Submitted by gotellauntrhodie t3_xt1b1w in television
MurielHorseflesh t1_iqnhrs5 wrote
The problem we have with streaming services over regular tv with advertising is that if a show like The Sandman is a success on regular tv, advertisers coming running to pay for a slot somewhere in the show, that fast and large monetary input gets the wheels turning far faster when approving the next season.
Netflix probably didn’t gain any new subscribers from The Sandman. That’s nothing against the show. But streaming services have mostly stagnated and plateaued with growth. They lose some and gain some a month as people drift around but ultimately they have roughly the same revenue coming in per month.
The Sandman whilst critically lauded and well received by the audience probably didn’t make Netflix any more money that month than they did the month before.
So now they have to sit and figure out where they can find the money for season 2 and when they can fit that into the income/outcome structure they have. They only have so much money to play with, they have plenty of other things to fund before they can get to The Sandman season 2. So they make us wait.
reddig33 t1_iqnvl1u wrote
Would be interesting if canceled streaming shows would go running to broadcast for a second chance (both for the show and the broadcaster). It’s not like there’s much quality on broadcast networks right now.
jakeba t1_iqnyirh wrote
They can try now, but the shows are too expensive to make so broadcast networks arent interested.
Radulno t1_iqq0t45 wrote
Lol if something like The Sandman failed because it didn't find enough audience for its cost, it has no chance on network TV. It's less viewers and they have less budget to spend on shows.
Radulno t1_iqq0nml wrote
They also probably have the problem that anyone that wants Netflix has Netflix now or close to it and it's not a new show or two that will change that, at worst it changes the churn rate (people cancel a little later or come back earlier). That's why their growth have slowed, they're close to market saturation really.
As for advertising, that's why all the services are starting to do it.
Also yeah, The Sandman is expensive and didn't have enough viewers to justify its budget so it's a risk. Netflix has plenty of money but they also can't afford to run something at a loss completely, they're not Amazon or Apple (which don't play by the same rules than all the others btw, their business model shouldn't be compared)
IvarTheBloody t1_iqxtsmv wrote
The problem Netflix is already running into is they have no catalogue of finished shows, everything gets cancelled as soon as it drops viewers.
Does anyone go and watch shows that you know have been cancelled and will never get a ending, why should I bother keeping my Netflix subscription when all the shows I would want to go back and rewatch have no endings.
Stiff like the OA, great show, absolutely loved it but what's the point in rewatching it when I know the cliffhanger will never get resolved.
Apple are taking it slow and steady but I guarantee in 10 years they will have the best catalogue of finished good shows out of all the streaming services, probably even better than HBO.
Just look at SEE, no one watches it, it's expensive as fuck and yet they still gave it a 3rd season to finish up, so that even 10 years down the line new subscribers can go back and binge a great show that is complete.
im_a_dick_head t1_iqs5a48 wrote
I don't get why Netflix doesn't make some lower budget shows without crazy effects and famous actors. I like procedurals and stuff but Netflix doesn't have/make many of them, I go to Hulu/Peacock for that stuff. I'm mainly talking about shows like first responder procedurals or even medical shows, they don't make those they just take them from other networks.
archlector t1_iqpx2qv wrote
A show like Sandman would never have been made in the traditional advertising driven model. Your post is delusional, lol.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments