Submitted by [deleted] t3_10l0tnq in television
[deleted]
Comments
noob_tech t1_j5twgls wrote
It's so weird. There's a real sentiment that Netflix is just cancelling successful shows to hurt people's feelings and be mean. There's no other reason!
johnnyjay t1_j5tzdui wrote
No. Netflix is cancelling shows because its management is too full of itself while reigning over the other streamer services and is making very poor decisions.
noob_tech t1_j5u1jjs wrote
How can you evaluate their decisions based on a half-complete assessment of partial data? How can you estimate how much a show costs vs how much it produces to show if it's successful or not? Why do you insist on this simple metric as somehow descriptive of a shows success?
How can you be so confident in your assessment when you have no insight into what is a notoriously shadowy decision-making process?
TheBlackSwarm t1_j5tw4hv wrote
Exactly it’s not rocket science. Or maybe it is for some people.
NoName5s t1_j5tzvtj wrote
In any case, do not communicate in Russian-language Discord servers.
DJCPhyr t1_j5txcg3 wrote
It is quite clear that Netflix cancels shows before the actors salaries go up in later seasons.
WordsAreSomething t1_j5ty63x wrote
It makes sense, higher salaries means the budget increases which could mean a show is no longer worth making.
The clearly don't have a problem paying high salaries for things they think are worth it.
Owasso_Landman t1_j5u2r5g wrote
Yeah that’s called a budget. You have to weigh results to budget. Networks do it too.
johnnyjay t1_j5tyyjk wrote
That's understandable. But it used to at least give its originals three to four seasons with the chance to wrap up its storylines. Now it is pulling the plug pretty quickly after one or two seasons.
DJCPhyr t1_j5tzd2v wrote
Some actors contracts have substantial pay raises built into s3.
Lifesaboxofgardens t1_j5txrtk wrote
It's hilarious, like does this guy think he has more comprehensive data on this than Netflix? His source is literally Netflix, and what they allow him to know lol.
Archamasse t1_j5u5kqx wrote
Data in itself is white noise. It's only useful if you know what to look for.
The almighty algorithm is a dumb tool, it can only do what is asked of it. If Netflix's executives do not understand which metric is meaningful, then it doesn't matter how many they have access to.
Netflix supposedly hangs big decisions on the early completion rate. I assert that's a completely wrongheaded approach that is burdening them with a growing library of very expensive dead weight nobody will ever watch again; and worse still, it's developing a reputation for that.
johnnyjay t1_j5twys3 wrote
It's no conspiracy, it is just poor and short-sighted decision making by the executives of a company that is too full of itself. Netflix is now acting very much like the broadcast networks in the days that they ruled television viewing.
Abyss_85 t1_j5tztio wrote
I don't agree with Netflix's approach of not giving at least some shows time to find their fandom (Warrior Nun definitely had potential here), but we simply have not enough data. Netflix does. What was the drop off rate in the middle of season 2? Was it extremely high? What was the exact cost of the show? Were there problems behind the scenes? Etc. etc...
WordsAreSomething t1_j5tw72b wrote
This post is built on a misinterpretation of what was said. The entire quote is relating viewing metrics to budgets. So unless you are doing the same it's pointless. A show could have a huge audience but if it costs aot than the bar for renewal will naturally be higher.
A show like 1899 by all reports was not cheap, and relative to other shows the viewing numbers weren't that impressive.
lennydykstra17 t1_j5ty10a wrote
Their biggest number is completion rate. With 1899 their numbers showed about 30% finishing the show, with most viewers falling off by episode 3. I'd have to look for the previous source on this but they care about people actually finishing a season of a show to see what's worth renewing a second season.
Archamasse t1_j5u4jwj wrote
1899 wasn't a show I wanted to rush. I wanted to pace it out and marinate in it a little.
While I was doing that, it was cancelled, so now I'm just never going to complete it at all, nor rewatch it. It's pointless.
So for a viewer like me, Netflix's entire investment in it has instantly gone down the drain. And I'm a little less likely to bother with their next big ticket project, in case the same happens to it too.
Early completion rate is easily measurable, but is it useful? People don't like Netflix's all-in-one-go releases because they want to sit down for ten hours in a row, they like it because they can watch the whole lot at precisely the pace that suits them. Netflix's tunnel vision penalizes them, and the shows that suit that kind of viewing best.
I don't think their apparent 2 week completion rate obsession makes sense, at least not for every show - not least because stuff like "Viewer trust that the next show won't be cancelled too" can't be measured in it, but absolutely have an effect on the service's appeal.
Netflix isn't like a regular "live" channel, nobody catches something serendipitously in syndication. They have to actively select it. Show by show these decisions probably feel like they make sense, but they've ended up with a library of dead ends nobody will ever bother with.
johnnyjay t1_j5u02i6 wrote
Agreed that the completion rate factors in and those are numbers that are not widely shared, but it is another example of their unsustainable model. The window for their completion rate is too narrow. The whole point of streaming is that shows are On Demand and you can watch them whenever you want. And people obviously tuned in for 1899. Because they didn't finish quick enough should not necessarily be a reason to cancel the show, otherwise the whole On Demand thing is pointless.
lennydykstra17 t1_j5u3pef wrote
As someone who also stopped watching 1899 by the 2nd episode, I don't think it's too narrow. Its based on a month of viewing hours, which is a cutthroat approach sure, but cable television often cancels shows before it's 1st season even finishes airing based off of bad viewership. Sometimes the set costsbare too high to maintain, locations to difficult to access, or just otherwise bad productions.
If a show doesn't test well the company won't spend extra money marketing it, which can lead to a less than ideal launch, giving it leas viewers than other content, which leads to an early cancellation. Shows often get the short end of the stick in this respect, but it's more a product of the market than the executives in charge of the decisions. Netflix's new pairing with the Nielsen ratings will help the transparency, but I'd argue they've done a fairly good job of using internal numbers in a transparent way.
noob_tech t1_j5umf8p wrote
Even though you deleted the thread because you couldn't answer a straight-forward question, here's something to clue you in - it actually costs Netflix more to stream a show after the 30 day window than during it, due to shuffling content around on local delivery systems to save bandwidth.
https://www.theverge.com/22787426/netflix-cdn-open-connect
​
But keep citing public metrics and telling half the story like you have it figured out already.
johnnyjay t1_j5txuam wrote
No misunderstanding. Here's the quote:
We have never canceled a successful show. A lot of these shows were well-intended but talk to a very small audience on a very big budget. The key to it is you have to be able to talk to a small audience on a small budget and a large audience at a large budget. If you do that well, you can do that forever.
1899 was expensive to make. But it also performed better than the average Netflix top performer. So it was successful and did not have a "very small audience". If it was so expensive that it required a run at Number 1 for multiple weeks, then Netflix is greenlighting shows that are not sustainable, and that is on them.
Warrior Nun performed a little lower than the average Netflix top performer, but that show is less expensive to produce and the viewership should have been in line with expectations.
laughland t1_j5tyncf wrote
Yes but HOW expensive was 1899 to make? It’s all relative, maybe 1899 necessitated an even bigger audience draw than other “top performers” because it cost that much more. Also as others have mentioned, hours watched isn’t necessarily the best metric because you could have a ton of people watching the first episode and only a few people watching the last; what does that mean for the viability of a Season 2? There’s been reports that Netflix values completion rates almost just as much if not more than hours viewed
WordsAreSomething t1_j5tyryc wrote
>But it also performed better than the average Netflix top performer. So it was successful and did not have a "very small audience".
That doesn't mean it was successful. It's viewership and reportedly it's completion rate wasn't that good compared to 0ther expensive shows they produce. So it doesn't seem like it was successful.
This really comes down to you not really having the information to say if something was truly successful or not. If any of these shows were actually successful what does Netflix gain by cancelling them? Occam's razor my guy.
Skavau t1_j5twy23 wrote
A detail missing here are the shows varying budgets. What Netflix can be criticised for is throwing too much money, and thus expectations, at shows that are just not likely to meet it. It was obvious that Cowboy Bebop, and Resident Evil were doomed to be cancelled when they released. They were too high-budget, too risky and even a relatively positive reception wasn't likely to translate to enough watchers.
They set shows up to fail too often by doing this.
logicalnoise t1_j5u33sm wrote
Also there's no pilot process, they just order a whole season. The teams making them get no outside feedback at all and can only tweak between seasons which is looking like less and less of a thing on Netflix unless it's a dirt cheap show like floor is lava or pressure cooker. It's the same strategy that the WBD CEO has developed over the years. Good TV doesn't mean money, cheap shit that people just have on does and it's really sad.
Archamasse t1_j5u3b7s wrote
That raises questions about stuff like First Kill or Warrior Nun though, which performed way above their weight despite visibly costing about $5.96 an episode.
ambroserc316 t1_j5twbg5 wrote
You have to factor in budget or the viewing hours don’t matter.
johnnyjay t1_j5tyq4b wrote
As mentioned above, if Netflix is budgeting shows at levels that require nearly unattainable viewership, then they have an unsustainable model and they are making poor choices with their programming. We saw this with The Sandman. It spent three weeks at Number 1, six weeks in the Top 5 and had a one-week high of 127.5 million hours viewed. Yet Neil Gaiman was telling people they needed to keep watching to assure it got a second season. How is a run like that not considered a huge success?
ambroserc316 t1_j5u097o wrote
I agree that it sucks as a viewer but some shows have to do huge (Wednesday or Stranger Things) numbers to justify their budgets.
Edit: Netflix is happy to risk a season on a show and see if it breaks out.
Luis_Ignacio t1_j5tweze wrote
So, are you going to ignore this post.
Its an study made fron 10000 accounts across 11 countries, showing that most people didn't like 1898.
johnnyjay t1_j5u15j4 wrote
The Rotten Tomatoes score of a 76% Fresh rating and 75% Audience score suggests that most people did like the show (if you don't like Rotten Tomatoes, here is Metacritic). And I acknowledge that the completion rate is an important metric as well, but they have too narrow of a window which defeats the purpose of On Demand vieweing as I mentioned in another comment.
thatoneguy889 t1_j5u57dr wrote
> 75% Audience score suggests that most people did like the show
Audience scores aren't a reliable metric because they're self-selecting. That doesn't mean 75% of the audience liked it, it means 75% of the people who cared enough to rate it online liked it.
CatFoodBeerAndGlue t1_j5tv8q2 wrote
>On average, a season of a show that makes it into the Top 10 spends 4.3 weeks that and has 30.1 million hours watched per week. > >A show that makes it into the Top 5 spends 2.6 weeks there and has 46.4 million hours watched.
Where did you get these figures from out of interest?
johnnyjay t1_j5tvqcb wrote
The Netflix Top 10: https://top10.netflix.com/tv.html
I have compiled the numbers going back to September 2021.
That includes originals and acquired shows from the English Language and Non-English Language Top 10s. At some point, I will probably try to narrow that down.
DoctorMooh t1_j5tvcve wrote
They have a very good algorithm, they are just monitoring whatever I am enjoying and then proceed to cancel the fuck out of that.
ashinaclan123 t1_j5twx25 wrote
Hours watched is not a good metric, the finishing rate is far more valuable
logicalnoise t1_j5u1rzs wrote
I think Netflix is definitely playing with fire(regarding the loop of wasted viewing time to cancellations) but based on your argument I'd actually say most likely the top 10 is bullshit. Just like their current gen rating system. It thinks everything is 90% what I want even though it has 90% of shit I don't like.
Owasso_Landman t1_j5tv370 wrote
Reddit has Qanon levels of conspiracies about Netflix. Guess what? They aren’t canceling shows that perform well just for laughs. They are cancelling shows that underperform.