While it is a valid point, Id argue that Netflix could have survived this - they had billions of dollars to create original content, and then they did create it, but some how screwed it all up. There’s at best 1 or 2 good show and no good movie Netflix has made in years. And anything half decent they cancel mercilessly without giving it a chance. This is not just in the US. The comparison of original content quality between Netflix and other services in India for example is even more laughable.
In the end, Netflix is a company that used to be great and kinda made some of the most genius ideas to fight the Goliath but was undone by a single dude leading a team making poor choices on what content to make. 3 Adam Sandler movies for half a billion dollars? I’m assuming this is as big or a bigger blunder than Zillow, and was powered by stupid data science ideas as well, probably.
> they had billions of dollars to create original content
they had the wrong idea that original content is their strong point. It's not. It's disney's strong point.
Netflix should've used their dominant position to lobby for new rules to the game - prevent exclusivity of content! They should've lobbied gov't to mandate that studio productions of content be permanently untied to a streaming service, and be available to all players in the streaming space. Just like net neutrality, we might call this content neutrality.
Netflix is at it's core, a tech company that solves technical issues with streaming. They pivoted to content creation, and they aren't very good at it - sure they got a couple of hits, but they cannot possibly compete on this with actual movie studios that own IPs from a century ago to this day.
> > they had billions of dollars to create original content
>
> they had the wrong idea that original content is their strong point. It's not. It's disney's strong point.
I guess there are different people watching content. Note that I mainly talk about TV shows, as I’m not a big movie fan.
Because I hate pretty much everything Disney. MCU is low-brow humor with plot-hole riddled writing and weak characters mainly fueled by action scenes and star power. I don’t know what Star Wars is, but nothing that interests me, I don’t think I’d even have liked the original trilogy if I had been older when it came out.
Netflix, both their English original content and many foreign shows (assuming good dubbing, which usually means the actors dubbed themselves) has far better content.
> I guess there are different people watching content.
and the different groups have different sizes. Your tastes, unfortunately, belongs to the smaller of those groups, so content-wise, disney's franchised content won't appeal to you. But they do appeal to a very large group. And this large group is where the profits lie, and why netflix is not competing well in. It's the wrong game to be playing for netflix.
When they started out creating original content, they were hitting it out of the park. Orange is the new black, daredevil, house of cards were all big hits.
They scaled, quality was sacraficed for quantity, and their brand became very dilluted.
I'm sort of surprised there is less effort in poaching series with an existing fan base. This would seemingly be an antidote to the complaint of too-"algorithm says it will work" programming, because it bypasses that entire flow with an established "we see the audience, they exist in fandom forums and such."
I've never used Hulu, but there's a good chance I'll sub in the next few months for the new season of The Orville. I'd expect anime series would be a great similar target- there are plenty of manga/novel adaptations that did one 13-episode series that covered the first fewbooks, and now the source material is finished with 25 more volumes they can adapt.
> There was a lesson there that Netflix chose to ignore.
What is it? Network television spent decades milking shows way past their expiration dates and still made bank.
The Office was originally a 14-episode arc built to an actual conclusion and NBC made who knows how much with middling season after season of the US version.
People watched because we're creatures of habit and you only have to get us hooked once.
That didn't change. What changed is the # of options. Instead of 1/25 shows catching on its 100/2,500 and it doesn't scale the same way.
Well but House of Cards had such a ridiculous tension arc, that you _really_ couldn't extend it past 3 seasons. And if you try it just gets absurd and nobody can stay emerged anymore. Add to that, that you suddenly need to deal with "you are not allowed to use Spacey anymore" and the attempt to push "women for every job" you end up with a predictable disaster. But even if either wouldn't have happened: They didn't have the writers to keep writing the same quality
The original movies I saw were beyond bad. In every movie they used every plot twist ever invented, and every bit of cliched writing. The overpaid actors just read lines.
It's almost like they locked sober hack writers in a room and told them just write. Write like your audience is an angry/perverted Forrest Gump, and can't speak English. (I threw in sober because even if under the influence--they might have written better?)
They just wasted money.
I understand comming up with original clever scripts is hard.
I felt they could have redone classic movies though--instead of the garbage they threw at us.
I was watching Dog Day Afternoon the other day. The movie aged very well, and is an all time classic. No one is going to top that movie on any level.
Netflix could have tried to remake it though with up to date references, and even change up the script. Sonny, and Sal could have made it on the plane, and go from there.
Dog Day Afternoon is a bad example because it aged so well, but their are other good movies that could have been brought up to date?
I believe it's too late for Netflix.
In retrospect, I would have rather had them throw money at students in film school.
(I don't bet on stocks, but we all saw this comming. Every studio was working on their own pay per view service a year after we started talking about Netflix. Someone brobally made millions shorting that company.)
I don't think you remake excellent movies like "Dog Day Afternoon", you remake the bad ones, usually B-movies, that showed potential. Maybe revisit "A Boy and His Dog", for example.
> Netflix is at it's core, a tech company that solves technical issues with streaming.
Netflix used to be a tech company that solves the problem of content discovery, too. Then they chose to not generate recommendations based on data but instead push their in-house content.
Netflix was a dvd mailing company with a website and they pivoted to streaming. Amazon did too. Streaming tech is pretty much tablestakes for any company with a billion to spare. You can’t keep insisting that’s all Netflix should focus on.
I’d also argue Amazon prime has fared far better with OG content than Netflix in a fraction of its budget. The blame should entirely fall on its current ceo who imo should be ousted and Hastings needs to come back to salvage his baby.
Totally agree. If streaming video could get the same terms as streaming audio/radio (standardized mandatory licensing fees) and services could compete on encoding (cost efficiency on their end) and UI/UX (which Netflix is... not great) that would be an entirely different ballgame.
> Netflix should've used their dominant position to lobby for new rules to the game - prevent exclusivity of content!
Countries like India already have protections like these in place. They haven't regulated the streaming space yet. However, the other channels are very well regulated and content cannot be tied to the delivery channel. This means consumers win at the end of the day and competition is preserved. Content can be acquired by competitors _without_ consolidation.
No chance that would've worked. Netflix saw themselves as a content creation company because they realized that having great content is the only way to keep growing.
Netflix failed precisely because it's a tech company at its core. It can't outlobby the copyright industry, because it lacks the experience, the goodwill, and the political connections. And the celebrities supporting its goals. If Netflix wants to be successful in the entertainment industry, it must act like an entertainment company and give more power to the producers and the creatives.
Netflix could have bought a few of the legacy companies. Amazon bought MGM, Netflix could have bought cbs/paramount, or ABC, for the cost of a series of the crown.
That is very subjective. My wife and I really liked The power of the dog. And I am sure there are more.
Also subjective: watching Netflix every day (I do not) will end up in watching below par stuff. No service will be able to produce that much high quality content for everybody’s taste.
You are implying netflix needs to offer a ‘ movie in top 20 for the last decade’ every week or so. You will indeed get very disappointed by all streaming services.
I mean I don’t know about screwed it up. You can’t expect any artist to just consistently produce pure hits. The creativity seems to come and go, the zeitgeist and the cultural context matter so much. Nobody (except, I would argue, Marvel) is able to be really consistent with their art. They were always doomed to fail producing their own content.
HBO seems to be doing fine producing their own content so I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that Netflix was doomed to fail. They didn't have the back-catalog but they had the head start in online distribution and could have bought a studio or two as they have for video games in order to seed their back-catalog.
I think a large contribution to their failure is Netflix cancelling shows after two seasons. If a show's probably gonna get cancelled before it gets a good run, why why would I bother watching it? People want easy watching, and they want a lot of it. Eg The Office, which ended up lasting nine seasons. Only Netflix knows exactly why they canceled shows, as only they have the viewer numbers, but a rumor I've heard is that after two seasons is when the production starts to get expensive because that's when a show gets traction and the production team and actors can unionize to demand more money - money that Netflix doesn't want to spend.
Unfortunately, in cancelling shows so quickly, there just aren't the shows to keep subscribers on the service - especially if subscribers have to keep picking a show to watch every two seasons. There's nothing more unsatisfying than spending an hour on Netflix trying to find something to watch only not to find anything. If they had more shows that ran nine seasons, it would be easier to justify keeping the subscription just for those shows. Two seasons just isn't enough episodes to keep watching a show and by playing penny-wise and pound-foolish, they just don't have the catalog. Which is sad, because the have a ton of good short-run shows that just needed more of a chance.
The other thing is their habit of releasing entire seasons at once. Their choice, but it's very supportive of my habit to cancel my Netflix subscription every time I run out of things to watch, and subscribe to a different service.
> The other thing is their habit of releasing entire seasons at once. Their choice, but it's very supportive of my habit to cancel my Netflix subscription every time I run out of things to watch, and subscribe to a different service.
If they didn’t do this and I were going to screw about with subscription micromanagement, I would just subscribe when an entire season had been released, since I have no interest in being drip-fed a show or watching something over several weeks.
The idea that Netflix is failing because of identity politics is just ridiculous and doesn’t hold up to even the slightest examination. It’s just another reactionary talking point that feels right enough for people to not examine it.
I know multiple people which complained about it and made them unsubscribe (none from the USA, so these topics are neither interesting nor on topic for any of us)
It was definitely a contributing factory that's for sure.
The number of people who care about this kind of stuff is very low. Most people just want to watch movies, laugh, cry. They don’t even know about the culture war. That’s only relevant in the bubble of malcontent that is mostly made up of twitter users.
I think more people care than you think, but they might not realize that identity politics (or politics in general) are what’s making a show worse. Star Trek: Picard’s latest season was terrible in many ways, but it seemed like the entire plot was made just so the show runners could say “ICE bad. Global Warming scary.”
That’s all well and dandy if you have an actual point to make, but they didn’t. There was no nuance because in their minds any deviation from those political beliefs are evil.
For it to really be that big of a factor you’d have to explain a) why it hasn’t been a factor before now (did Netflix suddenly become “woke” this quarter? Doubtful) and b) why haven’t other streamers like Disney+ and HBO Max had similar declines? Are they less woke? By what quantifiable measure? (e.g. Disney has warnings at the start of old movies about how racist they are, it was a whole controversy a few months ago)
Any examination of Netflix that does NOT include Go Woke Go Broke is a joke. Everyone I know is at least aware of how cookie cutter and predictable the woke agenda is on every Netflix original, and it is a reoccurring topic when people finally decide to cancel
My empirical evidence says otherwise. It is the primary reason I cancelled my subscription, and I've heard an awful lot of people complain about how every show has some forced social agenda. I suspect that Elon's tweet regarding Netflix, and the "woke" virus that has infected it, probably didn't help matters either. Say what you want about the guy, but he has a pretty massive amount of influence.
I cancelled, after being a member for 10 years. Three of my friends have gone back to torrents.
The main reason... Almost everything has some fringe minority edge, a gay lead, a token trans friend and most of the stuff is "victim porn" with the usual white male protagonist.
100% reason why I cancelled and the same for my friends.
Case in point, Dave Chappelle's stand-up. He doesn't say what you're supposed to say about certain subjects, leading to outrage and calls to take down the show, yet it's still up. Were Netflix that left-leaning, that show would already be gone from their catalog.
> Case in point, Dave Chappelle's stand-up. He doesn't say what you're supposed to say about certain subjects, leading to outrage and calls to take down the show, yet it's still up. Were Netflix that left-leaning, that show would already be gone from their catalog.
That's not the point. The point is "making money". Netflix is throwing a lot of money at their originals, the clear majority of which are "Woke" with a capital double-you. From all that I've read, the clear majority of Netflix originals are also losing money. Now before you claim that there is no reason to believe that the shows that lose money and the shows which are Woke are (in the majority) the same shows, let me clarify.
With their 220m+ subscriber base and deep knowledge of what people watch, there is no reason for Netflix to have this much uncertainty about what will be a hit and what will not.
They know exactly at which point each subscriber gives up on a show; they know which episode the subscriber saw last, they know which minute of that episode the subscriber stopped viewing at. They have much more detailed knowledge of what turns off viewers than Hollywood does, or any of the more traditional production companies.
They know what genres do well, they know what mix of genres do well, they know what the viewers appetite is for particular mixes, they know what most viewers want, they know what the long tail wants.
Netflix literally knows what doesn't sell, and yet they keep making shows that don't sell. The only reason for going against the data has to be due to a top-down directive from the company itself.
After all, if you have data that says "this will more likely be a hit than that", and you go ahead and make "that" anyway, the only reason you would do so is because you were told to do so.
Now, with all of that in mind, ask yourself what that top-down directive could possibly be ...
This is total nonsense. Sorry. You’ve fabricated some weird scenario in your head where the data screams out “woke content sucks” but god damn the executives just won’t listen! And then you attribute that to the Illuminati or the Woke Agenda or even the ghost of Carl Marx.
Nobody knows “literally” what doesn’t sell when it comes to film and TV. It’s a shot in the dark each time.
> You’ve fabricated some weird scenario in your head where the data screams out “woke content sucks” but god damn the executives just won’t listen!
No, I did not. I said they have the mountains of data to predict better. I said that there must be some reason why they are ignoring that data. I said that you can figure out what the most plausible reason is for ignoring that mountain of data.
> Nobody knows “literally” what doesn’t sell when it comes to film and TV. It’s a shot in the dark each time.
It's not a binary possibility; of course they literally know what does not sell, because they just made something, and measured it, and determined that it did not sell.
You make it sound like it's all down due to chance; the reality is that while luck plays a part, Netflix has much more agency in determining whether to continue on a certain path or not.
You hysterically screaming "It's not Wokism. It CAN'T* be Wokism because it hurts my feels and damages my worldview"*[1] doesn't make the data go away.
[1] I don't normally point out how absurd people are in this manner, but I feel you had it coming with you attempting to cast my post as some sort of conspiracy theorist. I point out that they have data, and you respond with false accusations of Illuinati and Marx.
> I said they have the mountains of data to predict better. I said that there must be some reason why they are ignoring that data
Are they ignoring their data? Says who?
I guess it’s more comfortable to your worldview to make several jumps:
1. The data must say Woke content sucks
2. Netflix must not be listening to this data
3. Something must be forcing them to ignore it (but hehehe I won’t say why I think that is!)
And pretend that it’s fact. The anti-woke agenda being pushed by the conservative media as a next-generation “roe vs wade” division point has no bearing on me and my country, so I don’t really care. It’s just funny and a bit sad to watch.
Well, the fact that they are following flops with flops is a good indicator.
> I guess it’s more comfortable to your worldview to make several jumps:
Ironically, the only person who made jumps here was you. All I'm doing is pointing out that they have to data to reduce the number of flops, and it isn't getting reduced, hence they must be ignoring that data.
You are making the unwarranted conclusion that it's all down to pure chance. There is no evidence that that is true.
If you feel strongly about this and have the empirical data to back it up, you should write about that data publicly, post it on HN, call for a shareholder suit. I feel strongly that this is all conspiracy, but of course that’s why we have the legal system and the concept of fiduciary duty.
It isn't the wokeness that's the problem, it's the bad writing that tries to cover up for how shit it is by using its wokeness as a defense. Maybe it is my nostalgia talking, but it seems that the quality of the average TV writer has plummeted in the past 20 years.
Owl House is pretty woke, enough to make Disney uncomfortable with it, but it gets great reviews and has a large fan base because it is written well. Meanwhile Star Trek: Discovery is rightfully being trashed by life long Star Trek fans like myself, who are pretty accustomed to progressive themes, because it is written largely by hacks.
The only examples on there are one cafe, plus crazy people trying to claim P&G and Disney are somehow failing. Looks to me like both are closer to owning the entire planet than failing at anything.
People who talk about things are people who care enough to talk about it, thus companies will assume that the people who do not care enough will accept woke or non-woke content equally.
Anyone seen Shameless? Seasons 1-9 featured loads of gay and trans characters and plots, and they were superb. Seasons 10.5-11 were unironically woke garbage, and I had to abandon it midway into 11. I actually could not stand it anymore. The in your face preachy wokeness.
You're demonstrating nothing but your own hyper-fixation on superficial identity characteristics by failing to recognize that there are plenty of "women, LGBT, PoC, etc" in all kinds of media beloved by those who are sick and tired of woke media. You think that these characteristics are sufficient for people to dislike this media, whereas the precise inverse seems to be true, wherein pro-woke people seem to be perfectly happy accepting garbage as media so long as these identity groups and messages are present.
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation by taking some kind of boomer position on wokeness, I just think that you're willfully arguing in bad faith, but you already know that.
In the end, Netflix is a company that used to be great and kinda made some of the most genius ideas to fight the Goliath but was undone by a single dude leading a team making poor choices on what content to make. 3 Adam Sandler movies for half a billion dollars? I’m assuming this is as big or a bigger blunder than Zillow, and was powered by stupid data science ideas as well, probably.