6 ms·

I don't think we are. I agree the the amount of just okay content that is being released seems overwhelming. But people are watching it. And its more targeted t

I don't think we are. I agree the the amount of just okay content that is being released seems overwhelming. But people are watching it. And its more targeted to specific demographics. I have friends who love X netflix show because its the first time someone like the is the actual target audience and that is reflected by the show. I don't love the show and that is okay because I'm not who they are trying to reach. I realized as a 20-50 middle income white guy I was the target demographic for 90%+ of the shows on television. Even if I thought X new sitcom was garbage at least I could relate to it. Now that isnt true so that show probably seems even less appealing than it did before. So I just dont watch it. That's fine. And once in a while a squid games, BEHIND HER EYES, or damn it even love is blind pops up and I get to enjoy bingeing a show with family/friends. More content is coming out and it is more targeted. Those that are hits get renewed and those that flop dont. It's the same system as always but more targeted.

rchaud 5y ago
Too few of these shows last long enough for them to generate future value via syndication. Networks will buy a one-off movie, but not a single 10-episode season of something for a very niche audience.
- soco 5y ago
  I'm actually wondering what is the future of those networks anyway...
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  A future streaming service will pick up the good ones. The benefit to killing off traditional syndication is that it removes future losses from royalties.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    Networks don't pay out royalties for syndicated shows. The production studio that owns the show pays out the royalties, based on the income they receive from the channels syndicating the show. (Fox TV, for example, made Modern Family, which aired on ABC. Fox TV pays out the royalties received from the channels that syndicate reruns of the show, not ABC.)
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Fox TV pays out the royalties received from the channels that syndicate reruns of the show, not ABC When Modern Family was first made, that would have been a bigger distinction. Now, it's “which of Disney’s pockets are we talking about”?
- jjulius 5y ago
  >Too few of these shows last long enough for them to generate future value via syndication. Forgive my ignorance, but is syndication even relevant to many of these shows/networks anymore, now that you can just drop something onto a streaming service and leave it there in perpetuity?
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    It ought to be. The whole problem right now is that broadcasters and content producers are the same thing. Content is almost 100% siloed now, and culture will fracture because of it. Content streaming should not require you to be a content producer. That isn't a competitive marketplace. Who wants to have Neflix, Amazon Prime, Paramount+, HBOMax, Disney+, Hulu, CBS Whatevertheycallit, Peacock (NBC), etc., etc., etc., until you're paying $500/mo.? They'd love for that to happen, but there's no way. Nobody is going to do that. Every content producer want 100% control and 100% profits. They're just going to kill the golden goose.
    - dasil003 5y ago
      Culture has already fractured, and it's mostly due to YouTube/Twitch/TikTok, and not so much about the siloing. I'm not sure I agree that it's not a competitive marketplace though, just look at all the players! What I would agree with is that it's not consumer friendly, and I agree no one will pay $500/mo, but a lot of people have been paying $100-$150 for cable for decades, and for that budget you can still get a lot of good stuff without needing to get everything. All that said though, the vertical integration is pretty interesting because this is how the movies studios were set up in the first half of the twentieth century. They owned the production (including actors as highly paid indentured servants) and the theaters. It was only in 1948 that anti-trust action was taken to force them to divest theaters. That's super interesting because it's hard to imagine that type of anti-trust action today.
    - watwut 5y ago
      That sounds like a competitive marketplace. Syndication on the other hand sounds like uniformity
echelon 5y ago
>> I believe we’re in a content bubble. > I don't think we are. I agree the the amount of just okay content that is being released seems overwhelming. Agree. It's a search space problem. If there was a perfect amount of ideal content, everyone would be glued to their screens 24/7. Large and medium budget projects come in two forms: - Easy win tentpole features. Marvel, Star Wars. Typically generic and bland (though they don't have to be) that can attract lots of eyeballs and starve your competition. - Bold bets that garner attention by surprise. These surface the unknown or unmet interests of a broad number of consumers. Stranger Things (80's nostalgia and horror fantasy), Squid Game (Battle Royale / Hunger Games still has gas). Netfix is trying to find a lot of the second category by firing shots into search space. It's producing mixed results, which should be expected. Unfortunately they can't slow down yet, because their third party content libraries are drying up. The problem is that it's all too expensive. Difficult and costly to make, and too many things that can go wrong and turn any good project into something that sucks. Everything has to be perfect. Netflix can afford to do more curation in the future once consolidation has happened. Perhaps buying NBC, CBS, or the new Discovery could give them some breathing room.

rchaud 5y ago

Too few of these shows last long enough for them to generate future value via syndication. Networks will buy a one-off movie, but not a single 10-episode season of something for a very niche audience.

soco 5y ago
I'm actually wondering what is the future of those networks anyway...
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
A future streaming service will pick up the good ones. The benefit to killing off traditional syndication is that it removes future losses from royalties.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Networks don't pay out royalties for syndicated shows. The production studio that owns the show pays out the royalties, based on the income they receive from the channels syndicating the show. (Fox TV, for example, made Modern Family, which aired on ABC. Fox TV pays out the royalties received from the channels that syndicate reruns of the show, not ABC.)
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Fox TV pays out the royalties received from the channels that syndicate reruns of the show, not ABC When Modern Family was first made, that would have been a bigger distinction. Now, it's “which of Disney’s pockets are we talking about”?
jjulius 5y ago
>Too few of these shows last long enough for them to generate future value via syndication. Forgive my ignorance, but is syndication even relevant to many of these shows/networks anymore, now that you can just drop something onto a streaming service and leave it there in perpetuity?
- da_chicken 5y ago
  It ought to be. The whole problem right now is that broadcasters and content producers are the same thing. Content is almost 100% siloed now, and culture will fracture because of it. Content streaming should not require you to be a content producer. That isn't a competitive marketplace. Who wants to have Neflix, Amazon Prime, Paramount+, HBOMax, Disney+, Hulu, CBS Whatevertheycallit, Peacock (NBC), etc., etc., etc., until you're paying $500/mo.? They'd love for that to happen, but there's no way. Nobody is going to do that. Every content producer want 100% control and 100% profits. They're just going to kill the golden goose.
  - dasil003 5y ago
    Culture has already fractured, and it's mostly due to YouTube/Twitch/TikTok, and not so much about the siloing. I'm not sure I agree that it's not a competitive marketplace though, just look at all the players! What I would agree with is that it's not consumer friendly, and I agree no one will pay $500/mo, but a lot of people have been paying $100-$150 for cable for decades, and for that budget you can still get a lot of good stuff without needing to get everything. All that said though, the vertical integration is pretty interesting because this is how the movies studios were set up in the first half of the twentieth century. They owned the production (including actors as highly paid indentured servants) and the theaters. It was only in 1948 that anti-trust action was taken to force them to divest theaters. That's super interesting because it's hard to imagine that type of anti-trust action today.
  - watwut 5y ago
    That sounds like a competitive marketplace. Syndication on the other hand sounds like uniformity

echelon 5y ago

>> I believe we’re in a content bubble. > I don't think we are. I agree the the amount of just okay content that is being released seems overwhelming. Agree. It's a search space problem. If there was a perfect amount of ideal content, everyone would be glued to their screens 24/7. Large and medium budget projects come in two forms: - Easy win tentpole features. Marvel, Star Wars. Typically generic and bland (though they don't have to be) that can attract lots of eyeballs and starve your competition. - Bold bets that garner attention by surprise. These surface the unknown or unmet interests of a broad number of consumers. Stranger Things (80's nostalgia and horror fantasy), Squid Game (Battle Royale / Hunger Games still has gas). Netfix is trying to find a lot of the second category by firing shots into search space. It's producing mixed results, which should be expected. Unfortunately they can't slow down yet, because their third party content libraries are drying up. The problem is that it's all too expensive. Difficult and costly to make, and too many things that can go wrong and turn any good project into something that sucks. Everything has to be perfect. Netflix can afford to do more curation in the future once consolidation has happened. Perhaps buying NBC, CBS, or the new Discovery could give them some breathing room.