They've also been pumping out animated kids shows quite heavily. Those are almost certainly less expensive per hour than a lot of their blockbuster hits, and would easily allow for a 66% increase in content-hours with only a 20% budget increase. And, anecdotally, are the types of shows that keep subscriptions active long after parents stop actively watching things. Kids get attached to characters easily, can watch the same season repeat dozens and dozens of times, and benefit from consistency (i.e. not app hopping between Amazon Video, Netflix, Hulu, etc). And the value of Netflix during times like extended traveling and running errands is not to be underestimated.
My subscription would have gone long ago if my daughter weren't so attached to some of their Originals. They're really good at making spinoffs of popular movies (like the Puss in Boots spinoff from Shrek) and popular toys (like Ever After High, based on the Monster High dolls).
If they're smart, none. You can't just go out and buy quality. Stranger Things for example was a pretty low budget show and most people really quite liked it. Marco Polo on the other hand cost a fuck ton and I've yet to meet anyone who really liked it.
My wife's pitch to try to get me to watch that was "it's pretty good when Marco Polo's not in the scene". Didn't work.
- existing shows which reduce set/CG/marketing costs;
- lower production costs as shortage of sets and filming equipment is lessened by new supply entering market;
- less need to higher huge stars to sell the idea that the programming is high quality, and with more huge stars willing to do TV, paying not quite as many million dollars to get them;
- expanding into lower cost TV (similar to the Tesla strategy to move downmarket.) Sadly, this means people who enjoy a lot of the existing shows won't have twice as many shows targeted towards them, but it shouldn't affect their perception of Netflix.