News flash! Netflix still hasn’t provided numbers about “House of Cards.”

There was a brief suggestion to the contrary on Wednesday, when the Hollywood Reporter published an interview with Netflix content boss Ted Sarandos. In the Q&A, Sarandos compared the audience for “House of Cards” to that of AMC’s “Walking Dead,” which caused a few of us TV-watching-watchers to wonder if Sarandos was saying that “House of Cards” had a similar number of viewers as “Walking Dead.”

If so, that would be a pretty big deal, since “Walking Dead” is one of the most popular shows on TV. The cable TV show drew nearly 12.5 million viewers for its season finale this year, and frequently beat out big broadcast shows throughout the spring.

Netflix, meanwhile, has about 30 million U.S. subscribers, period. It would be amazing if nearly half of them were watching a single show, right? And it would also say a lot about the future of TV.

Maybe one day, it will. For now, though, we will have to keep guessing about the “House of Cards” audience.

Via email, Netflix PR head Jonathan Friedland said that Sarandos was not talking about aggregate numbers when he said that “viewing is much more on par with the large-scale mainstream things like ‘The Walking Dead.’”

Instead, Friedland said, Sarandos was talking about the show’s demographic appeal, which Netflix said is wider than it might have thought. “He was saying that the viewing audience is broad, in the same way that ‘Walking Dead’s’ audience is larger than horror fans,” Friedland wrote.

That makes sense. It would be much more surprising if Netflix decided to deviate from a pledge it made loudly and often a few months ago.

For the record, here’s the full excerpt of Sarandos’s chat with THR’s excellent Lacey Rose:

THR: You’ve been reticent to share ratings data, but tell us what you have learned about the “House of Cards” audience.

Sarandos: The major international appeal for “House of Cards” was kind of a surprise because it’s a very American show. What we learned is that American politics is very American, but greed and corruption and all of that is very global. Corrupt politics is not new in Latin America, as it turns out. (Laughs.) Within the U.S., you could have argued that most people who watch “Mad Men” would watch “House of Cards.” But the viewing is much more on par with the large-scale mainstream things like “The Walking Dead.” It was much younger than we thought. One of the things that surprised me was that women love the show because they love Robin Wright. And younger people love Kate Mara. Everyone is able to gravitate to this show for very different reasons.

The New York Times named 2012 the crossover year for Big Data: As a term and as a concept, Big Data broke through from the tech circle and into mainstream consciousness. (So much so that even Dilbert’s boss was talking about it.)

We’ve seen huge advances in our ability to generate, collect and store an explosion of data points: 90 percent of the world’s data has been accumulated in the last two years alone. We’re generating 2.5 quintillion bytes of data daily, and every serious company is dutifully logging and contextualizing every impression, every click and every purchase with excruciating detail.

That said, shockingly little happens to the information once it has been stowed in the database. A good friend gave voice to this dirty little industry secret the other day:

“Nobody wants to use the data.”

He’s remarkably spot-on. Even though almost every CEO says their companies are becoming data-driven, the fact is that most high-level decisions are still being made from bullet points, not data points.

What the data revolution brought us was systems for collecting data — but collecting is the easy part. And even more importantly, it’s the safe part.

The Real Problem: Data Phobia

The trouble with data is that it asks as many questions as it answers. Your engagement is down, bounce rate is up, search traffic is up — why is that, and what can we do to make it higher, lower and higher? Data almost never hands you the answers or insights directly; it just illuminates the issue. And it illuminates a whole bunch of them at once, so it’s up to you to figure out what the priorities are.

If this problem is an “opportunity in disguise,” most executives seem quickly scared off by the masquerade. In truth, Big Data raises the bar for how smart you have to be as an executive.

The easy answer — leaving the analytics to the analytics department — relieves you of the responsibility of figuring it all out, as though it’s unknowable to anyone without a degree in data science. But it also relieves you of the answers.

What is the executive’s greatest fear? That exposing the trove of data without knowing what to do with it makes them look worse, not better. In media, many have hidden that fear behind the veneer of idealistic purism. I remember talking with Martin Nisenholtz several years ago when he was at the New York Times about how data is used in a newsroom; I asked what would happen if he shared performance metrics with reporters in real time (obviously this was before Chartbeat) to see what their audience cares about. He said, “They would throw me out.”

Our strong institutions and professional commitment to standards have ensured the journalistic values of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. None of those values are furthered by closing our eyes and ears to our own audiences. The result is a paradoxical culture that boldly states “content is king” and yet refuses to quantify its value for fear of tainting the purity of the product.

The Opportunity: Using Big Data to Make Big Bets

Until recently, we have had startlingly few case studies of the transformative power of Big Data on which to model our own big changes in media. Instead we’ve had IT initiatives that promised big insights, but ended up delivering big databases and bigger IT bills. For once, it’s not the IT department’s fault — it’s those of us who are using the data (and, more often, aren’t using it) who are to blame.

That’s why I turn to those who have made the big bets to see what’s different. Netflix has long been the poster child for using data to drive results, and now they’ve proven in no uncertain terms that when you ask your data the right questions you can find hugely valuable insights — even in the sacred domain of content creation.

Before Netflix pursued the option to buy “House of Cards,” it looked to its massive data stash. Execs wanted to know: Do Netflix users enjoy political thrillers? Check. Of political thriller enthusiasts, how many also watch David Fincher films? A whole bunch. Oh, and one more thing: Is this crowd fond of Kevin Spacey? As it turned out, there was a very healthy crossover in that Venn diagram.

Not only did this insight give Reed Hastings the confidence to bid on “House of Cards” — it gave him the level of certainty necessary to outbid heavyweights like HBO and AMC for the series.

What I love most about this story is that the questions were so simple, so logical. Sometimes the sheer volume of data at our fingertips overwhelms us and makes us forget that the fundamental strategic questions haven’t changed. What has changed is that now we have far better access to the answers. And when you can give your users what they want based on the signals they themselves have been sending you, that’s when Big Data starts to earn its keep.

Five Questions You Should Be Asking Your Data

Forget about Omniture and Google Analytics and all of the data minutiae you’re already tracking. Forget about little personalization features. The most valuable data doesn’t fit on the dashboard. Think bigger and move upstream: What’s the most amazing new product or service you can create? Here are five places to start digging:

• What does my audience love? Cut the data every way you can to deeply understand this, with nuance — then reorient around that product. It might be parenting advice, or current memes, or breaking news. If you can find a common thematic thread in your most-consumed content, you have a great starting point for further segmentation. Lauren Zalaznick turned the Bravo network around by pinpointing the five key interests of the audience, cutting out the clutter, and giving them more and more and more of what they loved (hence the hugely popular “Top Chef” and “Real Housewives”).
• How do they want it? Netflix noticed that a significant number of users were watching marathon-style, and so they bucked TV tradition and released “House of Cards” all at once. How could you change your content packaging to better match the real habits of your users? Many have tried and failed with full-length video programming on the Web; that’s because (so far at least) most Internet audiences can’t sit still long enough to watch a 30- or 60-minute program. Adapt your delivery to what your audience wants.
• How can I best relate to them? Personality is critical — so which of your brands’ public talents and personalities relate to whom? It might be a popular columnist, Don Draper, or Boo the Pomeranian. Figure out which personalities your audience connect with the most, and leverage them into the other themes and packages.
• What secret signals is my audience sending? Target famously figured out how to identify pregnant shoppers and even estimate their due dates months before the woman ever purchased a stroller or a pack of diapers. Find out which clues in your data indicate that a customer may be on the path to a new phase of life, and start messaging them with your relevant content even before they get there.
• Where is my sweet spot? Once you discover the key themes, packages and personalities that resonate with your audience the most (and at which relevant life stages), you can cross the data sets and identify your best untapped opportunities. Don’t just tweak your existing products and advertising — create whole new products that are designed specifically to thrive at the intersection. Just as the strong affinity overlap for Spacey/Fincher/Cards gave Netflix the confidence to make a bold bet, your own Venn diagram will spotlight your best chances to create knockout content that is destined to succeed.

Rethinking Management: Ask, Understand, Execute

When it comes to dealing with Big Data, our skills haven’t evolved as fast as our capacity. We all have a functional specialty, whether it be content creation or distribution or sales or management — so whose job is it to ask the right questions of the data? Big insights and actions aren’t led by a data scientist; they are led by an executive who has an integrated view of customers, products, distribution and sales.

But asking Big Data the right questions isn’t just a new practice to add to the management to-do list. Pulling it off requires a rethinking of the manager’s role entirely. We’ve traditionally thought of management as the discipline of managing people and managing the business. Now it’s time to add “managing our understanding” to the job description.

The time of the executives who merely “execute” is past. The successful executives in this post-Big Data world first ask, understand, and then execute with the full support of the data behind them.

It’s a totally obvious move that will make the popular bookmarking site more useful and less inspirational (a.k.a. full of pretty photos that don’t actually link to anything). You could think of it like the Pinterest version of Twitter’s Cards.

The added information comes from a whole bunch of stores (e.g. Anthropologie), food publications (e.g. 101 Cookbooks) and movie databases (e.g. Netflix) that have partnered directly with Pinterest. There are some sizable names in there of brands that are willing to pass over a whole bunch of metadata to Pinterest and its 50 million or so active users: eBay, Target and Sony among them.

The features are only available to Pinterest users who have opted into its recent redesign, which was not universally popular but has been modified since launch.

I don’t think you’d be sitting here interviewing me if it weren’t for Netflix. In its third season, ‘Breaking Bad’ got this amazing nitrous-oxide boost of energy and general public awareness because of Netflix. Before binge-watching, someone who identified him- or herself as a fan of a show probably only saw 25 percent of the episodes.

– “Breaking Bad” creator Vince Gilligan, talking to New York magazine about his show’s surprising success

In case you missed anything, here’s a quick roundup of the news that powered AllThingsD this week:

1. As AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher and Peter Kafka were first to report this week, Yahoo is seriously thinking about buying hipster blogging service Tumblr. In fact, Yahoo’s board is scheduled to consider a $1.1 billion all-cash deal on Sunday.
2. Google wanted to dominate the headlines this week during the company’s annual I/O conference … just maybe not like this. By sending Microsoft a cease-and-desist, they helped promote that rival’s anti-Google campaign.
3. That little drama didn’t come up during the official proceedings of I/O, but a lot else did. Here’s a rundown of all the news Google announced in its three-and-a-half-hour opening keynote.
4. Watch this: An interview with Bill Gates, in which the Microsoft founder talks about his longtime relationship with Steve Jobs, on “60 Minutes.”
5. Can productivity apps for the iPad make it as useful as a traditional work PC? Walt Mossberg puts them to the test.
6. Speaking of the iPad, the Justice Department is closing in on Apple with an e-book price fixing case … but one of the seemingly most damning pieces of evidence, a line from a letter from Steve Jobs to James Murdoch, is a little less damning in context.
7. Web video services like Amazon, HBO and Hulu all say they’re seeing significant growth. But is anyone cutting into Netflix’s lead? A new report says: Nope!
8. BlackBerry is bringing its messenger application, BBM, to iPhones and Android phones this summer. But is it too late?
9. Cisco’s earnings only barely beat analysts’ expectations this week, but that beat sent the company’s stock up 9 percent in after-hours trading. Arik Hesseldahl got CEO John Chambers on the phone to talk about where Cisco is and where it’s going.
10. And lastly, if you want more battery life out of your iPhone on the go, you may have considered a special re-juicing case. Product reviewer Lauren Goode tries the battery boosters before you buy.

To stay on top of the latest, follow AllThingsD on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to our daily email newsletter.

Hard to believe there’s anyone interested in “Arrested Development” who doesn’t know that a new season is coming to Netflix this month. But that’s not stopping Netflix from spending some time and money on really fun marketing stunts.

Earlier this week, for instance, the company set up a frozen banana stand — which will mean a lot to “Arrested Development” fans and nothing at all to the rest of you — at various Manhattan locations. The stand drew huge crowds.

And today this appeared in my inbox:

Tobias Funke “tobias@brigademarketing.com”
11:37 AM (24 minutes ago)

to me
Well hello there!

I’m Dr. Tobias Funke, and I finally got around to making those new head shots! And now you can insert me anywhere into your YouTube video creations!

Presenting www.insertmeanywhere.biz! I’ve always aspired to work with great directors like yourself and the great Mr. James Cameron. You’re reputation precedes you, and I promise you, kind sir, no other actor has this kind of agility. So I’d like to give you early access to all of my best characters.

We can talk about payment later. As you will see from my videos, I am okay with any kind of backend.

Regards,

Dr. Tobias Funke

Click through and you’ll find an entertaining video from Tobias/David Cross. In theory, you’re supposed to download clips from the site, and mash them up yourself using Final Cut or some such. More realistically you’re just going to watch stuff other people have made, like this clip:

So: Super smart (NYC-based PR shop Brigade Marketing gets the credit, apparently) [UPDATE: Both Netflix and Brigade want to note that Brigade didn't create the campaign or the tech behind it, but handled distribution to folks like me]. And super effective, since I’m writing about it right now.

Recall that part of Netflix’s pitch is that it doesn’t need to do a lot of marketing for its originals, because it doesn’t need to aggregate a big initial audience, like a TV show or movie needs, and because its most effective marketing tools are the millions of customers it already has. Stuff like this is clever but not crucial.

But Web video competitors like Amazon, HBO and Hulu all say they’re seeing significant growth. So is anyone cutting into Netflix’s lead?

Not really, said Sandvine, the broadband service company that tracks Internet usage.

A Sandvine report out this morning pegs Netflix’s share of prime-time “downstream” traffic delivered over “fixed networks” — that is, wires and pipes — at 32.3 percent. That’s just a hair down from the 33 percent estimate it provided last November.

Meanwhile, Sandvine said Amazon and HBO have seen their share of traffic hold steady, as well. Sandvine said Amazon dropped from 1.75 percent to 1.31 percent, and that HBO dropped from 0.5 percent to 0.34 percent. But that’s not a lot of movement either way.

The one service that did leap a bit is Hulu, which is up from 1.1 percent to 2.41 percent.*

Bear in mind that these numbers do include data transmitted from a home network, via Wi-Fi, to iPads, iPhones, Android tablets, etc. And that Sandvine said this kind of “home roaming” accounts for a whopping 20 percent of traffic now, up from 9 percent a year ago.

But Sandvine also tracks streaming traffic to mobile devices over wireless networks. And here it said that Netflix has made a move from 2.2 percent of downstream traffic to 4 percent in the last 12 months. YouTube, though, is still dominant: If you’re on the go, and you’re watching a moving image, there’s a very good chance you’re seeing something hosted by the world’s biggest video site.

So what does any of that mean? Short answer: Netflix is streaming more video than ever — it added at least two million American users between measurements, and likely many more — but so are its competitors. So its lead is staying more or less the same. Sandvine said the average Internet household uses about 18 gigabytes of broadband a month — up from 10GB a year ago.

Still here? If so, you’ve probably read Ashlee Vance’s excellent Bloomberg Businessweek piece on the engineering that lets Netflix move all those bits into your house. If not, you should definitely read it now.

* Sandvine researcher Dan Deeth notes that the numbers his company provided last fall were collected in the first two weeks of September, which means that Hulu wouldn’t have had access to a batch of new TV shows from its broadcaster partner/owners. The numbers in today’s report were collected in the first two weeks of March, which means Hulu would benefit from new programming that ran during February sweeps; Netflix would have also benefited from any surge in “House of Cards” viewers.

We can at least agree on this, though: HBO and Netflix are both very interested in figuring out the best way to deliver TV-quality video over the Internet, and both have around 30 million subscribers in the U.S.

Which gives this personnel move a little bit of zing: Rob Caruso, an HBO engineer who had been working on the cable channel’s HBO Go service, has taken a job at Netflix.

No word on what Caruso’s new title or job description will be; his LinkedIn profile describes his HBO post as “Vice President, Digital Products.”

HBO confirmed Caruso’s move but didn’t offer any other comment; no comment from Netflix.

Earlier this year, HBO began re-orging its technical team, and longtime strategy and development exec Hans Deutmeyer headed out. In a memo announcing the changes, new tech head Otto Berkes also announced that Caruso would be moving around:

“Rob’s new charter is to build software engineering capabilities to optimize digital asset creation, management, and security, and to create technologies that unlock the full potential of software in the digital content area. Rob and his team will collaborate closely with Digital Products to ensure that our digital content technologies and our consumer-facing products inform each other to enable unique and innovative content-driven user experiences. This new role and group will be critical to achieving end-to-end software technology excellence.”

Last month, in his own memo laying out his vision for video’s future, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said his company was spending $350 million a year improving its core service and app, not counting content spending.

On Thursday, the company is announcing an Android-powered set-top box called the GamePop console. The unit, which takes aim at the Kickstarter-backed Ouya as well as traditional gaming consoles, is built around the Jelly Bean version of Android (4.2), but BlueStacks isn’t disclosing other hardware details, such as what chip will power the device.

The timing of the announcement is a bit unfortunate for BlueStacks, coming the same day that Ouya is announcing that it has raised $15 million in funding from a variety of blue-chip venture backers, including Kleiner Perkins.

Rather than charge for its console, BlueStacks plans to give away the device — at least initially — and will charge a $6.99-per-month subscription fee, which includes game titles such as Fruit Ninja, as well as titles from Glu Mobile, Halfbrick and OutFit7, the maker of the Talking Tom series.

It’s a bit of a departure for BlueStacks, which has been beta testing software that lets Android software run on a desktop computer. That program just passed 10 million downloads.

“Mobile gaming has been taking off the past few years,” BlueStacks CEO Rosen Sharma said in a statement. “BlueStacks’ vision is to bring that same experience to bigger screens.”

Beyond bringing mobile games to the big screen, Sharma also hopes to change the economics that have traditionally supported console gaming — namely expensive high-end hardware subsidized by expensive games.

“The all-you-can-eat pricing model for GamePop lets users enjoy a much broader range of games, just as you can watch more movies with Netflix versus the pay-as-you-go model Blockbuster employed.”

Of course, others — including the aforementioned BlockBuster — also tried subscription gaming, albeit using old-fashioned discs and mailers.

Now that 21st century digital behemoths such as Facebook and Google have discovered how to make personal information the most valuable resource in the history of humanity, they are strip-mining mountains of it into completely unrecognizable states.

Conversely, we tend to ignore this process because the most magnificent, technologically advanced and socially connected digital city is being built from it.

You are living in this growing digital city, and I’m guessing that you really like it here. Unfortunately, you can’t live in this city for free. Your rent is due in the form of your personal information, and you have to accept a certain loss of your privacy.

There’s no credit check to move in. You just need to share your name, birth date, where you’re from, your alma mater and a few more personal details. It’s effortless to hand over your information, and will only take you about 60 seconds to sign a lease.

But if you don’t read the fine print of your lease, you’ll gloss over the fact that surveillance cameras and microphones have been installed to cover every square inch of the city and that you have consented to being watched at all hours.

Meanwhile, marketers and advertisers will eavesdrop on your conversations and abruptly interrupt when you bring up any topics related to their products. (Bizarrely, you are also required to eat a complimentary cookie every time you enter a building.)

Real estate metaphors notwithstanding, losing your privacy is not such a bad thing. You pay into the new digital economy with your demographic and behavioral information.

Some people raise legitimate concerns, but claims of an Orwellian dystopia are alarmist hyperbole. There is a level of discomfort that comes with voluntarily divulging private information, and, understandably, greater anxiety results from being watched at all times.

As a society, we need to define the rules under which our personal information can be mined. Our collective unease is largely the result of not having clear parameters to create an equilibrium between privacy and personalization.

These parameters will help shift our focus from the negatives to the positives, because in return for your personal information, you realize a net benefit with tremendous value.

Access to Your Data From Anywhere, at Any Time, Using Any Device

I don’t want access to my data being constrained by the time of day, where I am or what digital device I have access to. I shouldn’t have to go to work to grab an Excel file off my computer and I shouldn’t need my personal device to show a photo of my dog to coworkers.

The solution is adopting a cloud service like Dropbox, Google or Facebook. They become the stewards of your data, responsible for keeping it secure and accessible at all times. In exchange, you grant them full visibility of your data and permit them to monetize it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like carrying a USB stick around and I definitely loathe the pain of a hard drive failure corrupting three years of photos and memories. I’m sticking with the cloud.

Personalized Experience

A personalized experience is why companies like American Express, Brooks Brothers and USAA consistently rank at the top of consumer surveys. These are giant corporations, but they make you feel special by focusing on you. They also happen to know a lot about you and your spending habits.

The sheer volume of information online is overwhelming and often leads to decision paralysis. You need help cutting through the noise; the best companies personalize your digital experience, only presenting information that is relevant to you.

I don’t want to dig through the iTunes or Netflix libraries. I want to choose from recommendations based upon what I’ve watched in the past and what my friends are watching. If I’m buying something on Amazon, or planning a vacation on TripAdvisor, I’d like to see reviews and recommendations from my friends. I’m far more likely to make a better and more informed choice with the trusted validation of my social circle.

Proactive Digital Assistant

Google knows where I live, where I work and the typical route I take to commute between them. I find it extremely valuable when I am alerted about an accident before I’m already stuck in the horrific traffic jam for over an hour.

Facebook pings me with a push notification about my friend’s birthday so I don’t forget yet again. I can see from Instagram photos that my friend went to the Nationals game and I can ask him how it was. Foursquare will let me know if one of my friends has checked in near me and we can now meet for a serendipitous drink.

Our 21st century digital economy makes my life better. I have access to what I need, when I need it. My online experience is largely customized to suit my needs. And, I have better ambient awareness of what’s happening in my social circles.

The cost to improve my life is sharing my personal information. A barter economy is based on the exchange of goods and services of perceived equal value. In my mind, I’m receiving far more than I’m giving up.

There is a zero-sum relationship between personalization and privacy. To get the personalized digital experience you want and have grown accustomed to, you have to accept the loss of your privacy.

Tom Cochran is CTO at Atlantic Media, publisher of the Atlantic, Quartz, National Journal and Government Executive. Prior to that, he was at the White House as the Director of New Media Technologies. Follow him on Twitter at @tommer.

Then you’re not going to be any happier with most of the subscription videos the site is going to start selling. They’re going to have ads, too, say people familiar with YouTube’s long-awaited plans.

That should give you a sense of how incremental YouTube’s move will be when the site formally announces it this week, likely on Thursday: This isn’t a shift in strategies, or an attempt to take on Netflix or Hulu, but a relatively simple add-on option that gives YouTube video makers another way to make money.

YouTube’s core business is going to be the same: Selling its billion-person audience to advertisers.

Subscriptions may still be welcome news for some video makers, who have been complaining about the ad dollars they are generating from the site. And an ad-free option that YouTube has also pitched may appeal to children’s-TV producers, as well.

But lots of video makers will likely hold back and wait to see the results of the experiment YouTube is starting up. The key question for a producer: If I’m already struggling with the economics of the free stuff I’m providing, where am I going to find the resources to make “premium” stuff, too?

A la carte subscriptions seem particularly useful for established YouTube stars with low production costs and rabid fans, like Freddy W, Ryan Higa or the Smosh guys.

Certainly, almost all of their teen video viewers are unable or unwiling to pay to watch their stuff. But they may be able to convert a small percentage of their superfans to open their wallets (or their parents’). Just like the Rolling Stones will convince some poor soul to pay $169.98 for a boxed CD set next fall.

Eventually, if this stuff works, YouTube may be able to start bundling cable-like packages of content together — say, a comedy block, or a sports block — and then things could get more interesting. And if all of that works, and YouTube proves there’s a real business for pay video on the site, perhaps it will start becoming attractive to the TV and movie guys YouTube has been trying to court without success for a very long time.

And then things could get very interesting.

But for now, don’t expect much. And do expect a lot of ads.

iPad image copyright Skylines

Napster was the first of its kind, providing music fans with easy and free access to albums and tracks and giving them a reason to avoid buying expensive CDs — the lifeblood of the music industry’s business. The ability to share files around the globe reduced the barriers to music discovery and allowed Napster users to find new artists and songs in ways never imagined. It was a truly disruptive service, and it scared the hell out of the music industry.

Instead of embracing the massive adoption of this new service, finding a solution to accommodate the changing landscape or harnessing Napster as a future platform, the music industry held onto its rigid CD-based business, prayed that file sharing would go away and eventually tore Napster down.

Today, you can draw several parallels between the music industry in the late ’90s and early 2000s and the TV industry today. Viewing habits are changing. Just like music in the early 2000s when young adults started turning away from physical media and opting for singles versus complete albums, viewers are “tuning in” very differently to movies and TV programming.

Today, if Netflix were part of a cable package, it would be one of the top viewed networks, according to a Facebook post from CEO Reed Hastings. Meanwhile, Nielsen recently reported that cable cutting is up by 150 percent since 2007, marking a significant shift in viewer behavior. Additionally, Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia is now assuming the role of Shawn Fanning by intimidating the cable companies with a disruptive service that lets viewers access broadcast programs at a much lower cost than cable packages.

But, instead of adapting to changing viewer behavior, the cable companies, Hollywood and broadcasters are holding onto old business models for dear life and calling the lawyers. Sound familiar?

Avoiding a Bad Sequel: Lessons for the TV Industry

Ignoring or fighting digital consumer behavior is a recipe for disaster — resulting in rejection faster than an unpalatable creation by a contestant on Hell’s Kitchen. It’s time for TV broadcasters, content creators and advertisers to innovate their businesses instead of maintaining existing models through threats and litigation.

First, they need to understand that their viewers are setting the rules and defining the life expectancy of their programming and services. They will decide your fate — not you. Consider the following:

• You Can’t Take Content Away: The outdated model based on controlling distribution is dying. If you force it underground — that is, “illegal streams and downloads” — you’ve lost the battle.
• Adapt or Die: The millennial generation is addicted to YouTube, on-demand and streaming services. They no longer tune in at a specific time and date, and are increasingly shying away from paying for premium cable bundles. With filmmakers and producers spending the time and resources to make great TV programing, like “Homeland,” “Girls” and “Mad Men,” delivery methods should be figured out to get these shows to viewers who won’t pay $150 per month in subscription fees.
• Open the Windows: The “distribution window” is used by Hollywood to define how long a VOD and streaming service can distribute movies and TV programming. The problem? If the window for season one of “Downton Abbey” is about to close from Netflix or your cable provider, and you haven’t watched any of the episodes, you better call in sick to work to get your fill of the Granthams and the Crawleys, or miss the entire season altogether.
• Stop Explaining Business Models: Movie and TV viewers don’t give a sh*t about business models. They just want to watch their favorite shows — whenever and wherever they choose. The music industry followed the same pattern in the early 2000s, explaining why the economics of music streaming and downloads would not support artists and the industry. Guess who won?
• Open Up to Developers: Don’t assume innovation will only come from within your organization. By tapping the developer community, you will be able to move faster and find new ways to use or distribute content, which could result in new monetization strategies. Some of the more forward-thinking media properties, including ESPN, are already doing this, allowing developers to hack ad strategies and sports data.
• Rethink Discovery: As video distribution evolves, there needs to be a corresponding evolution in how people discover new movies and TV programming. If viewers are paying hefty monthly subscriptions (which today support a lot of what they don’t watch), it is critical to provide paths to find what they really want to watch. The current TV guides embedded in our set-top boxes have to be completely rethought.
• Reinvent Measurement: We still depend on a small sample of viewers to rate the popularity of programs and we base all advertising decisions on this data. However, the technology to measure real time usage inside the TV exists today and has the potential to enable more precise measurement and better targeting of advertising.

The TV industry’s fate is as much in the hands of viewers as the next American Idol. Not only accepting, but also realizing that TV programs and movies are easily accessible via proliferating distribution channels such as Netflix and Aereo, the industry can turn the tables and find opportunities with additional platforms and options to reach viewers for their eyeballs and spending. Most importantly, cable, broadcasters and Hollywood have the opportunity to move forward and determine better and more efficient business models to thrive.

Forward-looking networks like HBO have slowly worked toward a compromise by offering specialized content that depends on the Pay-TV ecosystem. However, with cord-cutting slowly beginning to eat into cable subscriptions, the HBOs of the world need to take distribution models a step further and offer everything streaming with direct-to-consumer subscription models, or risk losing their next core audience. If TV viewers are willing to pay for subscription streaming services, then the industry needs to jump on that bandwagon.

Rewriting the Ending: To Be Continued

The nature of distributing media is evolving, and the music industry learned the hard way as it struggled to adapt to a new generation of music fans. More than 10 years after the music industry forced Napster to tear down its P2P platform, the same industry has embraced free, ad-supported services from Spotify, Rhapsody, Deezer and others. In fact, this year marked the first time that the music industry made a profit since 1999.

Instead of struggling against the Internet Age and the connected world, broadcasters, cable companies and Hollywood can capitalize on the audience’s need to enjoy what they have to offer — great TV programming. Content will always be king and the industry creates a tremendous amount of really compelling material. It just needs to keep the crime scenes to “Law & Order” and save the video star by taking a cue from music’s past.

As president of Gracenote, Stephen White has played a critical role in shaping the company into a digital entertainment leader. He spearheaded the development of Gracenote technologies for top entertainment platforms and brands, including Apple, Ford and Sony. Today, he oversees all company strategy and operations, and is responsible for growing Gracenote’s core business and vision.

So how about Hulu Plus, the subscription service that runs ads in the middle of its TV reruns? Turns out it is doing just fine: Hulu says its paid service now has four million subscribers paying $8 a month.

That’s not nearly as much Netflix, which boast some 30 million subscribers for its ad-free service (also $8 a month). But that seems awfully respectable to me, considering that Hulu Plus has been around (in one form or another) for less than three years.

Maybe even impressive, since much of what Hulu Plus offers are TV shows you can see for free on broadcast TV, or even on “regular” Hulu.com. The main selling point for Hulu Plus, I think, is that you can watch the service on a variety of screens, including phones, tablets and your actual TV, via devices like Apple TV.

The announcement comes as Hulu puts on a show for advertisers in New York, part of the week-long “newfront” presentations the big video websites are hosting. (Yesterday: Yahoo! Tomorrow: YouTube!)

While Hulu is still best known as the place to watch last night’s TV (or in some cases, last week’s TV), it is interested in promoting the stuff it has that you can’t see on TV.

Like Netflix and Amazon, it is investing in its own original programming; unlike Netflix and Amazon, its efforts have gotten much less attention, a fact that steams Hulu’s management team. So if you want to help them out, go ahead and look at the preview reel for “The Awesomes,” an “animated show for adults,” co-created by Seth Meyers of “Saturday Night Live”; it seems to be the new show Hulu is most excited about.

The good news for Andy Forsell, Hulu’s acting CEO, is that advertisers are already receptive to Hulu’s pitches, both for the reruns it airs and the new stuff it is showing. It looks like TV and Hulu is selling it like TV, and many ad guys like that a lot, especially compared to Google’s more … Googley approach with YouTube.

The bad news for Forsell is that he’s acting CEO, because Hulu’s corporate future is completely unsettled. It’s entirely possible, and probably likely, that the site, currently owned by News Corp.,* Disney and Comcast, will have a different ownership structure by the end of the year, and may have a different agenda, as well.

I’m guessing that doesn’t come up during this morning’s presentation. What I don’t know is whether that matters to advertisers or viewers.

*News Corp. also owns this website.

But here’s the guy to ask: Bill Carr, who heads up Amazon’s digital music and digital video groups, which now include Amazon Studios, the unit that is going to make original movies and TV shows for the e-commerce giant.

Carr doesn’t talk much, but last week I got the chance to sit down with him at Amazon’s Seattle headquarters. Amazon is as tight-lipped as Apple when it comes to new product discussions — or lots of other stuff you and I would like hear about — so I didn’t even bother asking him about Amazon’s new TV box. (Still: Count on it.)

But if you read between the lines, you should at least be able to get a sense of what Amazon is thinking as it contemplates beefing up its music offerings, and as it goes head to head with Netflix (and everyone else) in digital video. Here’s an edited version of our chat:

Peter Kafka: A couple years ago, Amazon and Google and Apple were all racing to develop music-locker services. But we don’t hear much about them anymore. How is Amazon’s locker working?

Bill Carr: The fundamental things about cloud music storage that works for all consumers is that it backs up everything, it’s in a safe place. I can access it from all of my devices, it’s simple. I don’t have to think about it. People don’t want to manage their music, they want to enjoy their music. Every consumer likes that.

What may have more limited appeal is how many consumers want to pay $25 a year to do that for all of their music.

Are you surprised about the take-up rates for the $25 a year option?

No. I don’t find that surprising.

The locker services seem like part of a larger trend where big platform companies like you, Apple, Google, are trying to get people to move their media into your own clouds, and end up committing to one ecosystem or another.

It may be that other companies think about it that way, because their goal is that you only use their devices. But that’s not our goal. Our goal is to free you up to use whatever device you want. Which is why we support any kind of PC, any kind of Mac, iOS devices, Android.

Our goal is to be ubiquitous on any device people might want to use. It’s a big investment for us to make all those apps avilable. But our goal is not to lock you into any one ecosystem.

Do you think you can keep doing that? It seems like we’re moving back toward a walled-garden world.

I can’t speak to other people, and what decisions they may make that may prohibit us from enabling our app. But we’ll work very hard on behalf of our customers to make sure our app is available on the devices they use.

You first started selling MP3s in 2007, and for a while it seemed like you weren’t making any headway against iTunes, which dominates the business. But now, at least according to NPD, you have 22 percent of the download market. What changed?

We don’t release any details about where we stand. But what I can say is that we have seen customer growth in our service every year. We have year-over-year growth in sales and in customers. And the way we’ve accomplished that is by building more solutions for customers.

Is your locker service helping sell more music? Are Kindle Fires helping you sell more music?

There’s no doubt that with the trend toward connected devices, mobile devices, our customers are realizing that it is super convenient to buy once and play it anywhere, and make it available on any of their devices. That’s working, and driving more sales.

Now it seems like there’s a move away from music sales and toward access — either from subscription services like Spotify, or free Internet radio like Pandora. You guys don’t offer anything like either one of those, but there are reports you are considering them. Should we expect an Amazon version?

We don’t speculate on what we might do in the future. But we’re also listening to our customers about other ways they’d like to enjoy their music. We’ll always look for the next innovation.

But you’re not philosophically opposed to subscription or ad-supported music?

Not at all. As a company, if we constrained ourselves to certain definitions, then we wouldn’t have gone nearly as far for our customers.

What about the idea of bundling music into Amazon Prime, like you do with video? Right now, there’s no connection between Amazon Prime and music.

We’re always thinking about distinctive experiences — how can we provide something for our customers that’s going to solve important problems for them? We’re always thinking about those things.

When it comes to video and Prime, it seems like your approach to your subscription service has changed. From the outside, it looked like, initially, you simply wanted to build up a catalog, and you weren’t very picky. More recently, it looks like you’re focusing on specific titles and catalogs.

The part I would disagree with is that we’ve never been thoughtful, or cared about the content. We have reams of data, based on years of being in both the transaction video business and the DVD/Blu-ray business, to know what our customers want to watch. And we’ve used that information to help bring them the right videos.

I think what has changed is — yeah, obviously, we have been increasing our investment over the last two years that we’ve been in this business. And I think it’s fair to say that increasingly you’ll see more and more content on Amazon that’s exclusive.

Why does exclusivity matter?

I think it’s very important for our customers. In some cases, it’s the only way to get some of the best shows. If we want those shows, in many cases the way that business shakes out is you can either have it exclusively, or not have it. More importantly, we are looking at what our customers like, and we want to have a set of movies and TV shows that are only on Amazon.

Why does that matter?

For the same reason that you can only see “30 Rock” on NBC, or “House of Cards” on Netflix, or “Girls” on HBO. It gives users a reason to tune in and try our service.

Are people watching many videos via Prime? Again, from the outside, it seems like there’s not a lot of use. There was a Sandvine study that showed Amazon very far behind Netflix last fall, and people I talk to who sell you programming don’t think you have a a lot of viewers.

We don’t disclose the details. But I would say we’ve seen strong triple-digit growth in terms of rate of use. We’re very pleased.

In the investor letter he published last week, Reed Hastings set up Netflix as a direct competitor with HBO. Do you also think Amazon is competing with them?

HBO’s a wonderful company, and has been a great partner to us. Our customers love HBO programming. I can’t speak to Reed’s strategy. But we’re building … I don’t think there is a another service like ours. It’s not like HBO. There’s at least three, four different ways to get movies and TV shows that you want on Amazon.

Hastings said he’s competing with HBO for customers’ time and money, but also now for content. Are you seeing that conflict coming with Amazon?

My ambition is to make sure that we create something that is its own service, that is not like HBO, Netflix or any other service, with its own unique value proposition. A lot of companies have a competitor focus. We have a customer focus.

Like Netflix, you are producing your own original programming. Earlier this month, you put up 14 TV pilots and asked people to vote on them. Why are you getting into originals, and why are you doing it that way?

The primary reason is because we’re committed to the idea of reinvention, and that we think that there’s great value for our customers if we get this right. And the reinvention is, “How do we get a lot more feedback from our customers early in the process? How do we remove gatekeepers from the process, so that great ideas can come from anywhere in the world, and get made into movies and TV shows? And how do we create a collaborative environment, where different creators can work in an open environment, to produce more exciting ideas and exciting stories that customers want to hear?”

So you think there’s video out there that could be made, and should be made, but isn’t, because of the way the existing production process works?

A simple example of that is what we’ve done in books, where we’ve created an open platform for any author to submit their books, through Kindle Direct Publishing. That removes gatekeepers from the process, and opens up all kinds of possibilities for people to become authors. So, why can’t there be great possibilities for people who have great stories to tell, whether it’s a script or screenplay?

It’s a journey for us. We’re flexible on the tactics of how we get there, but firm on the strategy.

If you look at the pilots you put out this month, it seems you’ve used a fairly traditional approach, and are working with lots of established talent. Only one of the 14 pilots — “Those Who Can’t” — came in over the transom. And even in that case, those guys were fairly established. Will that change?

Just the fact that that show came in from an online submission — I would consider that to be remarkable. That possiblity doesn’t exist in the traditional system today. And the idea that we’ve put all 14 pilots out for free, for anyone to watch, with the explicit ask for customers to give us feedback — I think both of those things are remarkable.

Are you surprised by any of the feedback you’re getting on the shows so far?

The point isn’t what I think about it. I didn’t spend a lot of time forming my opinions about it. I have shows that I prefer, but my views don’t represent the views of all of my customers. It really isn’t what I think about the shows, it’s what my customers think.

Do you think the comments you’re getting on the shows will be useful?

I think we’re getting really insightful information on all of the shows. How accurate it is is something we’ll discover over time. Because there has to be a feedback loop, and you have to see what happens in the real world.

This is a multiyear process. If you’re focused on reinvention, it requires you to experiment and collect data. And then try new experiments.

The annual White House Correspondents Dinner saw not one, but two mock videos, including a spoof of the popular Netflix online series, “House of Cards,” starring Kevin Spacey.

Or, in this case, “House of Nerds,” with cameos by Sen. John McCain, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Lincoln” director Steven Spielberg appeared in the other, with a new presidential biopic.

Enjoy:

In case you missed anything, here’s a quick weekend roundup of the news that powered AllThingsD.com this week:

1. Daily-deals site LivingSocial was hacked, compromising the names, emails, birthdates and encrypted passwords of 50 million users.
2. In an essay, Reed Hastings laid out his predictions for the future of streaming video, which includes not just his company, Netflix, but also HBO, ESPN and anyone else transitioning from a channel to an app.
3. Walt Mossberg reviewed the Galaxy S 4, Samsung’s new flagship smartphone, and concluded that “while I admire some of its features, overall, it isn’t a game-changer.”
4. What are Google’s plans for its high-speed Internet project, Google Fiber? Theories abound, but good luck divining an answer from CEO Larry Page’s words.
5. According to multiple sources, Twitter is testing local discovery features that will help you better understand what’s happening not just around the world, but also down the block.
6. Android’s seemingly inexorable ascension over the iPhone may not be inexorable, after all. A new report says customer loyalty will let Apple overtake Google in smartphone market share by 2015.
7. On the 10-year anniversary of its sale to Google, Applied Semantics co-founder Eytan Elbaz explained what he and his partners learned from starting up and getting acquired.
8. For the first time, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer publicly commented on the controversy created after Yahoo banned its employees from working from home.
9. Speaking of Mayer, she’s officially joined the board of wireless gadget maker Jawbone, and it’s likely to be a good fit.
10. Apple needs some new hit products to drive growth, and CEO Tim Cook says they’re on the way… just not until this fall.

To stay on top of the latest, follow AllThingsD.com on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to our daily email newsletter.

So why is this man smiling?

Because he owns a big chunk of Netflix stock. And that stock has gotten much, much more valuable in the last 12 months.

A year ago, when Netflix was trading at $106, Hastings owned a 4.4 percent stake in the streaming video company, which was worth $265 million. Today, Hastings’s stake is up to 4.5 percent (more than half his ownership comes via options); at $215 a share, it is worth $559 million.

That is: The value of Reed Hastings’s Netflix holdings increased by almost $300 million in the last 12 months.

So he’s probably not smarting from a one-year pay cut.

Just in case he was, Netflix has boosted his 2013 pay. His salary will increase from $500,000 to $2 million, and he’ll get an option allowance of $2 million, up from $1.5 million.

If you want to see another happy Netflix shareholder, by the way, talk to Carl Icahn. Icahn accumulated a 9.9 percent stake in Netflix last fall, paying $58 a share. Today those shares are worth nearly $1.2 billion, which means Icahn is up close to $900 million in less than a year.

A lot to say: The Netflix CEO has written an 11-page essay that lays out his vision for the future of streaming video.

If you’re looking for news, you won’t find much here — nearly everything in the document, published on Netflix’s investor website, is a repeat of things Hastings has said or written in recent years.

But if you’re at all interested in the way Hastings thinks things are going to play out in the battle for video eyeballs, and why he thinks Netflix will win many millions of them, it’s well worth a read.

I’ve embedded the document below so you can scan it at your leisure. If you’re in a hurry, some bullet points:

• The one new nugget here is a Hastings prediction, held by many other people, that we’re moving to a world where “apps replace channels.” Hastings mentions apps nearly 3 dozen times in his essay, and makes it clear that he sees Netflix first and foremost as an app provider.
• Hastings figures that lots of other video services will figure the same thing out. And he goes out of his way to mention others that are already there or close to it, citing ESPN, HBO and the BBC.
• But those who don’t get it are screwed, he says: “Existing networks, such as ESPN and HBO, that offer amazing apps will get more viewing than in the past, and be more valuable. Existing networks that fail to develop first-class apps will lose viewing and revenue.”
• In the past, Netflix has tacked back and forth on whether it is competing head to head with HBO. Now Hastings is back in “we’re coming for you” mode: “The network that we think likely to be our biggest long-term competitor-for-content is HBO … They have global reach and strengthening technology capacity.”
• But while Netflix now has as many U.S. subscribers as HBO — and while Hastings thinks he can eventually double or triple his current 30 million — he figures it will take him a while to truly compete with HBO. “While we are passing HBO in domestic members in 2013, it will be several years before we are peers with them in terms of Original programming, Emmy awards, and international members. It wouldn’t be surprising to us if HBO does their best work and achieves their highest growth
  over the next decade, spurred on by the Netflix competition and the Internet TV opportunity.”
• But Hastings also reiterates his argument that there’s room for lots of streaming video services, just like there are lots of cable channels today. Translation: Don’t worry, Jeff Bewkes: Just because we’re coming for you doesn’t mean we’ll crush you. Also, please keep selling us Time Warner’s content! Thanks!
• Hastings also continues to offer olive branches to the entrenched cable guys, especially those that also sell broadband: “At times we have worried about the strategic motivations of ISPs that are also MVPDs, but the absence of cord-cutting has mitigated this concern. … Internet video services like Netflix, MLB.tv, iTunes and YouTube are not currently a material strategic problem for companies that are both an ISP and an MVPD.” Translation: Hey Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon! It would be pretty cool if we figured out a way for you guys to bundle us along with your other video services! Let’s (continue to) talk!

Lots more below. Well worth your time.

Netflix Ir Letter

Things are different now.

Reed Hastings made a point of that yesterday when he used his quarterly investors’ letter to announce that Netflix was letting a “broad” programing deal with Viacom expire.

Netflix might still end up with some Viacom content, Hastings explained, but he only wants to buy particular shows from the cable giant.

My hunch is that Hastings cares a lot about Nickelodeon mainstays like “Dora the Explorer” — because kids love Netflix, and parents love to shove their kids in front a Netflix screen.* And not at all about MTV reruns like “Laguna Beach” — because who loves a nine-year-old reality TV series?

But Hastings doesn’t care enough about Dora to buy shows about Kristin Cavallari, too. And if he can’t get them separately, he may not buy them at all.

That is: Just like lots of TV viewers, Netflix wants to buy its programming a la carte.

Netflix’s pronouncement didn’t seem to be a surprise to Viacom. I asked the cable network for a response to Hastings’s letter a few minutes after he published it, and they had a statement in my inbox nine minutes later. By corporate PR standards, that’s basically simultaneous.

And it shouldn’t have been a surprise for the content industry in general.

Hollywood has enjoyed a very nice run for the last few years, where it could essentially take any old TV show or movie that it couldn’t sell anywhere else, and unload it on Hastings.

The deals were high-margin windfalls for the networks and studios. A network guy once chortled when he told me about a deal he had struck that would force Hastings to “gag” on his reruns, whether he wanted to buy them or not. But they couldn’t last.

And it’s been easy to see why in retrospect: Success and competition.

When Amazon joined Netflix in the digital streaming business, things got even better for studios, because they could sell the same shows to everyone. But now that the Amazon and Netflix catalogs look so similar, both services have started trying to distinguish themselves, just like HBO and Showtime.

They’re creating their own exclusive programming (Hulu is trying to do the same), which reduces their dependence on other people’s stuff. And when it comes to other people’s stuff, they’re much more particular, because they have a data set that gives them a pretty good idea of what their customers want to watch.

This doesn’t have to be bad news for the TV and movie guys. Hastings suggested on yesterday’s earnings call that any money he doesn’t spend on Viacom shows he doesn’t want could go right into Viacom shows he does want.

And for certain titles that the streamers really want, they may pay extraordinary prices. I’ve heard Amazon beat out Netflix for exclusive rights to “Downton Abbey” this year by paying PBS an eye-popping sum.

If Netflix keeps growing (quite possible — they are at 30 million U.S. subscribers right now, and Hastings says he’s aiming for 60 million to 90 million) and Amazon keeps chasing them (also very possible, since Jeff Bezos isn’t hung up on profits), then Big Media may continue to see their aggregate digital rerun dollars increase, because their buyers’ budgets are increasing, too.

But individual content owners who used to be able to unload anything, at any price, may find their pool of buyers is shrinking. It was good while it lasted.

* Guilty as charged!

Revenue came in at the billion-dollar mark that analysts were looking for, and the company’s U.S. streaming subscriber total hit 29.2 million — also around consensus. The big win was a net income number (after adjusting for one-time hits) of 31 cents per share, well above the 18 cents or 19 cents per share the Street expected.

What about everything else? As usual, Reed Hastings’s shareholder letter is filled with interesting nuggets. Here are some of them:

• As predicted, Hastings doesn’t offer any real numbers for “House of Cards,” the company’s much-hyped foray into original productions. But he does take credit for building big buzz with “House of Cards” via its decision to release all 13 episodes at once. If Netflix had followed a standard release schedule, you’d be watching the last episode of the series this week, and presumably more people you know would be talking about the show right now. But Hastings says the big bang worked just fine: It ended up “reinforcing our brand attribute of giving consumers complete control over how and when they enjoy their entertainment.”
• Hastings also says that almost no one signed up — for free, for a month-long trial — to watch the show and then left Netflix afterward. “There was very little free-trial gaming — less than 8,000 people did this, out of millions of free trials in the quarter.”
• Those less-than-stellar reviews for “Hemlock Grove,” the new horror show Netflix put out this month? No biggie: “Hemlock Grove” was viewed by more members globally in its first weekend than was “House of Cards” and has been a particular hit among young adults.
• Though Netflix is paying up for originals and certain stuff it values a lot, like its recent Disney deal, it is going to stop buying other stuff from the networks, especially when other people can get the same stuff. For instance: Hastings says the company will let a “broad” deal for Viacom content lapse in May, but that the two companies may negotiate licenses for specific shows. (Translation to parents: May want to have your kids binge on Dora and Diego right now).
• Here’s what Viacom has to say about that, by the way: “We continue to be in discussion with several parties, including Netflix, on distribution of our content.”
• Speaking of kids: You may at long last stop seeing Dora show up next to Kevin Spacey in your Netflix history: The company says it will finally start rolling out a “profiles” feature “in the coming months” that will let different family members track their own viewing habits and make specific recommendations.
• And along those lines, Netflix will offer a family pricing plan for people who want to run multiple Netflix streams at the same time: “A few members with large families run into our 2-simultaneous-stream limit. To best serve these members, we’re shortly adding a 4-stream plan, at $11.99 in the U.S., and we expect fewer than 1% of members to take it.” (Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Netflix wasn’t offering this plan.)

The much-hyped miniseries had a big budget, big names in front of the camera and behind it, and a Big Idea — binge viewing! — that generated even more buzz for the launch.

Today, the company releases its Q1 numbers, so lots of investors are going to be wondering what all that meant. They will have questions for Reed Hastings and company along the lines of:

• How many people watched the series?
• How many people signed up with Netflix to watch the series?
• How many people who signed up with Netflix kept subscribing after they watched it?
• What has happened to “House of Cards” numbers since the initial burst of buzz?

They are likely to be very disappointed: Netflix has already announced, over and over, that it won’t release anything like ratings numbers for the show. That should also apply to any kind of discussion about the show’s impact on subscriber numbers.

And even if Netflix did want to talk up numbers for the series, doing so would highlight the bind the company has when it comes to discussing any particular show or content deal. Netflix wants to brag to consumers and investors about the content wins it gets, but it doesn’t want to suggest that it’s overly dependent on any one show, studio deal or even a genre — because if it does, it becomes vulnerable if that stuff goes away (See Sony, Disney circa 2011.)

For what it’s worth, my uneducated gut guess is that even though you don’t hear people buzzing much about “House of Cards” anymore — my Twitter stream is full of chatter about “Game of Thrones” and “Mad Men,” and it spikes every Sunday, when a new episode comes out — Netflix should still be very happy with the splash it made with the show.

It most likely can’t and won’t spend anything like that on its other original programs — note the comparatively silent launch for “Hemlock Grove” this month — but getting a lot of people to spend a lot of attention on anything is a very hard task in 2013, and Netflix pulled that off. That may be worth $100 million in programming costs alone.

Now, on to today’s numbers: Wall Street is expecting Netflix to report just over a billion in revenue today, and earnings of 18 cents a share or 19 cents a share, depending on who you ask. But investors will likely focus more intently on subscriber numbers and guidance for future quarters.

Most analysts are expecting to see Netflix post more than 29 million streaming-only U.S. subscribers. And here’s a useful chart from Bernstein’s Carlos Kirjner to evaluate the Q2 guidance you’ll see today:

While the tale of a print magazine embedded in a troubled media company makes for much better reading, everyone loves a listicle. So, Time has once again put out its annual countdown of the 100 “most influential people in the world, from artists and leaders to pioneers, titans and icons.”

And, as usual, global techies represent big-time on the list, including:

* Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk — about whom Virgin Group’s Richard Branson wrote, “It’s a paradox that Elon is working to improve our planet at the same time he’s building spacecraft to help us leave it.”

* Instagram co-founder and CEO Kevin Systrom, who gets inexplicably feted by entertainment bon vivant Ryan Seacrest (we are down with this anyway).

* Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos (yay for Ted, who is Mr. Nice Guy, especially for Hollywood).

* Ren Zhengfei, CEO of China’s telecom giant Huawei.

* Oh-Hyun Kwon, Samsung CEO, about whom former Apple CEO John Sculley wrote, “As Samsung builds a campus in Silicon Valley, all eyes will be on Kwon to see if the CEO with a PhD from Stanford can be as successful with software as he has been with hardware.”

* Music manager and Internet talent discoverer Scooter Braun.

* Minecraft developers, Markus Persson and Jens Bergensten, whom my sons revere (and therefore are deserving of kudos!).

* OkCupid founder Sam Yagan, who is now CEO of Match.com.

* Microsoft and Apple irritant David Einhorn, who is the only hedge fund investor dude I like.

* Deservedly ubiquitous Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, whose “Lean In” is a bestseller.

* Apple design guru Jony Ive, about whom Bono noted, “Jony Ive is himself classic Apple. Brushed steel, polished glass hardware, complicated software honed to simplicity.”

* Coursera co-founders Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller, who are among many in tech trying to change education.

* Chinese tech investor Kai-Fu Lee.

* Google Ideas guy Jared Cohen.

* Afghanistan entrepreneur Roya Mahboob, who gets praise from Sandberg.

* Kickstarter CEO Perry Chen, about whom “Veronica Mars” star (and user of the fundraising tool) Kristen Bell said, “There’s something so smart and magical about that idea — connecting consumers with creators and letting them vote with their own money.”

* And listicle Olympian and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, garnering a major feting from Google’s Eric Schmidt, who wrote: “Google was lucky to have her help us grow into what we became, and Yahoo is lucky to have her taking them someplace new.”

(Cover photo by Mark Seliger for Time)

The streaming-video service, which recently dodged a bullet from the Securities and Exchange Commission over a Facebook posting, told investors Wednesday in a regulatory filing it may use the social-networking site or Twitter to disclose material information.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Lynton had run the movie studio for some time; last year, Sony bumped him up by adding music to his responsibilities. Sony won’t disclose the length of Lynton’s contract, but a statement from Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai indicates that it’s a multiyear term.

Hirai’s press release quote also telegraphs that Sony isn’t in any hurry to dump the businesses Lynton is running: “I look forward to working closely with Michael in ensuring that music and pictures remain integral parts of our global strategy.”

Lynton’s appearance at our D: Dive Into Media conference in February was one of my personal favorites; we had a wide-ranging conversation about everything from home video to Netflix to Facebook. You can see the whole thing here, or watch a highlight reel below: