are.

It's clear that brands are increasingly understanding that in the fight for a consumers attention they need to think not just about the consumer themselves, but all of the people they interact with and need to provide some form of social currency which can be traded in exchange for attention – whether this is erotic balloon animals, dancing commuters or free films.

As the recent Orange campaign says "I am who I am because of everyone".