Netflix sends journalists on pricey trips

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/12/netflix-sends-journalists-pricey-trips-raising-questions-angering-rivals/

by danso • 7 years ago

100 76 7 years ago

washingtonpost.com

partingshots• 7 years ago

What should HN’s stance on paywalled sites be? It seems like at the very least, having an alternative link posted along with the main one that’s accessible to everyone would be a reasonable proposal.

danso• 7 years ago

This is an exclusive story. At the time of posting there was not an alternative link

wpietri• 7 years ago

I just opened it in a private window and it was fine, so it seems pretty accessible to me.

eganist• 7 years ago

That's the purpose of the web button - either to provide alternative links or to provide a google-filtered method to reach the page as a search referral, bypassing most paywalls.

oefrha• 7 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Are paywalls ok?
It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.

chillwaves• 7 years ago

https://outline.com/mdeq7H

ShorsHammer• 7 years ago

The best stance is one of defiance.

chatmasta• 7 years ago

This is a great extension: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

The same dev on GitHub has an equivalent for Chrome as well.

chrisseaton• 7 years ago

What should HN’s stance on paywalled sites be?

The stance and rule is that they're ok and you should not comment to complain about them. You're breaking it.

RHSeeger• 7 years ago

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.

----

The stance and rule is that they're ok and you should not comment to complain about them. You're breaking it.

No, it's not, it's only not to complain about them. The OP asked a question (which, admittedly, could have been answered with some searching, but regardless...) and then presented what they thought was a reasonable answer to the (not actually) unanswered question.

briga• 7 years ago

Oh those poor innocent Hollywood studios, it's so unfair when critics just get paid to endorse movies--at least it is when those movies are getting made by your competitor. Maybe if the big studios weren't so focused on pumping out sequel after sequel after remake after lowest common denominator designed-by-commitee movies they wouldn't have to worry about this. Netflix is simply making better movies, and if these studios want their awards they're going to have to compete for them.

robbyt• 7 years ago

Better movies? On Netflix? Are you sure?

afthonos2• 7 years ago

Well, a movie they made earned universal acclaim and the Academy Award for best picture last year, and they’re in good shape this year too, so…yes?

blondin• 7 years ago

it has become mental for me at this point. i tend to skip anything done by netflix studios... it has to do with the rate at which they are pumping out movies, shows & documentaries. most of them are not very good.

but netflix has some of the best standup comedies ever and that sandra bullock movie wasn't too bad.

even though it's scorcese, i am not interested in irishman at all...

simias2• 7 years ago

Maybe if the big studios weren't so focused on pumping out sequel after sequel after remake after lowest common denominator designed-by-commitee movies they wouldn't have to worry about this.

This is a common sentiment on the internet but it seems pretty clear that regardless of what people say they like they do go see these endless sequels en masse and they're (for the most part) hugely successful.

The reason Netflix doesn't do that to the same extent probably more has to do with the fact that it's a relatively young company who simply doesn't own old IPs to remake and reboot so it's cheaper to make new things. Look at Stranger Things for instance, they seem fine milking it.

behringer2• 7 years ago

The statement is especially ironic given the cookie cutter format all Netflix shows seem to share.

dawnerd• 7 years ago

This is kinda weird for WaPo to write about considering it's pretty common for many companies to send journalists and reviewers on fancy trips. They'll often hold product launches in places like Hawaii, or recently with Jumanji they had a press event in Mexico at a nice resort. Netflix's rivals all do the same exact thing.

The Washington Post’s policy is not to accept any material gifts from news sources or coverage subjects.

But I bet they're more than willing to accept what is essentially a free vacation on company time.

fock6• 7 years ago

but you know what: for Jeff Bezos it doesn't work out, so there has to be something wrong...

Given that: I'm getting tired of Netflix's concept of producing a lot of crappy shows for regional markets - if I'd like to have that, I can go to my public broadcaster too for the mandatory fee I have to pay anyways... (and they also realized by now that they have to do something for non-retirees). For nice and "special" movies, buying a DVD is most often the only sensible option. Or some stream somewhere... (which are not good at special things either)

ramblerman2• 7 years ago

Beg to differ. Netflix has made some great local content, narcos, Dark, Casa de papel, The dutch civil war resistance miniseries, some great French comedies, and the list goes on.

I think it's great to see stuff not all coming out of Hollywood.

iudqnolq• 7 years ago

But Netflix frequently subs their local content so it can be watched around the world. As someone who's brain reads subs seamlessly, I like this.

rospaya• 7 years ago

But I bet they're more than willing to accept what is essentially a free vacation on company time.

As someone who was sent to a lot of these trips, they're not that great most of the time. I can't comment on Netflix, but it's usually a short stay at a fancy place with all the nice amenities, but the time spent travelling and listening to the sales pitches isn't worth it.

I pity the journo that would be bought that easily.

dharmab• 7 years ago

Seems to work well for journalists covering consumer products like cars and video games. I've heard of motorcycle companies holding press reviews in Nevada (which has a lot of good off-road test terrain, to be fair) and giving every magazine journalist a few hundred bucks worth of chips to play at the casino.

bnjms• 7 years ago

There are some shenanigans happening with media takedowns against “tech” and new media companies. Looks to me like a concerted effort to subvert the power they are gaining over the old media based structures. That’s got the old publishing companies. Fox should never have been allowed to merge. They should have been forced to license their catalog.

I think FB is actively harmful to the internet but all we have to do to weaken it is prevent any further acquisitions. Much of the reign them in stuff is misguided.

C1sc0cat2• 7 years ago

And don't the Washington posts film/media Journalist go on media junkets

timwaagh• 7 years ago

They are also owned by Mr Bezos, who also owns something called Amazon Prime Video. Looks like Netflix needs to buy it's own newspaper.

wyxuan• 7 years ago

Amazon and wapo are independent entities

hn_throw_4454• 7 years ago

Oh man, not the half of it.

My wife won the Netflix PR account for our market for the agency she worked for.

They moved into their office and built an elaborate viewing room — and their retainer came in at multiples of other high end clients.

And yeah, constant trips for entertainment journos.

One of the more aggressive and savvy companies when it comes to PR. In my experience that signals strong management.

askafriend• 7 years ago

So what. The journalists get to live a little - good.

eps• 7 years ago

This is getting tiresome.

HN needs a policy to disallow completely paywalled links.

That's akin posting a photo of a printed magazine cover and suggesting to discuss a terribly interesting article on page 17. It works only for a limited audience that comprises magazine subscribers and those willing to make a trip to the library, borrow from a friend, etc. That's counterproductive and exclusionary. It also doesn't age well.

simias2• 7 years ago

I can just select "free" and click through to get the article. Admittedly they say that you can only access "a limited number of articles every month" but I think that's a reasonable compromise because:

- if like me you only stumble on the website through news aggregators like this one you probably won't have any issues to get to the article without paying,

- if on the other hand you read enough articles to hit the hard paywall then clearly you get something out of this particular website and it's not unreasonable for them to ask for you to pay for it IMO.

So I really think it's fine to post these types of articles on HN.

Semaphor• 7 years ago

if like me you only stumble on the website through news aggregators like this one you probably won't have any issues to get to the article without paying,

99.9% of the time I land on these sites is from a HN link. Most of the time I don’t find the first paragraph interesting enough to keep reading and close it. I get hit by those paywalls a lot.

jwr• 7 years ago

Yes, HN should take a stand here: all links should point to the open web. I realize that there is lots of interesting content that is not on the web, and that's fine. It's just that HN links should not point to it.

We are losing the concept of the open web, and I thought HN would be the community that would understand the problem.

rootlocus• 7 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21779375

madisfun• 7 years ago

I saw a link "Netflix sends journalists on pricey trips". "Support great journalism," said the link I followed.

(paywall)

jlgaddis• 7 years ago

Great journalism isn't free.

Grue3• 7 years ago

Sounds like sour grapes to me. How much Amazon Prime produced programming got nominated again?

rangibaby• 7 years ago

The Tick deserved to get nominated! (It got canceled)

ceejayoz• 7 years ago

Having worked at a newspaper, it's fairly unlikely the WaPo's journalists feel brand loyalty to Amazon Prime.

matt_the_bass• 7 years ago

I’ve been consistently impressed with the quality of Amazon productions. Granted I don’t watch much tv or movies. So I can’t comment on the size of their library, maybe I’ve only watched the “good” ones and haven’t made it to the back catalogue.

garyclarke27• 7 years ago

I did wonder how two such mediocre long and boring films The Irishman & Marriage Story got such rave reviews. I’m annoyed with myself, having been swayed by the the critics, so wasting over 5 hours of my life - watching these in the vain hope that some excitement or entertainment would emerge - thoroughly disappointed.

ipython• 7 years ago

To each their own. I thoroughly enjoyed the Irishman.

icebraining2• 7 years ago

Yet they also have pretty high audience reviews, unlike many other movies panned by the critics. (I haven't seen them, so I can't comment)

creaghpatr• 7 years ago

From what I can tell from reading the article, the established Hollywood studios are mad that Neflix upgraded the experience at their 'press junkets' which are a completely normal part of the promo cycle.

Press junkets are notorious for being rapid-fire grinds that studios consider a necessary evil. I guess the case could be made that by making it a more pleasant experience (and also granting journalists paid set visits is mentioned?) could give them an advantage among critics/voters? Probably but that's the business, just like this WaPo article was probably pitched by a competitor PR firm.

Shivetya• 7 years ago

Are Critic Choice Awards comparable to Emmy awards? I always felt these were B or C tier awards. However I am not in this industry and could be completely out of touch.

To me actions like what Netflix did are nothing more than another form of marketing. You either buy what they are selling or you don't.

dmix• 7 years ago

You'd also have to be a shitty movie reviewer to like one (of 61 films) films more because you got a free flight. And why would you put an industry professional in a shitty hotel when you fly them there? They should treat them with respect since they play a big role in the industry.

This sounds like it helps critics covering films be industry insiders with closer access to the filmmakers/actors which makes for more interesting content which they wouldn't have otherwise. Which helps them with the critiquing when it goes wrong or right.

Ensuring high quality coverage (or any coverage) for an event featuring != ensuring positive reviews

WhyNotHugo2• 7 years ago

I'm really grab Netflix is disrupting the market like this. Some things (like Theatre's monopoly over new titles) are absurd and need to stop. Wanna watch a new movie? Waiting for months or theatres are the only options. I'll be very happy the day this changes for all new titles.

dangerboysteve• 7 years ago

This is/was a common practice with movie studios promoting new films and flying reporters to screening.

Netflix sends journalists on pricey trips

Related Stories