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

[JThursby]

You realize that's likely not in their control? If Paramount wants to have Trek content on their own service to draw viewers, there's no much Netflix can do about it.

What is and isn't in their control is not my concern, it is the value a Netflix subscription represents to me. Right now, it's only worth getting for a month in a year to watch the select few Netflix originals that are actually good (Arcane from 2021, Edgerunners from last year). If they can't justify the price of their service to me, I'm just not gonna bother with it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Mercurius You're not wrong, but you're also not right. IMO. Let me explain-

There was a golden time, some years ago, before every other media company had their own streaming service. Netflix had (or it seemed like they had) all the content. (Stage 1)

Then there was the great retrenchment and expansion, as the vast media companies both clawed back their libraries and spent untold sums of money buying and making more content to compete with Netflix. (Stage 2)

We are now in the third stage- suddenly, Wall Street isn't just rewarding growth. Companies that were freely spending on any and all content can't do that any more. Serious questions are being asked about streaming services that once seemed like the invincible or inevitable competitors of Netflix (I've covered HBOMax's problems in detail, and Disney+ is embroiled in controversies that are reaching a boiling point given the massive streaming losses, and so on). (Stage 3)

Netflix is still chugging along, no longer the amazing "everything provider" they were in Stage 1, but also not the throwing money at everything streamer and supported by a constantly-increasing stock price of Stage 2. But the question is- what is the value proposition that they are providing?

The answer, unfortunately for many of us, is that they are succeeding largely by appealing to the majority of people- in keeping them on with "good enough" programming, sprinkled with some occasional "event TV." Here's the Top 10 from the past year-

1. Stranger Things season 4 (1.87 billion hours)
2. Wednesday season 1 (1.314 billion hours)
3. Dahmer (962.4 million hours)
4. Bridgerton season 2 (775.2 million hours)
5. All of Us Are Dead season 1 (659.5 million hours)
6. Extraordinary Attorney Woo (662 million hours)
7. Inventing Anna (654.5 million hours)
8. The Watcher (395 million hours)
9. The Sandman season 1 (393.1 million hours)
10. Virgin River season 4 (304.8 million hours)

Of these, we can see a few things- first, that Netflix's emphasis on foreign TV (Squid Games was 2021, this year was All of Us Are Dead and Extraordinary Attorney Woo) continues to pay dividends. But the "high-concept" shows ... well, there is Stranger Things S4 and Sandman S1. And that's about it.

Netflix continues to support a lot of inventive TV (I enjoyed Alice in Borderland), but they are really likely to pull the plug earlier rather than later. But that doesn't make them unique, unfortunately- I think this is simply a reflection of where streaming is going. We have arguably moved past the point of Peak TV.

 

[Horwath]

Netflix has been shedding properties that I would be interested in watching. DS9 leaving Netflix for good was really the final straw for me.

what?

I'm watching DS9 right now on Netflix.

 

[Umbran]

What is and isn't in their control is not my concern, it is the value a Netflix subscription represents to me.

Okay, sorry. It was the phrasing of them "shedding shows" which read to me that it was a willing act on their part.

 

[Mercurius]

@Mercurius You're not wrong, but you're also not right. IMO. Let me explain-

There was a golden time, some years ago, before every other media company had their own streaming service. Netflix had (or it seemed like they had) all the content. (Stage 1)

Then there was the great retrenchment and expansion, as the vast media companies both clawed back their libraries and spent untold sums of money buying and making more content to compete with Netflix. (Stage 2)

We are now in the third stage- suddenly, Wall Street isn't just rewarding growth. Companies that were freely spending on any and all content can't do that any more. Serious questions are being asked about streaming services that once seemed like the invincible or inevitable competitors of Netflix (I've covered HBOMax's problems in detail, and Disney+ is embroiled in controversies that are reaching a boiling point given the massive streaming losses, and so on). (Stage 3)

Netflix is still chugging along, no longer the amazing "everything provider" they were in Stage 1, but also not the throwing money at everything streamer and supported by a constantly-increasing stock price of Stage 2. But the question is- what is the value proposition that they are providing?

The answer, unfortunately for many of us, is that they are succeeding largely by appealing to the majority of people- in keeping them on with "good enough" programming, sprinkled with some occasional "event TV." Here's the Top 10 from the past year-

1. Stranger Things season 4 (1.87 billion hours)
2. Wednesday season 1 (1.314 billion hours)
3. Dahmer (962.4 million hours)
4. Bridgerton season 2 (775.2 million hours)
5. All of Us Are Dead season 1 (659.5 million hours)
6. Extraordinary Attorney Woo (662 million hours)
7. Inventing Anna (654.5 million hours)
8. The Watcher (395 million hours)
9. The Sandman season 1 (393.1 million hours)
10. Virgin River season 4 (304.8 million hours)

Of these, we can see a few things- first, that Netflix's emphasis on foreign TV (Squid Games was 2021, this year was All of Us Are Dead and Extraordinary Attorney Woo) continues to pay dividends. But the "high-concept" shows ... well, there is Stranger Things S4 and Sandman S1. And that's about it.

Netflix continues to support a lot of inventive TV (I enjoyed Alice in Borderland), but they are really likely to pull the plug earlier rather than later. But that doesn't make them unique, unfortunately- I think this is simply a reflection of where streaming is going. We have arguably moved past the point of Peak TV.

Sure, though I'm not sure how this means I'm "also not right." Meaning, how does this conflict with what I wrote?

But yeah, one of Netflix's saving graces is their "emphasis on foreign TV," which works for folks like me who like Nordic Noir and rando European supernatural thrillers like Black Spot (one of my faves).

What I see is a bit of a shot-gun approach, and using a full season in a way that TV studios used to use pilots: tests to see audience response, in this case how many subscribers might be lured in. It is crazy to think of the amount of money involved, that a series like 1899 could be made--costing tens of millions to produce--with the idea that it will be dropped if it doesn't bring in enough just a few months after airing.

But if the test is how many new subscribers come on board, it is a crazy approach in the long-term -- as @Haplo781 said -- because it only looks at the quick return of a few months time (or whatever). Seems horrendously over-simplistic and short-sighted.

p.s. I'm not sure I'd call Stranger Things and Sandman "high concept." They're more "middle concept", imo; they include elements of high concept, but the focus is really on "middle concept" elements. In ST's case, it is the teen dramedy and genre action adventure, in Sandman it is the emo-gothic drama. Archive 81 and 1899 (as far as I can tell) are a bit more focused on the higher concept elements. This isn't a castigation of ST and SM; in a way, it is simply a more successful formula. In a similar sense that the main reason GoT was a cultural phenomena was not because it was fantasy, but because of the other elements - the characters, the political machinations, the wars, the blood and boobs, etc. Fantasy was simply the contextual milieu in which it took place. Misunderstanding this is why the post-GOT fantasy tv landscape is largely mediocre to poor, as if the showrunners think, "All we've got to do is give them dragons, pointy ears and shiny things, and they'll eat it up. Story, dialogue and characterization...who cares?"

 

[Umbran]

Also, for everyone, there's a note...

Historically, the majority of shows don't get a second season.

Let us see some data on that - the below is from The Hollywood Reporter, data is for broadcast networks:

Season	New scripted shows	Renewed	Canceled	Failure rate
2009-10	33	13	20	60.6%
2010-11	37	10	27	73.0%
2011-12	44	16	28	63.6%
2012-13	39	13	26	66.7%
2013-14	44	13	31	70.5%
2014-15	46	22	24	52.2%
2015-16	44	17	27	61.4%
2016-17	46	23	23	50.0%
2017-18	39	18	21	53.8%
2018-19*	37	18	11	29.7%
Totals	409	163	238	58.2%

If we drop that one anomalously low 2018-19 season, over 60% of new shows fail.

So, yeah, Netflix cancels a lot of shows after one season. But, so does everyone. The field is extremely competitive, so a lot of stuff gets axed to take a shot at finding the next big hit.

 

[Mercurius]

Also, for everyone, there's a note...

Historically, the majority of shows don't get a second season.

Let us see some data on that - the below is from The Hollywood Reporter, data is for broadcast networks:

Season	New scripted shows	Renewed	Canceled	Failure rate
2009-10	33	13	20	60.6%
2010-11	37	10	27	73.0%
2011-12	44	16	28	63.6%
2012-13	39	13	26	66.7%
2013-14	44	13	31	70.5%
2014-15	46	22	24	52.2%
2015-16	44	17	27	61.4%
2016-17	46	23	23	50.0%
2017-18	39	18	21	53.8%
2018-19*	37	18	11	29.7%
Totals	409	163	238	58.2%

If we drop that one anomalously low 1018-19 season, over 60% of new shows fail.

So, yeah, Netflix cancels a lot of sows after one season. But, so does everyone. The field is extremely competitive, so a lot of stuff gets axed to take a shot at finding the next big hit.

Which begs the question: What did sows ever do to Netflix? Moo too loudly?

On a serious note, this is useful information, but it leaves out a crucial part: how many of those shows were conceived of as episodic vs. parts of a singular story told over multiple seasons? 1899 ended on a cliffhanger; Archive 81 was a bit cleaner, but clearly part of a larger story.

So what seems strange to me, or where I think Netflix could improve on, is requiring new series to be at least relatively self-contained in the first season. Meaning, if they're going to be "cancel-happy," they should probably make sure that 1899 debacles don't happen too frequently, or at all.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

what?

I'm watching DS9 right now on Netflix.

Are you both in the same country? Netflix inside the US and out have very different line-ups. (I have family overseas and have this discussion every single phone call.)

 

[Mallus]

I’m still mad at them for canceling The OA and Sense8!

I also finally unsubscribed for a while. I’ll be back for Stranger Things, and Sandman whenever season 2 hits. Finally (trying) to take advantage of how easy it is to shuffle streaming services.

 

[Umbran]

Which begs the question: What did sows ever do to Netflix? Moo too loudly?

Um... you need a new "See 'n Say"? Sows don't moo. They oink.

On a serious note, this is useful information, but it leaves out a crucial part: how many of those shows were conceived of as episodic vs. parts of a singular story told over multiple seasons? 1899 ended on a cliffhanger

You can't have one without some element of the other, but I saw that ending as being more Big Reveal than Cliffhanger. YMMV, of course. Either way, the first season's story had a beginning, middle, and end, and was intended to do so - the makers had plans for further seasons, but count on it during writing and production.