Netflix original series no longer get time to breathe
theverge.com
theverge.com
This is a huge red flag signal to me. A VP of content should be focused on the quality of shows and the editorial philosophy of a platform. That's not to say that Netflix shouldn't care about money, but that pressure should not be felt so strongly in that specific department IMO.
While some cancellations make sense (Sense8, as much as I love it, the budget was a real reason), others are completely nonsensical (The OA, Tuca and Bertie, Santa Clarita Diet to name a few). It really is a shame that Netflix simply doesn't seem to have a philosophy anymore. They make good content still, but only because they do enough things that not everything can be a miss.
I think we all know we are exiting the golden era of streaming, but I think when we look back, Netflix straying from its original principles may be seen as a notable part of that downfall. The sudden growth of separated streaming services was probably unavoidable, but I can't help but wonder that if Netflix stuck to its philosophy, the quality of the service may have kept other potential competitors around longer.
Making more that may stick or keep a larger audience makes sense. But this winter has been meh, I really wanted October Faction to be good, but they cast some guy that is basically the Mike's dad from Stranger Things. The guy isn't a bad ass alien hunter, more like a zero energy guy that just wants to nap in his recliner.
There are many definitions of quality. For Netflix's purpose, quality is probably defined in terms of viewership and stickiness. They have to build a content library from scratch. Ensuring it appeals to the most amount of people per dollar is the most efficient way to do it.
We're now at the point where a library exists, and they are now going for easy wins quickly instead of continuing to invest in quality content that would actually grow that library. I suspect in an effort to keep their profit growth rate up for Wall Street.
2. We don't actually know how the popularity looks because we don't have the numbers. Even with the numbers, show popularity is a function of marketing and time allowed to grow, which is exactly what the article highlights.
The lack of an external signal doesn't mean that everything is fine inside.
The best companies, with true vision, balance their philosophy with the interests of investors and are okay if not everyone is behind their short term moves. The statement IMO either has its original meaning in my first post, or it means Netflix overvalues its short term stock outlook, and that is affecting content. No matter how you slice it, content at Netflix will continue to suffer so long as that holds true / Netflix continues to make similar statements.
Obviously you can't spend a lot on shows that are losing money and stay solvent. But beyond that it's complicated
If you optimize only return-per-unit or viewers-per-unit (unit being movie, series, whatever) you could easily end up being a place that only makes a small number of "big" mass market appeal shows and movies.
That's a business model, but it's not the only one that makes sense. If you want to be a "big tent" sort of content place (very much where netflix started) you need to make some narrower appeal stuff. You have to make sure it still makes you money, but with a subscription service (rather than rental) this isn't actually easy to evaluate.
You also have to thing about time line. If you optimize for ROI on a short time (e.g. initial release) vs long burn, you'll make different decisions.
So part of this isn't just "you have to be a viable business", it's also "what sort of viable business".
You are alone in that, since it seems that everyone on the content creation site is stubbornly insistent on getting a paycheck. So if for actors, writers, camera men, set builders etc both great art and money go together, why should be different for the corporate overlords.
Some of the greatest TV shows and movies were made on very tight budgets. If your show is big budget, but not prestige drama groomed for the emmys then it has to have good audience asap.
For me this is a good thing - it will push showrunners to be creative. After all the whole blackadder second season is literally 3 rooms and 4 suits budget wise - and it blows off season 1 out of the water which was with a bigger budget.
My first issue with Netflix is that that damn auto run of previews you get when trying to sort through the available content. My second issue is compared to D+ they are grossly over charging.
Taking a page out of Sony's playbook, I see.
Netflix is shooting for lowest common denominator television, TV that keeps engagement and attention. They shoot for just enough to get nominated for some awards, for the press. They are not Anapoura or A24esque.
The sole purpose of Netflix is to make money. That’s all it’s there for. So that the owners (which includes thousands of normal working class employees) can buy food for their families.
Everyone should be focused on that goal, surely?
Ethics? Nope, money.
Good art? Nope, money.
Public benefit? Nope, money.
It is a reductive view that assumes that the legal framework is static, unchanging, and aligned towards morally good benefit.
It's been around for thousands of years. Can find examples throughout history as far back as Silk Road and probably further.
What is a relatively new idea is doing things for non-profitable reasons.
While there is a long history of corprate charters being to make money for the shareholders, i think there is a long history of other goals as well.
Equity valuations assume distant future returns. Yes, there's strategic decisions to be made at both the department and overall level about how much one tries to maximize current cash output vs. invests in the brand and infrastructure.
Not to mention: it works better when you have different parties advocating for different parts of this picture and arguing. Let finance try and squeeze out every nickel that can be squeezed, today. Let content seek after a vision of success. And let creatives and finance argue and advocate and figure out a compromise that works and fits in as much of what each wants as possible.
A similar, but infinitely harder problem exists for content production. You simply can't know with any certainty what a given strategy is going to do to long-term demand. If the VP of Content is too focused on the bottom line it will lead to a strategy of pruning production based on short-term viewership. This will decrease the viability of show-runners to do anything risky, ahead-of-its-time or with a longer-term payoff. Potentially even worse is killing cult classics (eg. The OA) which could lead to negative word of mouth both on the customer and on content maker side creating a long-term impact the bean counters can't see until it's too late.
So while Netflix overall has fiduciary responsibility, it is not the best strategy for every single person to be focused directly on revenue and ROI. I'd expect Content to have a slightly more abstract objective that allows room for creative judgement. I think Hollywood and HBO understand this dichotomy and how to operate within it, but judging by the overall bland feel of their catalog, Netflix doesn't.
Same goes for Research & Development. Quarterly profits are not the correct KPI for every department. Where will those quarterly profits be ten years from now?
No, that's the capitalist investors view. The problem is that Netflix now sees it as theirs. I'd bet quite a good sum of money that was not the goal when it started. I'd be surprised if that was the goal in 2010-2015 even.
> So that the owners (which includes thousands of normal working class employees) can buy food for their families.
If that were true, they would not be trying so hard to turn these excess profits. With how Netflix pays I don't think you can really call their employees "normal working class" either. Netflix is a classic case of greed and profit corrupting art. In some ways inevitable, but it's sad to see there's not even an internal tension between finance and content. That should be a battle that is waged daily in order to balance multiple purposes: both making money to support its employees and investors, and the art of shows and movies, among others.
Doing the something well enough that someone else wants to pay you for it (or keep paying you for it) is a pretty important part of that.
- To reduce the number of product/political commercials
- To spread the best media from every country to everyone
There are legitimate reasons besides money.
They don't have every movie I want to see, but they're also not my only source for entertainment. As one source of multiple, I think they're great. I can't think of any service that would be good for a single source of entertainment.
I honestly just don't understand the hate.
Black Spot, Dark, Nobel, etc. British shows like Peaky Blinders, Doc Martin, Bodyguard, Sherlock, The Inbetweeners, and especially Broad Church.
Before netflix I would never have given these shows a chance and indeed I cannot think of a time I have watched a foreign show before this besides Luther. Netflix has done a great job of surfacing these at least to me. No idea if I represent the normal TV viewer.
One fascinating thing that I appreciate about foreign tv is that the main actors for many of them don't look like models like in the US but just regular people, flaws and all.
It strikes me as s deliberate marketing tactic. Instead of investing in creating nice, acclaimed dramas, they put that money into relatively more garbage shows that cater to mass audiences and try to find shortcuts to repurpose that content and repackage it to “kill two birds with one stone” and cater to the indie niche with it.
But the tactic doesn’t work, and now my Netflix menus are filled with super frustrating noise of these foreign shows, often which you can’t tell are foreign until you press play. It has made the platform nearly unusable to me.
The crazy thing is that I love a lot of foreign movies and shows. Amour, You Are the Apple of my Eye, Burning are some of my favorite films. But the things Netflix is pushing on me are more like network-level crap dramas with a clear attempt to make you feel like they are fancy merely by being foreign.
Would agree their dubbing is universally horrendous. Even for something well reviewed like Dark.
For me it’s very nearly at a level of canceling the service. Their original content hasn’t been compelling for me personally in many years, and now it feels deliberately manipulative.
- Their "drop everything at once and binge" model means that I don't have to go back there regularly to check out new stuff, especially since there is always "new stuff" coming in just from the shows I'm watching elsewhere;
- Because they won't play with Apple TV's "Up Next" (and I presume they don't with other systems' equivalents), they don't even get to push ads in front of me when I search for new things unless I specifically go to their application to search;
- I hate hate hate going to their application to search because of their insistence on playing previews with sound constantly;
- Last but not least, Netflix is the second-most expensive service I subscribe to behind HBO, and that's without paying extra for the 4K that every other 4K-capable streaming service includes as part of their standard plan.
I know a lot of people cancel streaming subscriptions and then sign up when they have something specific to watch. So far I haven't done that -- but if I start, I'm very likely to start with Netflix.
I have shows I’m watching on Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, as well as ones I’ve purchased from the iTunes Store; all of which show up nicely in my Up Next list. It’s the first thing I go to when I fire up my Apple TV to watch something, and as a result unless I have been binging something recently anything on Netflix gets put on the back burner because I have to go elsewhere to look for it.
The Apple TV app already shows results for Netflix content, but without better integration I have to remember to go back to pick a show up. I actually cancelled Netflix at the end of December because discovery was such a chore, I just resubscribed last week to check out The Witcher and watch Altered Carbon when it returns, after which I’ll likely drop it again.
As an aside, I got a year of Apple TV+ free when I activated my replacement iPhone XS. I am rather surprised at the quality of content Apple has put out and the rate they are expanding their library. I may we’ll keep this one around if they keep it up.
But back on topic, Magicians isn’t a Netflix show. But they’d be smart to purchase it from SyFy if that were to become possible.
1. Produce some fitness content. Yoga, stretching, meditation, calisthenics, etc. I get the impression there are countless talented fitness trainers that would love to produce regular content while being cheap to hire. Look at Peloton, they charge $40/mo to live stream classes after people spend thousands on a bike. I imagine a lot of people would watch live or prerecorded fitness classes on Netflix, become loyal to the trainers and stay subscribed for their content.
2. Hire some YouTubers. I spend more time on YouTube than Netflix. Lots of great comedy, educational, travel, and tech content there. Most of them are also struggling for money and would jump on an exclusive Netflix partnership for a fraction of what Netflix pays for other content.
3. Daily news. Find a few entertaining personalities and journalists that can report on the daily news. Why can't I switch on Netflix today to get the latest on coronavirus?
Lastly... let me search the content. Why can't I just browse comedy movies released in the last few years, or horror movies sorted by release date? I find Netflix such a terrible and frustrating interface and I have to scroll past the same movie or series a dozen times as I go through the content. I've had Netflix for years, and I still feel like I have no idea what is actually on there because it's so annoying to browse. I think I'll likely cancel next year.
So for daily content. Show ends, you go back to the menu. Do you pick the next thing to watch? I don't know - but they've tried a number of "daily" or "weekly" shows before, and they haven't appeared to be successful. I suspect it's because they didn't improve metrics. Versus say releasing a show all at once - people binge for 3-4 hours and come back the next night to do the same thing.
I think going with amateur youtubers who produce lots of cheap, short content would be smart for like, Snap or Instagram but very bad for Netflix. Netflix's original content hit it off in terms of quality, long form narratives with dramas like House of Cards, while syndicating shows after air gave them second life (Breaking Bad, the Office, Friends) and absolutely crushing it with "must see" films (recently, the Irishman, Marriage Story, but also in the past stuff like Beasts of No Nation).
Conversely, their cheap shows from nobodies tend to die in the womb, and I don't think Netflix does that without good data to make such a decision.
Making more money than an ad-based monetization model can provide?
• Good shows to shut down,
• Terrible, Awful, No Good, Very Bad concepts ("The Goop Lab") to be approved—actually, this was the named reason for why I canceled; I actually wrote "The Goop Lab" in the Other cancellation box. https://globalnews.ca/news/6488433/goop-uk-health-warning-gw...
• Blockbusters to lapse,
• Fillers to be licensed.
It's just not worth the 15.99/mo I've been paying them anymore, which is unfortunate. Five years ago, originals had serious promise.
Works on phones/smaller screens for sure.
Otherwise, for me (~40 yo male in Sweden), Netflix isn't very interesting at all. I think its data-driven culture is awesome at creating shows that are fascinating to its California-based execs.
Also: I wish they'd tone down the politics. I'm with Bill Burr on this: Not every single fxxing thing has to be about politics. We get it. We're onboard. We don't need to be preached at in every singly fxxking show though. Remember, we're paying for a service here. We expect being entertained. Not getting preached at.
Just take the downvotes as a badge of pride. I expect this very comment to get downvoted and those same voters won't even bother to tell me why I'm wrong.
It's tempting to imagine that placing hurdles in front of users could solve the quality problem, but IMO that's a fantasy. There are no easy ways to do that and no technical fixes for it.
See, this is the problem. I'd many of the downvoted posts I see are simply contrarian, not something insubstantial.
I love a ton of stuff from Netflix: Ozark, Unbelievable, Witcher, Lost In Space, Altered Carbon, and a lot more stuff I can't think of at the moment.
If more people besides those on HN cancel their Netflix subscriptions, that will be a good thing because maybe they'll stop "binge watching" with pride and start doing other things with their time. I'm pessimistic on both fronts because I don't think the average person is going to cancel their Netflix, and even if they did I think they'll continue to vegetate while watching Amazon Prime, Disney+, Hulu, CBS All Access, etc.
A story in two headlines:
https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/bojack-horsemans-animators-h...
https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/raphael-bob-waksberg-bojack-...
Netflix doesn’t seem to get that I’m not going to invest my time in a show that likely won’t get a second season, and if it doe almost certainly never a third. I find it mildly heartbreaking when I get invested in characters just enough and then I never get to see their archs finished. I’m still so sad they canceled The OA.
Do you think that they don't get this, or that it's not true for most of their audience and thus not relevant? Ie, they don't need to cater to your specific individual preference unless it's shared relatively widely, and I'm not convinced that it is. A lot of people just watch TV to have something "good enough" on while they vegetate. Netflix has always fit that niche a lot more than it's fit the "deep connection with prestige show" niche.
While not strictly a Netflix show (international distribution only I think) it is unfortunate that Travelers got canceled which I think should have been able to find a decent sized audience.
Some super complicated thing where every detail count and that lasted several decades in real life? Ok, make it one season, and let say 5 or 6 episodes max.
What in the world could be so intersting that it needs to be several season? By the time you're done you could have done a PhD and know absolutely everything about a particular subject!
The "limited series" format is a very good match for flatrate streaming and there are lots of very good examples, mostly from the UK.
The problem is shows designed for >30 episodes being cut short. Do that too often and you'll see massive reluctance to start watching any new show that isn't a limited series. When was the last time you considered using the Google chat system du jour?
It's also not a documentary, despite saying it is, so Im not "learning." That said, something like the history of the Ottoman Empire probably takes more than 5 episodes to cover.
https://deadline.com/2019/09/2019-emmys-wins-network-shows-s...
Source: the Emmy and NAACP award sitting on my shelf.
Plus add in MakeMKV and Plex and there is a nice little ecosystem. Not as convenient as the golden age of Netflix, but now that everyone wants their own streaming service, I'd rather just cycle through a couple discs a week than do the whole lets get Disney+ for the Mandalorian, okay bingd watched that now lets get Netflix for Witcher, oh now Season 2 of the Mandalorian is out, back to Disney, oh look HBO has a new thing, etc.
DVD.com is owned by Netflix. And honestly, if you're hooked on the availability of content and don't want to ditch the Netflix pipeline completely, switching to DVD.com probably makes sense. The revenue shift from Netflix to DVD.com will have the same net impact on spending decisions.
Now that mailing you a disc is the only way they can get you certain content, the service is back closer to the level it was when they were killing Blockbuster.
Well, everyone wants their own subscription service, whether it be video-on-demand or a calendar app.
All the hype, the stratospheric share price, the prognostications of "disruption" (which they certainly did) don't change the fact that it's all about the content. And in that sense, Netflix doesn't really have any advantages. Creators will go where the pay is best, which leaves less for the distributor; winner's curse and all that.
That said, there are some really strong offerings hidden in the noise. The shift to originals over licensed is hurting the average quality level... but it definitely makes sense as a long term play.
It still makes sense for me and I am happy support the many gambles they take with content... even if most are lackluster.
One half watching YouTube at 1.5 speed and skipping the first Wadsworth constant minutes of it, reading Wikipedia and looking for more ways to get directly at the essence of things.
The other half who wants to pay a fixed monthly price for somebody (Netflix today) to keep them "entertained" for hours while filling up their non-working hours.