Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vlsdo t1_j5r167q wrote

Sure, if you define success as not having been cancelled, his statement is correct

538

AllenRBrady t1_j5rzexj wrote

Exactly. I haven't killed a single living person.

134

bfoster1801 t1_j5ts2xm wrote

How many dead people have you killed?

28

AllenRBrady t1_j5uloyi wrote

None of them were dead at the time. What they choose to do with their lives after I've killed them is out of my hands.

27

Gwiny t1_j5siqbf wrote

They most likely define success as views and retention. I haven't seen the metrics, but my guess would be that most shows are "a small group of people really likes it but it doesn't draw the larger audience and as such doesn't pay for itself". Yes, a show does need to have a large audience to exist, otherwise it's a waste of money. No, the fact that you personally really really liked it doesn't make it "successful"

18

vlsdo t1_j5tsix2 wrote

Funny thing about viewership metrics though, it turns out people aren't very willing to engage with shows that will likely be cancelled after one season. I believe Netflix is doing this to themselves to a degree and they might not even realize it.

25

ConfidentHope t1_j5u6rbp wrote

I don’t think they realize how many of their subscribers are around because they like the niche content. Now that it’s clear they don’t renew unique (non-blockbuster) shows their subscribers will drop and drop as those people lose interest.

I support the concept of shows like Stranger Things, but it’s not my cup of tea. I like Nick Kroll, but Big Mouth and its spin-offs are too crass for me. I’ll watch a click-bait-y doc here and there, but even those are losing their charm because they feel more and more like poorly researched YouTube videos.

I used to love getting surprised by interesting television on Netflix. The OA is a masterpiece. I’m still thinking about 1899 even now. I Think You Should Leave is one of the funniest sketch shows I’ve ever seen (thankfully not canceled yet). Heartstopper is a heartbreaker.

But those are the exceptions, not the rule.

14

willstr1 t1_j5tyn12 wrote

Absolutely. If someone doesn't change something I see an imminent death spiral. People won't watch new shows out of fear of a cancelation with a cliffhanger, causing Netflix to cancel pretty much every show after their first season. Eventually leading to people leaving Netflix as long as the other streaming services do a better job at telling complete stories.

One possible change would be if Netflix shows were self contained stories each season, no cliffhangers or dangling threads. So that way when they get canceled it will still suck but won't make the shows complete wastes of time

6

jacob4408 t1_j5ulw9z wrote

This. I've been a netflix member since 2008 and I just cancelled my membership after finding out that netflix cancelled 1899. With a cliffhanger ending. It's simply not worth taking a chance on any of their new shows anymore.

7

blackjackm99 t1_j5sm49d wrote

Just like all things statistics, meaning is derived by how you view the numbers. A show can be successful in terms of overall viewership and still be deemed a failure due to stable numbers. In most scenarios stable is good, but to TV execs and venture capitalists anything less than constant growth is a failure. You shouldn’t be so quick to throw shade at fans for the defense of their fandom.

15

Gwiny t1_j5t5g3z wrote

And you shouldn't be quick to throw shade on people whose entire job is to manage their business. Finance department people who do nothing but calculate which metrics exactly the show needs to hit in order to be worth it. I mean, I'm not gonna say that the business doesn't make mistakes. Businesses make lots of mistakes, and sometimes quite stupid ones. But yes, unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary, my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs they were employed to do, and that the decisions they make are sensible

−12

Delini t1_j5uc8c4 wrote

>... unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary

That's easy. Watch Netflix.

>... my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs.

Have you met people? Personally, I look at low odds of getting a group of competent ones together at the same place, and use the default assumption that at one point they were less incompetent than their competitors and that momentum can keep things going for a long time after that is no longer true.

4

gyroidatansin t1_j5tv1p8 wrote

One word. Firefly. The show was very successful after it was cancelled. Initial views and retention only define success of you choose that definition. If you are the one defining it, then you are always right. But if you listen to those small groups of fans, they can become large groups of fans. If you cancel a show and never redefine success, then it’s self fulfilling prophecy.

10

DanNZN t1_j5uuh29 wrote

I think Firefly got successful because it was cancelled. No one I know including myself even heard about the show until it was canned then decided to check it out.

6

Gwiny t1_j5twkwt wrote

Small groups of fans can become large groups of fans. They also can remain small groups, or even diminish. And the general principle of everything is that successes are much more rare than failures, and the majority of media that didn't catch immediate attention will... just die unknown.

If you gave a chance to every movie that might become popular, you'd be throwing huge piles of money on nothing. Which is not the best business strategy

0

jacob4408 t1_j5um9c4 wrote

Yeah, like this business strategy is working for them.

4

Pudding_Hero t1_j5uqldz wrote

Shows are canceled for emotional or petty business reasons all the time

1