I'm beginning to dislike Netflix (re: Archive 81, 1899, Warrior Nun etc cancellations)

[payn]

No, but like I said you need some good shows to retain the viewers that your tent pole productions bring in. If you're constantly cancelling them then the reason for sticking around doesn't really exist. As a result people go elsewhere. This drives the perceived need for even more expensive shows, more often, robbing the streamer of funding for the "good enough" shows. It's a vicious circle.

I think Netflix is looking at reality TV for this. It's much cheaper. I get your point though, but I just didn't think The Imperfects was good enough for general appeal.

 

[Ryujin]

I think Netflix is looking at reality TV for this. It's much cheaper. I get your point though, but I just didn't think The Imperfects was good enough for general appeal.

Perhaps not, but I quite enjoyed it, and it's far from the only show that has been burned in the one-and-done fashion by a streamer. I despise the vast majority of "Reality TV."

 

[payn]

Perhaps not, but I quite enjoyed it, and it's far from the only show that has been burned in the one-and-done fashion by a streamer. I despise the vast majority of "Reality TV."

Im with ya. Unlike cable though, streamers aren't subsidized by each other. Which is why most of them now have kids, mature, scifi, reality, etc... It's hard to do all that yourself.

 

[Zaukrie]

On the notion of filler.....

I saw an article asking what the plot point of Keeley's story in Ted Lasso was this last year.....and all I could think was, why does there have to be a point. Life happens, often without some grand point....why doesn't tv?

 

[payn]

On the notion of filler.....

I saw an article asking what the plot point of Keeley's story in Ted Lasso was this last year.....and all I could think was, why does there have to be a point. Life happens, often without some grand point....why doesn't tv?

If its story at all ill take it. A lot of times its dudes riding motorcycles to southern rock, or dudes riding horses to country rock, or dudes...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe.

The counterpoint to that would be that the most common lament you ever hear from talent, whether it's film, TV, or music ... is the same.

If only I had been promoted correctly.

Doesn't mean it's not true, but the idea that "something good just wasn't given enough of a shot" long predates Netflix.

I realize, but given Netflix promotes the hell out of some things and largely ignores others, there's always at least some degree of chicken-or-egg question there, and it still begs the question why some get favored status and some--don't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This had the feeling of being a red headed step child. Netflix took it on to add content, but never really believed in it. Attention went elsewhere, which is limited.

Still begs the question of why to bother to take on content you're not going to support. But as noted, Netflix wouldn't be the first case there, but it seems to make less sense with a streaming service than a network that has to fill time slot X with something.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but like I said you need some good shows to retain the viewers that your tent pole productions bring in. If you're constantly cancelling them then the reason for sticking around doesn't really exist. As a result people go elsewhere. This drives the perceived need for even more expensive shows, more often, robbing the streamer of funding for the "good enough" shows. It's a vicious circle.

EDIT - The service that figured this out may well be the one that people end up sticking with, while burning through the free 30 day trials on the other streaming services.

Even when they aren't free, there's a strong tendency if you're only there for one or two shows to wait until the season(s) drop, subscribe for a month, binge, unsubscribe. We do that to watch the Trek shows (and Evil); we just don't care about what else is on Paramount+.

(Of course there's only so many streamers you're going to subscribe to anyway, unless you watch an incredible amount of TV or are dumb).

 

[payn]

Still begs the question of why to bother to take on content you're not going to support. But as noted, Netflix wouldn't be the first case there, but it seems to make less sense with a streaming service than a network that has to fill time slot X with something.

Well, that one season will always be there. For streaming content is king. Roll the dice and see what happens. If its a hit, keep going, if not move on.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If they were doing it right then the "good enough" (meat and potatoes) shows would be enough that they could get by with just them, instead of putting everything into the "tent pole" productions (dessert). You can anticipate dessert, but you can't survive on it. The need to show immediate returns has them concentrating on the wrong part of the "meal." This is why viewers are fickle and switch back and forth between streamers, instead of being retained. Making tent pole productions your business model is financially unsustainable. You can't make enough of them to carry your business, nor should you.

I don't agree with that, for three reasons.

First, Netflix is quite aware of churn rate and the cost to acquire new subscribers. However, Netflix not only a below-market churn rate, it also has the lowest rate of all streaming services.* In addition, it has achieved this without resorting to offering a bunch of gimmicky subscriptions or annual rates. So while it is true that churn is a concern, Netflix is the least concerned. Which likely means that their model has some merit.

Second, we have to look at how services reduce churn. One way is to offer cheap utility programming- reality programming and the like. Netflix is certainly offering a lot of that. The second way is to keep bring people back for something they both desire and know- the next season of Stranger Things, for example. Unfortunately, this has limited value for churn because it takes a while to make a season, and guess what? If all you want is the next season, you might unsubscribe, and then re-subscribe later to get that season.

The third way is to constantly offer new things that people want to watch. Because new things interest people. Again, I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. I really hate it when I find yet another cool new show on Netflix and find out there is only one or two seasons of it ... but then I find that there is yet another cool new show I haven't seen.


ETA- I would add that Netflix is highly data-driven, and it seems unlikely that they would continue to pursue a strategy that would increase churn. IMO.


*The churn rate actually has increase over the last few years mostly because of the new streaming services with their higher churn rates; Netflix has increased, but remains below 4%- no other service has ever been under 4% as far as I know, and most services struggle to get under 6%.