Is "House Of Cards" Netflix’s Bridge To Nowhere?

The streaming service has people buzzing about the new show, but the road to network hell is paved with too-cool-for-school intentions.

I know, right? Now tell your friends!
Is "House Of Cards" Netflix'...
Richard Rushfield

Once upon a time there was a famous rule in screenwriting called “pet the dog,” which held that if you wanted to make viewers like a character, you would show him petting an animal early on in the film.

The new Netflix series House of Cards, directed by David Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey, opens with a scene featuring Spacey strangling a dog to death in the street. So perhaps it’s time to change the name of the rule to “strangle the dog,” a signal to viewers that a series will be highbrow, serious, and edgy.

Netflix has won the buzz war of January 2013. House of Cards — which cost $100 million for two 13-episode seasons — has the world talking and has put the service on the map as a bona fide producer of “quality content.” But will Netflix, like others who have ridden the media buzz wave before it, find it is a bridge to nowhere, that gaining the adulation of the media elite very rarely translates into actual viewers?

For HBO, AMC, and Showtime, breaking through the cultural clutter meant generating buzz, which meant catering to the tastes of a very specific group of consumers, who just happen to control the organs of contemporary media. And now, the touchstones for the elite dramatic genre are formulaic and familiar: Start with a charming but morally corrupted protagonist (usually a male) and throw him into a world populated by weak and compromised souls. Mix in explicit sex, characters paralyzed by self-absorbed gloom, and episodes as jam-packed with social machinations as any season of Dynasty. Then intersperse those with non-plot-essential asides to give the show a “novelistic” feel, such as aspirational period or fancy dress, as well as cinematography so far at the dark end of the color spectrum that viewers will take to shining a flashlight at the screen.

To wit: The Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, Homeland, Mad Men, Treme and others. With the attention of this viewership comes a bottomless pit of media attention, as journalists and critics stand ever willing to conflate their own tastes with the general zeitgeist. The arrival of each new season of Mad Men is given about 80% more coverage than the typical presidential inauguration. And behind the magazine covers and the Banana Republic collections come the Emmys, the prizes, and the endless “best of” lists.

Heady stuff for a network just trying to break through and distinguish itself from the TLCs and the Animal Planets. And for House of Cards, there is not only a dark drama, but with its streaming, all-at-once delivery, also a technological twist to report. The devoted media coverage has fallen quickly in line, proclaiming the dawn of a new era in the arts.

Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright star as a ruthlessly ambitious political couple in Netflix’s House of Cards. Image by Handout / Reuters

The only problem with the Mad Men model, however, is that it tends to be an enormous hit with everyone except the viewers. Reading the New York–centered media, you would think America’s streets were deserted every time a new episode of the one of these dramas aired. But at its height, Mad Men has attracted all of 3.5 million viewers. The show is repeated throughout the week and picks up more viewers, but that is the base audience for a Mad Men episode. To put that in perspective, the Season 2 debut of Smash is widely considered a catastrophe after drawing 4.5 million viewers. To put that in further perspective, NCIS regularly draws audiences above 20 million viewers.

Crunching the numbers on how this plays out for Netflix, The Atlantic calculated that Netflix will need 520,834 new subscribers to sign up for a $7.99 a year for two years to break even on the show. (Though they might not stick around, given the ongoing problems with Netflix’s ever-shrinking catalog.)

The issue is, of course, that while buzz is great, in the end it’s no substitute for actual viewers or subscribers, even if those viewers are more “desirable” upscale viewers. In the olden days of media, even at the dawn of HBO, the idea that the viewers would eventually fall in line behind the critics and media elites often panned out (although not always). But today, audiences have too many other choices to have to just go along with other people’s tastes. For instance, while the media was cooing over last season’s AMC lineup, the A&E cowboy detective show Longmire waltzed in to exactly zero fanfare and got almost double the ratings of a typical Mad Men episode.

And while the AMC stars and their shows pile on the awards show statuettes, no one loves NCIS but the viewers, over 21 million of whom are now tuning in each week. The show’s star Mark Harmon just renewed his contract for a reported $700,000 per episode. Meanwhile, CBS blithely shrugs in the face of its own uncoolness.

The fact that coolness may not be the path to enormous television success would not come as news to networks that have walked this path before Netflix. While HBO keeps up its cred with critical darlings like Girls and Treme, its bread and butter now lies with broad-interest genre fare like True Blood and Game of Thrones, shows that are as heavy on the sex and sword fighting as they are on the tortured characters battling their inner demons. AMC pretty much sought to flee the niche business as soon as it got into it, and has done so with the zombie series Walking Dead.

Netflix itself, it should be noted, is prepping a broader plan than its first two releases — House of Cards and the Sopranos-esque gangster drama Lilyhammer — suggest. Its upcoming Arrested Development project plays to a different niche of comedy nerds than the dramas; still a niche, but a different one. However, in the rush to declare House of Cards the road to the future, the world is forgetting how narrow that path is.

All of this is not to say that networks should not make shows that they consider quality fare, or that journalists shouldn’t write about them. But when doing so, they should bear in mind that just because the group it appeals to is an elite niche, that doesn’t make it any less of a niche.

Check out more articles on BuzzFeed.com!

Facebook Conversations

          

    9 Responses So Far

    • andys23 6 days ago

      The typical plea for pablum that we hear from so many “critics”. There’s lots of fluff out there already, why don’t you look elsewhere. Leave this one alone. So awesome that someone decided to peel back the skin on the corpse of the American political system and let us see the decay from the inside out.

    • PlanetHozz thinks Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is COOL  about 2 months ago
    • PlanetHozz 2 months ago

      Andy Greenwald has a great line that you would like. It was about FX’s “The Americans.” “The period setting — a crutch that, if we’re being honest, has become the Auto-Tune to cable TV’s pop radio — is wonderfully understated here…”

    • mavjade 3 months ago

      I started House of Cards last night and it was fantastic, I can’t wait to continue it tonight!
      I do wonder how this format will change TV show awards(Emmys, SAG). I could totally see Kevin Spacy getting nominated for this role, but would he be eligible?

    • vals2 3 months ago

      House of Cards ruled my life for like 3 days- it’s awesome. #moveon, Buzzfeed

    • evilito 3 months ago

      I don’t think Netflix cares all that much about whether or not HoC brings it troves of new subscribers. I mean, obviously it would be a desirable development for them, but I think they care more about the buzz created by the show - specifically that, hey, Netflix is producing premium cable-quality drama, and using an entirely new delivery platform to bring it to the masses. That’s the important part - positioning themselves at the forefront of a new way to consume television. I don’t think the collapse of the current television model is imminent, but it’s not that far off. Decoupling, pirating, Netflix, iTunes, HBOGO, etc. There’s a new model emerging, no one knows quite what it will be, but the outlines are starting to form. Netflix is smart to place itself right smack in the middle of it.

    • salon.com readers just made Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... hotter  about 3 months ago
    • mariom5   Is "House Of Cards" Netflix...  about 3 months ago
    • BANNOCK   Is "House Of Cards" Netflix...  about 3 months ago
    • sterlingrome 3 months ago

      Interesting that you pick on AMC throughout this article and don’t mention Emmy-winner Homeland’s whopping 2.7 million viewers — further, your suggestion that some of the best shows ever written for TV amount to simple “man does something” and “something else happens” formulas reads like petty jealousy.

      • evilito 3 months ago

        Fair enough, but I think he has a bit of a point regarding how many of premium-channel dramas tend to develop. I like Breaking Bad as much as the next guy, but it’s also worth pointing out that there are tons of dramas about morally-compromised protagonists with secrets they must keep at all costs. It may not feel formulaic yet, but it probably will become tiresome with time.

    • darrenm7 3 months ago

      I wonder how many people will sign up for Netflix, watch HoC and then cancel…

    • Gitamba Saila-Ngita   Is "House Of Cards" Netflix...  about 3 months ago
    • Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is starting to get hot on Facebook Share It  about 3 months ago
    • juliorecalde   Is "House Of Cards" Netflix...  about 3 months ago
    • Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is starting to get hot on Twitter Tweet It  about 3 months ago
    • flavorwire.com readers just made Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... hotter  about 3 months ago
    • mytelevisionsays 3 months ago

      so many contradictions and non-compatible comparisons in this piece I do not know where the hell to begin. Netflix (like HBO & Sho - but not AMC) do not have to play to nielsen ratings/advertising money the same way network does. The idea that Game of Thrones or True Blood have ‘broad appeal’ is laughable - HBO took a huge gamble and on material that on paper are based in extremely niche genres (remember TB came before the Twihards) those two paid off in major dividends. I have my own reservations with the business model Netflix is using in the distribution of HoC but this thesis is moot when you factor in that Netflix will be able to gage how many people watch their show over time - not just in the fraction of time alotted to be counted as Nielsen boxes do now (including the rarely included DVR count). Also, if the price tag is $100m for TWO seasons of 13, that is a cheap ass show to produce - 2x13=26, $100m/26= $3.8m/ep. Pretty sure it’s about $100m for the whole first season, which still wouldn’t bat many eyelashes in a room of execs as the pilot for Boardwalk Empire alone came to $40m+ (weigh in the Scorcese/BE and Fincher/HoC costs as you see fit). Will this be the model of the future? Can’t say, but i can say that this piece was bullshit.

    • nathanielj3   Is "House Of Cards" Netflix...  about 3 months ago
    • sterlingarcher thinks Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is Fail  about 3 months ago
    • sterlingarcher 3 months ago

      Fail. I like House if Cards. Of course I also like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead and pretty much any show with interesting characters and storylines. But maybe I’m not as sophisticated as the author here. Or maybe I don’t take my entertainment all that seriously. It’s entertainment. Get this stick out of your ass.

    • aarona4 thinks Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is Win  about 3 months ago
    • krystels thinks Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is Win  about 3 months ago
    • StacySweaters thinks Is "House Of Cards" Netflix... is Fail  about 3 months ago
    Hot Buzz

    What It’s Like To Call The Cable Company

    lol

    33 Ways Facebook Ruins Your Life

    lol
    Now Buzzing