Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lennydykstra17 t1_j5ty10a wrote

Reply to comment by WordsAreSomething in Testing the claim by Ted Sarandos that Netflix does not cancel "successful" shows by applying some actual numbers by [deleted]

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.

7

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.

1

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.

−1

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.

2

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.

1