Tumgik
#Netflix and their business models
superduperkas · 2 years
Text
Stranger Things season 4 didn't need to be split into 2 volumes. I honestly don't see how it uplifts or adds to the storytelling.
What I do see are the other shows released in between the volumes, the viewership overlap, and how it forces viewers to make a choice between which shows to watch. And I realize, they can just be watched at a different date but the next 30 days (this differs from company to company) is CRUCIAL for binge series to rack up as many watched hours as possible to determine whether it's worth renewing or not. Scheduling is VERY important and can determine whether a show lives or dies.
Way back back, when streaming and OD weren't an option, there were so-called death slots which are a combination of undesirable days and times (Tuesdays at 10pm, Fridays, and Saturdays and others). Any show slipping in the ratings or a show that was very niche would be placed in these slots to die and so there was a viable excuse to cancel them. They can cancel them and say 'oh look, we tried'.
So now, death slots have been modernized for streaming, but now it's relies on when the entirety of show is released and what's being released before and after it. Stranger Things is juggernaut behemoth of a show, for good reason, so ANYTHING released around it is gonna take a massive viewership hit so for Netflix to split the 4th season, release the shows around it (w/ little to no promotion outside of cast and fans) is fucked up because they clearly have shows they want to struggle if not fail so they can say 'oh look, we tried'.
13 notes · View notes
Text
Watching a Netflix show nowadays is like curling up next to a warm fire on a cold winter’s night and reading your new favorite book and just as you get to the good part someone walks past, yanks it out of your hands and throws it into the fire. 
5K notes · View notes
04h15 · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
like or reblog if you save.
425 notes · View notes
beaft · 9 months
Text
apple tv and netflix are tied for most useless streaming service. neither of you will survive the revolution
28 notes · View notes
froggynelson · 7 months
Text
marvel studios making tv has been a trainwreck of a business model from the start, but seeing people trying to imply that netflix had a good model for making tv in comparison. like are we talking about the same netflix studios. the streaming service. hello.
13 notes · View notes
ringwraithmd · 5 months
Text
you know what netflix meet me in the dennys parking lot
bc fuck you for canceling shows
shadow and bone
warrior nun
first kill
9 notes · View notes
The Lockwood & Co. cancellation was expected but honestly so devastating. I'm disappointed we won't get to see Holly on the screen, or to see what fresh adaptation decisions would be made for the rest of the books. It's been wonderful getting the resurgence of fandom that came with the release of the show, and I fully expect to keep writing and making content for the series despite this.
36 notes · View notes
tomwambsmilk · 1 year
Text
This is such a long post that nobody asked for but I've been seeing Discourse again...
I feel like something that’s missing in most of the discussions I’ve seen on Tumblr about how streaming companies like Netflix have changed TV production for the worse is the profit motive. Or at least, it’s misunderstood. For example, I see a lot of people complaining about how Netflix only considers a show worthwhile if a bunch of people binge it as soon as it comes in, which is true - but I don’t know that everyone understands why, and it's lead to a skewed perception of what's actually going on, and why various studios and platforms make the decisions that they do.
The thing about Netflix is that it’s a public company that's currently unprofitable - so, every single thing it does is oriented toward "growth" (gaining new subscribers). Every show they decide to invest in, they do so because they think it’ll make people who don’t have Netflix want to get Netflix. And if they launch a show, and a whole bunch of new people join the platform, AND their viewer data shows that this show received disproportionate viewership in the same month all those people joined the platform - then it was a good investment. The further out you go from the release, the less correlation there is between the viewership of a show and new subscribers, so the less those viewer numbers matter to them.
Additionally, people talking about the show is more valuable to them than people actually watching it, because people talking about the show gives them free word-of-mouth marketing. Once your friend has bought a Netflix subscription, Netflix doesn't care what they watch, or at what pace. So obviously, if you can make everyone feel like they need to watch the entire show RIGHT NOW because everyone is talking about it and they can't avoid spoilers, that's a much stronger marketing strategy than letting people watch at their own pace.
And that’s why seasons are so short - a longer season costs more money and won’t bring in any extra subscribers, so it's a bad investment. It’s also why Netflix shows tend to be cancelled after only a couple of seasons - if a show hasn’t brought in many new subscribers after the first two seasons, it’s not likely to do so in the future, and so it becomes a poor investment, regardless of how many people already on the platform love it. And even beloved shows like Stranger Things eventually reach a point where everyone who loves it is already on the platform, and even though it's still massively popular it's no longer profitable on the same scale.
All of this is to contrast with network TV, where the revenue comes from advertisers. The more eyeballs are on a show, the more money a network can charge for ad space during that show. So the more beloved a TV show is, the more episodes you want in a season; even if the quality of some of those episodes is poor because the creative team is overworked and underpaid (ie exploited), people will still tune in and you’ll still make money. And that’s also how you end up with shows of 10-15 seasons, even if the show starts to suck around season 8 or 10; as long as enough devoted fans are still watching the show, they can still charge mega ad dollars and make a lot of money. A long-running show with name recognition will make more money, even when it sucks, than an excellent brand-new show with no name recognition. It also means that shows that are self-contained “plot of the week” type shows do a LOT better than stories with season-long arcs, because those shows are more likely to attract casual viewers in addition to regular ones, and people are less likely to abandon the whole show if they miss an episode or two. Plus, if you don't need to worry about the order a season airs in, you can make a lot more money off of rerun adspace outside of the regular season.
And finally, growth looks different for a network. On Netflix, a single person can only provide a single unit of growth, because you're only going to purchase one subscription, so there's very little incentive for Netflix to cater to existing subscribers so long as the platform is 'good enough' for them to avoid cancelling. On the other hand, network growth is calculated based on viewership. So, let's say I watch "The Office" on NBC every week, and nothing else. And then one day, a friend tells me how much they love this other NBC show, "30 Rock", that's halfway through its second season, so I start watching that. That's growth for NBC! They can now charge a little bit more for ad space on 30 Rock than they could before - and it's happened without a whole new person needing to be introduced to their network. So there's a strong incentive to pay attention to what existing viewers want, rather than just focusing on what brings in new viewers. After all, not watching one specific show is a much easier decision than cancelling an entire platform subscription. (The downside of this is that network TV creators are far more beholden to the demands of the audience than a show on a platform like Netflix or HBO, and that can lead to sacrificing some creative integrity).
Overall my point is that the entire structure and shape of TV shows has ALWAYS been motivated by profit. That doesn’t mean the complaints about Netflix are invalid - they are VERY valid and I agree with most of them - but I think it’s important to diagnose the problem correctly: the people with the money to make a tv show are also usually the people who would like to make as much money as possible off your tv show, and will manipulate it accordingly. What’s the solution? I’m not sure, but pretending that these studios are making decisions based on “bad data” or “not understanding what people want” or just pure caprice is simply naive. Its not that they don't know what you want - they just don't care.
19 notes · View notes
jynersq · 1 year
Text
every day i’m more and more grateful rogue one was a movie and not a tv show. lmao
4 notes · View notes
biolizardboils · 1 year
Text
finished Sonic Prime! its nice to finally take down the spoiler filters! also what the fuck whens the rest
9 notes · View notes
jackklinemybeloved · 5 months
Text
I know people say it a lot but like. with all the planned grishaverse shows canceled (and every Other show netflix has canceled for no reason), what the hell is netflix’s plan after like, next year? once stranger things and the umbrella academy end, what big show do they have left to keep people subscribed? fucking. OBX s4?
1 note · View note
taylorvaughnsaidso · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The Finchers though, lbr are few and far between anymore with Netflix originals.
Also, BRING BACK MINDHUNTERRRR
Evelyn Hugo better be treated well. GDI.
1 note · View note
Text
ngl i think its genuinely kind of delusional to make the argument that netflix is losing all this money over dave chappelle’s netflix special. that’s such a strange and myopic take
4 notes · View notes
ladyaj-13 · 2 years
Text
If Disney plus doesn’t have exactly what you want to watch on there, it doesn’t even make an effort. Just throws you it’s big thing of the moment. I search ‘leverage’ and it doesn’t give me ‘white collar’ or ‘criminal minds’ or anything that might kinda sorta be the sort of thing I’m feeling like watching. It doesn’t pull up ‘Angel’ because they both star Christian Kane, or ‘the walking dead’ for Aldis Hodge.
It gives me Hocus Pocus 2.
2 notes · View notes
Note
Nobody is making anyone go into scriptwriting. No one is born in a Netflix company town where their dad takes them into the script mines at age 12. Fuck writers who want to get paid more than once for the same job. They should only get residuals AFTER all the people who do REAL WORK, like construction, grips, costume, makeup & animators etc. Most of them are much better at their jobs than writers especially for streaming services, and they are what screenwriters can lean on & novelists can't.
People need to realize that the unions for white collar people like WGA or SIEU or NEA (public sector unions are why cops who kill the people they were supposed to serve & protect remain employed get pensions) is not the AFL-CIO or any other historical union fighting for the lives of the people who built the country's industry and made it run, any more than the NRA are the Minutemen of 1775 New England.
First, go fuck yourself, you fucking scab. No, seriously - you don't come to my blog and spout off about what workers deserve unions and decent pay and what ones don't, like it's your fucking decision. The intellectual labor that writers perform is just as real as any other work done on a film set - "all who labor by hand or brain" is the inherent logic of industrial unionism for a reason.
Second, writers aren't asking to get paid more than once: residuals are deferred pay, you absolute moron. In Hollywood, whether it's writers or actors or voice talent or whatever, you get a small fraction up front - it's usually an ok check, depending on the union's day rates and so forth, but you can't make a living off stitching these together - and then most of your pay comes from monthly royalty checks that provide you with the income you need to live off when you're between jobs.
The problem is that, historically in Hollywood, residuals have been structured with a very long "tail" - the payments start out relatively low and then get more generous over time as the show has more seasons and (presumably) goes into syndication. This doesn't work with streaming's new business model, where increasingly shows are getting 2-3 seasons max and streaming services have become increasingly quick to not just cancel shows but yank them off their servers in order to avoid paying residuals.
So what WGA writers are fighting for is a system that ensures writers (but also actors and other creative workers, because the unions pattern bargain) get a fair share of the show's revenue, even if the show is only given 2-3 seasons.
Third, the U.S labor movement would not exist today if it wasn't for white collar workers and public sector workers. About half of the U.S labor movement - 7 million workers - is public sector, and those workers are overwhelmingly women of color, mostly working as either teachers or postal workers. Likewise, about half the U.S labor movement is made up of white collar workers, and we're graduate students and adjuncts and lab researchers, teachers and social workers, administrators and IT departments.
I'm both public sector and white collar, and I'm a member of an NEA union. I'm an adjunct professor who earns $6,000 a course and it's my job to get working adults with jobs and families who've never gone to college or who've been out of higher ed for a decade to graduate with a bachelor's or a master's. If you don't think that's real work, you're free to research and write all the lectures and powerpoints, deliver those in an entertaining and educational fashion, answer a flood of questions from students who need help navigating academia, and then grade all the midterms and finals and research papers.
18K notes · View notes
losangelesnewsfeed · 1 year
Text
"Discover how Ryan Reynolds' exit from Mint Mobile signals the future of affordable wireless plans"RyanReynolds #MintMobile #affordablewirelessplans #InvernessGraham #entrepreneurship #prepaidwirelesscarrier #MaximumEffort #RickMoranis #Diageo #aviationAmericangin #marketingcampaigns #businessmodel #expansion #internationallaunch #UnitedKingdom #Comcast #productioncompany #Netflix #RedNotice #mobileplans #online #lowercost #authenticexperience #personalizedexperience #growth #success #future
The actor and entrepreneur Ryan Reynolds sold his stake in the mobile company Mint Mobile for an undisclosed amount to investment firm, Inverness Graham. Mint Mobile is a prepaid wireless carrier that offers plans at a lower cost compared to traditional carriers, and Reynolds was known for his involvement in its marketing campaigns. The actor co-founded the company in 2019 after becoming a…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes