Killed by Netflix

[Covenant]

Linus and Luke were yacking about 'Killed by Netflix' on Wan Show on Friday wondering if there was such a website (similar to killed by Google). Perhaps not a website, but there's certainly Facebook group in that vain. 

 

Does anyone know if there's an Killed by Netflix website? 

[Middcore]

46 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Is Warrior Nun a long-standing IP? Not really killed by Netflix if not, the show was just bad and didn't get a following.

Warrior Nun had two seasons, was well regarded by critics, and had a dedicated following of some size. I didn't personally watch it and it sounds like you didn't either so neither of us is in a position to say whether it was "bad." Netflix cancelling it is no indication of it's quality or lack thereof; Netflix is notorious for cancelling anything that doesn't bring in new subscribers. It basically doesn't matter to them how many existing subscribers are watching, their only metric is how many new subs they think something generated.

 

Traditional TV made money by selling commercial time. The more viewers a show had, the more eyes would be on the commercials during it, and the more valuable those commercial slots would become. Streaming (except for services like Hulu which have ads even for paid subscribers) can't work this way. If you service has 10 million subs and all 10 million watch your new show you don't actually have any more money than you did before, unless you find some other way to monetize the show's popularity through merchandise or whatever. On the other hand a show which only gets 4 million people watching but with half of those being people who signed up for your service just to watch it is way more valuable despite the drastically smaller total audience.

 

If this sounds unsustainable... Well, yes. It's one of a lot of reasons the streaming business model as it's come to be during the ridiculous proliferation of streaming services in the past 10 years or so is probably unsustainable.

 

Notably Netflix is adding an ad-supported lower-priced subscription tier soon.

[steelo]

Netflix has become near unwatchable. We canceled our membership months ago because there literally is nothing on there. We did enjoy Cobra Kai, The Witcher and stranger things, but no reason to pay $15 a month while we wait for the seasons to renew. The quality of the series/movies on there is about on par with free services like Pluto TV and Roku TV.

[Beerzerker]

Alot of projects being killed off as of late with some that were planned but then cancelled.
This extends into the realm of movies planned to be made too.

[Middcore]

17 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Show doesn't take off and get a following great enough to continue beyond two seasons? Your show flopped for various reasons.

 

As I explained, they have created a business model where how much following a show has doesn't actually matter. It's paradoxical almost to the point of being perverse. 

 

In the days of "traditional" TV, it would be almost unheard-of for a show that maintained a sizable audience to be cancelled. The biggest notable exception would be CBS's famous "Rural Purge", where they axed a bunch of shows that had lots of viewers but (in their eyes) the wrong kind of viewers: demographics who weren't likely to be appealing to advertisers and thus kept CBS from making as much money as they wanted selling commercials.

 

The streaming business model has created a dynamic where a show could actually have more people watching than anything else on the service and still be vulnerable to cancellation based on whether those viewers were new or existing subscribers.

 

The point I am trying to get across here is not to defend the quality of Warrior Nun - I haven't watched it, and its actual quality is immaterial. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be surprising for Netflix to "kill" any IP, no matter how well-known and popular it is, because they have a broken business model that makes success by any reasonable metric almost impossible to achieve.

 

 

 

 

[Middcore]

1 minute ago, WildDagwood said:

You're arguing a different point altogether.

 

My point is you can't "kill" a show that was never established to begin with, it was just cancelled.

 

I'd be curious for examples of new shows pulling more viewership than any other on the platform and getting cancelled though.

 

Netflix has never actually released viewership numbers in a meaningful way. A year or two ago they started releasing data on how many "hours" their supposedly most popular various stuff was watched (which is not the same as the number of people watching, obviously). Last month they started releasing data on the number of viewers... but only in the UK.

 

So it's entirely possible WN actually was pulling more views than anything else on the service and we would never find out. Is it likely? Nah. But there is no logical reason why it couldn't have and still been cancelled anyway, because the way Netflix has conditioned itself institutionally to measure success, being the most-viewed thing on the service in and of itself would mean nothing. 

 

 

[Middcore]

Just now, WildDagwood said:

Again, my issue is with the use of the language, not how or why the show was cancelled.

Well, I don't think the "killed by Netflix" portrayal is the best way of looking at it either. But you're arguing it's a bad way of portraying things because "Meh, show must not have been popular" and I am arguing it's a bad way of portraying things because it misunderstands Netflix fundamentally. 

 

 

Just now, WildDagwood said:

Viewer retention is just as important as bringing on new subs

 

You and I would think, yes. But that isn't how Netflix thinks, or at least it hasn't been until recently. 

 

It was "only" five years ago that South Park did the "Thanks for calling Netflix, you're greenlit" joke. At that point the perception was that Netflix would throw money at just about anything, try it out for a season or two, keep it if it was pulling new subs and cancel it if it didn't. They presumed that once people signed up to see whatever, they would find enough other content to keep the service, or that the monthly rate would be low enough that they'd just never bother to cancel. Any loss of existing subscribers would always be more than offset by growth. So why not throw money at experiments? Major competitors to Netflix didn't exist then: Hulu was on a different model, Disney+ didn't exist and Netflix was still getting all of the Marvel stuff, Peacock and Paramount Plus didn't exist, Amazon Prime streaming existed but wasn't a major force at all. 

 

To say a lot has changed since then would be an understatement. Netflix has lost vast swathes of its content library as the companies that produced it grab it make to make it exclusive to their own services and many people (including some in this thread) say there is nothing to watch on Netflix anymore. High subscriber churn rates have made headlines. Netflix is being forced to learn that the line does not, in fact, only go up. They're in a position now where they'll have to have some original stuff to hold on to subs (and still try to get new ones of course) because they can't rely on a huge back catalog of stuff other companies made, but they also can't afford to just throw money at random stuff anymore. We're probably going to see them get way more conservatives in the original content they greenlight. Shows like WN probably won't even see the light of day anymore. Stranger Things is Netflix's shining success of the "greenlight everything" era but I dare say in a shifted timeline where the Duffer brothers walked in to Netflix in 2023 instead of 2014 or whenever they actually pitched it, Stranger Things is seen as too big a risk and does not get made. 

 

 

 

 

[Beerzerker]

7 hours ago, Middcore said:

Well, I don't think the "killed by Netflix" portrayal is the best way of looking at it either. But you're arguing it's a bad way of portraying things because "Meh, show must not have been popular" and I am arguing it's a bad way of portraying things because it misunderstands Netflix fundamentally. 

 

 

 

You and I would think, yes. But that isn't how Netflix thinks, or at least it hasn't been until recently. 

 

It was "only" five years ago that South Park did the "Thanks for calling Netflix, you're greenlit" joke. At that point the perception was that Netflix would throw money at just about anything, try it out for a season or two, keep it if it was pulling new subs and cancel it if it didn't. They presumed that once people signed up to see whatever, they would find enough other content to keep the service, or that the monthly rate would be low enough that they'd just never bother to cancel. Any loss of existing subscribers would always be more than offset by growth. So why not throw money at experiments? Major competitors to Netflix didn't exist then: Hulu was on a different model, Disney+ didn't exist and Netflix was still getting all of the Marvel stuff, Peacock and Paramount Plus didn't exist, Amazon Prime streaming existed but wasn't a major force at all. 

 

To say a lot has changed since then would be an understatement. Netflix has lost vast swathes of its content library as the companies that produced it grab it make to make it exclusive to their own services and many people (including some in this thread) say there is nothing to watch on Netflix anymore. High subscriber churn rates have made headlines. Netflix is being forced to learn that the line does not, in fact, only go up. They're in a position now where they'll have to have some original stuff to hold on to subs (and still try to get new ones of course) because they can't rely on a huge back catalog of stuff other companies made, but they also can't afford to just throw money at random stuff anymore. We're probably going to see them get way more conservatives in the original content they greenlight. Shows like WN probably won't even see the light of day anymore. Stranger Things is Netflix's shining success of the "greenlight everything" era but I dare say in a shifted timeline where the Duffer brothers walked in to Netflix in 2023 instead of 2014 or whenever they actually pitched it, Stranger Things is seen as too big a risk and does not get made. 

 

 

 

 

I think you're really saying it's not about viewership in numbers, rather how many new viewers a show can pull in to sign onto the service.
Correct me if I'm wrong about your point but that's how I'm perceiving it.

Don't forget we've had some studio execs making dumbassed decisions too regardless of the numbers - Venture Bros is a perfect example of it.
That show always had high ratings and a cycle of a new season every two to three years which the network, up until when it got canned was OK with because of it's ratings, even shown as reruns of older episodes.
 
I heard (Rumor mill) it was some new exec that was recently appointed and made the decision to pull the plug instead of just letting it run it's course, which was due to end within a season or two anyway.
I'm wondering if that guy is still there due to backlash it's cancellation generated..... Probrably so and I'd have to guess that was just an early symptom/sign of the "New" way shows are evaluated as being worth keeping vs cancelled.