Hacker News Reader

Comment by shannifin | Hacker News Reader

I guess it looks like a problem because they can afford to throw more spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks than a traditional network, the result being more fallen spaghetti...

However, it is possible they're missing out on potential viewership when they cancel too early based only on one season metrics... I rarely watch a show that's only been on for one season because I'm that much more likely to not get story closure. Not sure how common that is, but how many people are watching shows that were cancelled before getting story closure? And how many might watch the back catalog otherwise? I guess not enough to be worth the investment.

On a side note, I do wish more seasons (streaming or not) would actually come to a real stopping point instead of just ending on a cliffhanger and hoping to be renewed.

View on HN

I'm starting to get fed up with TV shows (netflix or otherwise) for that same reason. It seems you only have two choices:

- first season doesn't pull enough viewers, it's cancelled.

- first season pulls enough viewers, season 2 onwards take season 1 as a status quo they'll basically never advance from, advancing the story so slowly that it almost feels like a sitcom where most characters end up at the exact point they used to be at the beginning so they can keep getting viewership.

I'm starting to see it with The Boys for example (WARNING slight spoilers next) Season 1 introduced a super dangerous environment where any wrong step could end the characters lives, by the end of season 2 it almost feels like a high school show because the main characters mostly bump into each other without consequences. If they need to kill someone they just introduce a new person a few episodes earlier so they can get rid of that one while the main characters stay healthy.

"On a side note, I do wish more seasons (streaming or not) would actually come to a real stopping point instead of just ending on a cliffhanger and hoping to be renewed."

I think this is half of the problem, too many shows being made with the hope they get enough traction to stretch out a few seasons. The result being not much of story and/or any hope of a satisfactory ending.

No surprise that viewing figures tail-off as this becomes a predictable path?

Is viewership valuable to Netflix? I would argue not as they make money on signups, not use.

Viewership costs money, so if a show cannot attract new users or retain current ones, you might want to throw away that viewership.

Yes? You pay monthly, not just once on signup.

Once you're a customer, your less likely to leave.

So the goal is too attract new customers.. which is best done by the new hot show, not season 2 of the last hot show.

So little incentive to renew

This is a really insightful take that I feel most other commenters miss. The intuitive metric of views is not what is good for Netflix's bottom line, quite the opposite. The best customer for Netflix is the one who stays subscribed but never uses it.

I believe the reason most people miss this is that for traditional networks, more viewers are strictly better; more viewers result in more ad revenue, and the marginal cost of an additional viewer is zero. For Netflix however, this is inversed: an additional viewer does not add any revenue (assuming they were already subscribed), but still adds cost.

The economic model of Netflix seems to be at odds with user interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com