As I said in another reply, I don't remember them having trouble hiring in the first place?
I can certainly mostly agree with this. I just also think them producing their own shows was likely more impactful, and had basically nothing to do with this.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of moves in life are "win more." Such that I could see this one fitting that description. But a lot of "win more" choices are surprisingly low on the ROI side, when you control for everything else in that situation.
Coca-Cola doesn't have trouble selling soda, but they still have commercials.
Of course making their own shows was more impactful in a bunch of ways. But, the investment is also so much more. A season of a show is in the tens to hundreds of millions.
I think that is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Coke does brand management. They are not necessarily educating folks to their existence.
But, the real difference is that Coke is, in fact, selling their own brand and products. For Netflix, they are largely selling access to other people's products. In a very real way, Netflix found an arbitrage opportunity for viewing movies. With how poorly the content owners calculated things, they got good deals at the beginning so that they could do well on their investment in the CDN infrastructure so that they could deliver a good experience to users with minimal unit costs.
This is, in a large sense, why Netflix is having to raise prices now. The content owners are starting to demand more money for that access, driving up their unit costs. Combined with a draught of original content, expect that they will lose access to their own productions in time. You can already see this with the likes of Daredevil.
I'm talking about hiring. I believe this project had positive ROI for Netflix (where I used to work) because of how it helped bring attention to Netflix's ML problems. Maybe you disagree with this, totally fine.
My comment about Coca-Cola was to draw the analogy that just because they don't have trouble hiring (which you mentioned) doesn't mean it can't be helped.
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking you were comparing to general advertising and the impact on drinker/user base.
If you saw a measured rise in hiring, I will trust you on that. My assertion here is largely on the trajectory that Netflix seemed to already have and how there is no clear "inflection point" in any of their numbers post this contest that I have been presented with. And probably more cynicism than makes sense for how little impact ML seems to have on any choices that Netflix seems to show.
I can certainly mostly agree with this. I just also think them producing their own shows was likely more impactful, and had basically nothing to do with this.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of moves in life are "win more." Such that I could see this one fitting that description. But a lot of "win more" choices are surprisingly low on the ROI side, when you control for everything else in that situation.