25 ms·

I think people who are being downvoted in this thread have valid points, and they’re not really critiquing the company, rather the problem seems to be your mess

I think people who are being downvoted in this thread have valid points, and they’re not really critiquing the company, rather the problem seems to be your messaging. You shouldn’t say “Netflix for black people” because Netflix is for black people already. Moreover if I start selling boxed water called “water for black people” with black stories on the carton, I’m unnecessarily limiting my audience (even alienating some) just via my poor choice of name. Ironically, some of those alienated are going to be black people themselves - such naming will certainly stir memories of the segregation era, don’t you think?

disneygibson 5y ago
This is an easy fix. Make it “Netflix by Black People” or “Netflix by Black Creators.” by, not for
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kbenson 5y ago
  I don't know. I think "by" implies creation/ownership of the company in that case, but the important part is what it provides, not who owns it. Just like the GP, does "Water by Black (Whatever)" really have a draw? Some people may want to support people they identify with, but I think most just want a good product, so the trick is making sure that product is easily identified for those that are interested in it. Maybe trying to call to associations with BET is enough, and something like Black Streaming Entertainment (BSE, to avoid possible problems with BES) would be enough? Although if it's free, to my eyes BlackStream seems like it would be ideal.
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t. Restaurant for Italians. Suggests that non-Italians don’t belong here. Restaurant by Italians. Suggests that Italians make the food here and that it’s not for a particular group.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t. I'm not disagreeing with that specific point. Just making a corollary that by doesn't necessarily identify what it is in all contexts, as it's more ambiguous depending on where it's used. For a restaurant, it's fairly obvious because we have prior assumptions about the service. It it was laundry, the assumption might just be it was advertising itself as a black owned business. For a streaming service? Probably more on the side of how a restaurant is seen, but why even court that confusion? Most restaurants would avoid it as well, and call themselves Soul Food or some other moniker that clearly communicates what it serves as opposed to who runs it. "Restaurant by Black People" might communicate something about the restaurant enough to most people, but it's also just a poor choice of description all around. Netflix by Black People is similarly a poor description, IMO.
- rory 5y ago
  Maybe they could call it "For Us By Us"
zentiggr 5y ago
You make it sound like segregation end... the last few years, and especially the state voting laws passed in the past year, show that while it may not be explicit law anymore, it is still certainly what a lot of people are fighting to do in any way possible. I (as a middle age white male) WANT people to be thinking about because it's still happening 24/7, and people who aren't bigoted should be aware and pushing back every minute, in every way they can. Saying "X for black people" is a cultural focus, on the same level as "Finnish music" or "Flamenco dance" or "Swahili language".
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  It's not though is it? "black people" are not a cultural group are they?
  - adenozine 5y ago
    American black sorta kinda is, and I think Americanized thought leaders on all this stuff are muddying the waters immensely.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      > sorta kinda I think the muddying consists of the fact that conflating physical traits with cultural identity means that any criticism of the given culture can be and is frequently labeled as racism.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    They are; not one group but many (still distinct from "non-black").
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      I don't think it's possible or reasonable, particularly in the US, to assume or associate cultural identity with physical traits.
  - 5y ago
bishoprook2 5y ago
>You shouldn’t say “Netflix for black people” because Netflix is for black people already. Judging from the Netflix recommended videos and casting for Netflix originated shows, I'd say that goal has been achieved at this point. You do have to wonder how overlooked Spanish speakers must feel. That's probably where the real money is in 'Netflix for xxx people'.
- axaxs 5y ago
  I think any 'foreign' demographic would be a rather big hit. I know plenty of folks who watch just one or two foreign language stations, because that's all that really cater to or interest them. There's definitely been more movement in the space, but it's still really lacking. I can't imagine it would cost a ton to license most foreign content for the US, which they currently have 0 percent market share of.

disneygibson 5y ago

This is an easy fix. Make it “Netflix by Black People” or “Netflix by Black Creators.” by, not for

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 5y ago
I don't know. I think "by" implies creation/ownership of the company in that case, but the important part is what it provides, not who owns it. Just like the GP, does "Water by Black (Whatever)" really have a draw? Some people may want to support people they identify with, but I think most just want a good product, so the trick is making sure that product is easily identified for those that are interested in it. Maybe trying to call to associations with BET is enough, and something like Black Streaming Entertainment (BSE, to avoid possible problems with BES) would be enough? Although if it's free, to my eyes BlackStream seems like it would be ideal.
- disneygibson 5y ago
  My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t. Restaurant for Italians. Suggests that non-Italians don’t belong here. Restaurant by Italians. Suggests that Italians make the food here and that it’s not for a particular group.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t. I'm not disagreeing with that specific point. Just making a corollary that by doesn't necessarily identify what it is in all contexts, as it's more ambiguous depending on where it's used. For a restaurant, it's fairly obvious because we have prior assumptions about the service. It it was laundry, the assumption might just be it was advertising itself as a black owned business. For a streaming service? Probably more on the side of how a restaurant is seen, but why even court that confusion? Most restaurants would avoid it as well, and call themselves Soul Food or some other moniker that clearly communicates what it serves as opposed to who runs it. "Restaurant by Black People" might communicate something about the restaurant enough to most people, but it's also just a poor choice of description all around. Netflix by Black People is similarly a poor description, IMO.
rory 5y ago
Maybe they could call it "For Us By Us"

zentiggr 5y ago

You make it sound like segregation end... the last few years, and especially the state voting laws passed in the past year, show that while it may not be explicit law anymore, it is still certainly what a lot of people are fighting to do in any way possible. I (as a middle age white male) WANT people to be thinking about because it's still happening 24/7, and people who aren't bigoted should be aware and pushing back every minute, in every way they can. Saying "X for black people" is a cultural focus, on the same level as "Finnish music" or "Flamenco dance" or "Swahili language".

thegrimmest 5y ago
It's not though is it? "black people" are not a cultural group are they?
- adenozine 5y ago
  American black sorta kinda is, and I think Americanized thought leaders on all this stuff are muddying the waters immensely.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > sorta kinda I think the muddying consists of the fact that conflating physical traits with cultural identity means that any criticism of the given culture can be and is frequently labeled as racism.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  They are; not one group but many (still distinct from "non-black").
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I don't think it's possible or reasonable, particularly in the US, to assume or associate cultural identity with physical traits.
- 5y ago

bishoprook2 5y ago

>You shouldn’t say “Netflix for black people” because Netflix is for black people already. Judging from the Netflix recommended videos and casting for Netflix originated shows, I'd say that goal has been achieved at this point. You do have to wonder how overlooked Spanish speakers must feel. That's probably where the real money is in 'Netflix for xxx people'.

axaxs 5y ago
I think any 'foreign' demographic would be a rather big hit. I know plenty of folks who watch just one or two foreign language stations, because that's all that really cater to or interest them. There's definitely been more movement in the space, but it's still really lacking. I can't imagine it would cost a ton to license most foreign content for the US, which they currently have 0 percent market share of.