3 ms·
> I guess it shows that novelty is probably what drives people to the platform and gets new subscribers. It assumes that novelty is what drives people to the
by Majromax 6y ago
> I guess it shows that novelty is probably what drives people to the platform and gets new subscribers.
It assumes that novelty is what drives people to the platform and increases/maintains the subscriber base.
However, Netflix's evident model is not capable of falsifying this assumption. By cancelling series as soon as they plateau (not even _decline_, given reporting (https://www.wired.com/story/why-netflix-keeps-canceling-shows-after-just-2-seasons/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-netflix-keeps-canceling-show...) of its production cost escalator), they do not generate a large library of "complete series" for later viewing.
This also puzzles me, since it contradicts Netflix's willingness to pay a pretty penny for established series like Friends. Its current show-commissioning practices seem to be incapable of generating a new generational hit like that.
- skohan 6y agoI agree, and I think it's a problem which can occur in data-driven systems: the system can stabilize at a non-optimal local maximum. Ideally they should A/B test at least occasionally with different decision models to see if their assumptions are correct, but those are very expensive experiments to run when you're talking about the production of a TV series.
- Majromax 6y agoIt's also difficult because Friends is also a long-tail phenomenon. There were dozens of 90s sitcoms that failed to become generational hits. Also, a counter-argument to my proposition above is that broadcast TV through the mid-90s had a captive audience in a way that Netflix doesn't. To a limited extent, broadcast TV could force audiences to become familiar with a show, pushing an originally-marginal show over a threshold of popularity.