8 ms·

For anyone else wondering “why they’ve decided to do this”— This is an outcome of the WGA strike negotiations. Now writers (and actors, and anyone else) can us

For anyone else wondering “why they’ve decided to do this”— This is an outcome of the WGA strike negotiations. Now writers (and actors, and anyone else) can use this information to better negotiate their worth with studios, rather than it being 1-sided. All other streaming services should be following suit soon. https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/what-we-won https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/what-we-won > Streaming data transparency: Companies agree to provide the Guild the total number of hours streamed, both domestically and internationally, of self-produced high budget streaming programs (e.g., a Netflix original series). Aggregated information can be shared.

spiderice 3y ago
Is this list only self-produced programs then? The Netflix announcement makes it sound like it included everything on Netflix.
- thebradbain 3y ago
  I imagine they’re just releasing everything at this point so they can show the total number of hours watched to investors, who I would guess will also be very interested in the numbers as a benchmark for valuing streaming services going forward. Suits (2011) for example is not a Netflix original, yet it made it into their top 10 by hours viewed.
- antasvara 3y ago
  I've looked at the list and there are plenty of shows that aren't Netflix originals. Not sure how they chose the shows in the list, though.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    Others mention that this is a result of the WGA strike, though apparently the terms of the deal allowed the streaming company's to require an NDA to view the information, so that doesn't explain everything.
- rezonant 3y ago
  It seems not, as from a bit of cursory research, Netflix did not produce Chiquititas (2013), Paw Patrol, Wrong Side of the Tracks, CoComelon, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, Suits, Breaking Bad, etc. For some of these they may have exclusive distribution rights, but I don't think any of those are Netflix Original content.
tiagopavan 3y ago
That's a great outcome. I was the producer of "The Edge of Democracy" - line 14047 of the Excel file with 200,000 hours viewed. Although we were nominated for an Oscar and became a Netflix originals, they've never disclosed any numbers related to how successful (or not) our film was on the platform.
- simlevesque 3y ago
  Very interesting. Now that you know, how do you interpret those numbers ?
- oefrha 3y ago
  If it’s okay to ask, does Netflix only pay a fixed sum (they have to disclose numbers if there are view-based royalties, right)? Is that normal?
  - thebradbain 3y ago
    View-based streaming royalties (“residuals”) were also something won in the strikes. They previously didn’t exist for streaming in the same way they did for cable tv or theatrical releases— no matter how successful the show. That’s part of the reason streamers didn’t want to release numbers in the first place. There were still a lot of other factors then and now when it came to payment—mainly due to the fact the minimums are floors, not maximums—so it isn’t exactly a “flat fee”, but there is a “minimum floor” payment schedule based on a formula of # episodes, genre, # weeks, studio budget, season #, etc. Now it includes # views, when previously it didn’t.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      I wonder if royalty agreements will affect which content the distribution platforms choose to promote. If Netflix pays the creators of show A $X per 1000 views, and of show B 2*$X per 1000 views, I can see them choosing to display A more prominently than B
- thejosh 3y ago
  Wow! Thanks for sharing the insights. Amazing how much data Netflix would have, but sharing it externally would hinder negotiations. So you can't even get total views?!
rr808 3y ago
Who needs new content? Kinda sad to see the most popular shows being Friends, Suits, Breaking Bad, the walking dead etc.
- nine_k 3y ago
  (1) I remember the times when Breaking Bad was new content. (2) Once somebody asked Quentin Taranto in an interview: "So, you haven't managed to produce anything better than Pulp Fiction by now, how come?" Tarantion answered: "You mean, somebody has managed to?" Some things just end up being exceptionally good, and you can't produce another comparable specimen on demand.
  - ycombinete 3y ago
    I wonder if that Tarantino response is apocryphal. I have heard the same interaction credited to Joseph Heller about Catch-22: At appearances to publicise his later books, readers would often bluntly tell him that he hadn’t written anything as good as Catch-22, to which the reply, after a growly laugh, was: “No. But nor has anyone else.” - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/20/george-clooney-joseph-heller-catch-22 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/20/george-clooney...
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      Or perhaps when you create something exceptionally good you end up coming up with this response to the no doubt often repeated question of why you haven't been able to top it, or reading about someone else with the same problem and thinking "hey, that's good - think I'll use it"
    - nindalf 3y ago
      They asked him why he hadn’t been able to come up with a better joke to address that question. He replied with a laugh “no, but nor has anyone else”.
- EvanKnowles 3y ago
  Eventually enough content will have been produced that a human could watch an incredible series every day of their lives without anything new coming out. That's when humanity will peak and crumble happily away.
antientropic 3y ago
Your quote left out "subject to a confidentiality agreement". Streamers are not obliged to make this information public, and I don't expect companies like Amazon to do so since they're extremely secretive about viewership numbers.
- rezonant 3y ago
  Interesting- I'm not sure there's been any streamer more secretive than Netflix about its numbers though.
- thebradbain 3y ago
  Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members! I.E. They do not have to release the numbers publicly, but they’re not really bound by NDA either. I imagine most, if not all, will go the direct route so they can spin the numbers how they want.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    > Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members! No, the Guild would assemble an audit committee of likely three people or a third party auditor would be appointed. It absolutely wouldn't be shared with the entire membership. It would be extremely easy to find the source of a leak, and they'd be subject to ruinous penalties. This is existing practice in a few areas.
rezonant 3y ago
This is fantastic!! Excited to see more data from the other providers, and perhaps building useful things around the data :-D
blitzar 3y ago
I expect they fought for, and won, something that will ultimately work against their best interests. Netflix etal. didnt hide this data to pay writers less, they hid to to juice their stock price. If they disclosed how few views they recieved for the piles of cash they were throwing at original content the magic money tree would have dried up.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  What is really insane is that stockholders didn't press this, but then you remember that most stock is held in trust by the likes of BlackRock who couldn't give less of a damn, and it all makes sense.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    Said stockholders as well as the VCs had/have the exact same incentive as the management of Netflix, namely to see the price of the pieces of paper they hold increase in value.
- thebradbain 3y ago
  And then the WGA and SAG would’ve gone back to primarily working on network television, as they have since the 60s—as that sector of the industry has shown it actually knows how to run a sustainable business. If Netflix can’t run a sustainable business, then it’s everyone’s best interest—workers and investors—that they shut it down. That’s just business. Their numbers suggest otherwise, though— that they can run an extremely profitable business, and now those they depend on can better negotiate for their piece of the pie.

spiderice 3y ago

Is this list only self-produced programs then? The Netflix announcement makes it sound like it included everything on Netflix.

thebradbain 3y ago
I imagine they’re just releasing everything at this point so they can show the total number of hours watched to investors, who I would guess will also be very interested in the numbers as a benchmark for valuing streaming services going forward. Suits (2011) for example is not a Netflix original, yet it made it into their top 10 by hours viewed.
antasvara 3y ago
I've looked at the list and there are plenty of shows that aren't Netflix originals. Not sure how they chose the shows in the list, though.
- rezonant 3y ago
  Others mention that this is a result of the WGA strike, though apparently the terms of the deal allowed the streaming company's to require an NDA to view the information, so that doesn't explain everything.
rezonant 3y ago
It seems not, as from a bit of cursory research, Netflix did not produce Chiquititas (2013), Paw Patrol, Wrong Side of the Tracks, CoComelon, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, Suits, Breaking Bad, etc. For some of these they may have exclusive distribution rights, but I don't think any of those are Netflix Original content.

tiagopavan 3y ago

That's a great outcome. I was the producer of "The Edge of Democracy" - line 14047 of the Excel file with 200,000 hours viewed. Although we were nominated for an Oscar and became a Netflix originals, they've never disclosed any numbers related to how successful (or not) our film was on the platform.

simlevesque 3y ago
Very interesting. Now that you know, how do you interpret those numbers ?
oefrha 3y ago
If it’s okay to ask, does Netflix only pay a fixed sum (they have to disclose numbers if there are view-based royalties, right)? Is that normal?
- thebradbain 3y ago
  View-based streaming royalties (“residuals”) were also something won in the strikes. They previously didn’t exist for streaming in the same way they did for cable tv or theatrical releases— no matter how successful the show. That’s part of the reason streamers didn’t want to release numbers in the first place. There were still a lot of other factors then and now when it came to payment—mainly due to the fact the minimums are floors, not maximums—so it isn’t exactly a “flat fee”, but there is a “minimum floor” payment schedule based on a formula of # episodes, genre, # weeks, studio budget, season #, etc. Now it includes # views, when previously it didn’t.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    I wonder if royalty agreements will affect which content the distribution platforms choose to promote. If Netflix pays the creators of show A $X per 1000 views, and of show B 2*$X per 1000 views, I can see them choosing to display A more prominently than B
thejosh 3y ago
Wow! Thanks for sharing the insights. Amazing how much data Netflix would have, but sharing it externally would hinder negotiations. So you can't even get total views?!

rr808 3y ago

Who needs new content? Kinda sad to see the most popular shows being Friends, Suits, Breaking Bad, the walking dead etc.

nine_k 3y ago
(1) I remember the times when Breaking Bad was new content. (2) Once somebody asked Quentin Taranto in an interview: "So, you haven't managed to produce anything better than Pulp Fiction by now, how come?" Tarantion answered: "You mean, somebody has managed to?" Some things just end up being exceptionally good, and you can't produce another comparable specimen on demand.
- ycombinete 3y ago
  I wonder if that Tarantino response is apocryphal. I have heard the same interaction credited to Joseph Heller about Catch-22: At appearances to publicise his later books, readers would often bluntly tell him that he hadn’t written anything as good as Catch-22, to which the reply, after a growly laugh, was: “No. But nor has anyone else.” - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/20/george-clooney-joseph-heller-catch-22 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/20/george-clooney...
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    Or perhaps when you create something exceptionally good you end up coming up with this response to the no doubt often repeated question of why you haven't been able to top it, or reading about someone else with the same problem and thinking "hey, that's good - think I'll use it"
  - nindalf 3y ago
    They asked him why he hadn’t been able to come up with a better joke to address that question. He replied with a laugh “no, but nor has anyone else”.
EvanKnowles 3y ago
Eventually enough content will have been produced that a human could watch an incredible series every day of their lives without anything new coming out. That's when humanity will peak and crumble happily away.

antientropic 3y ago

Your quote left out "subject to a confidentiality agreement". Streamers are not obliged to make this information public, and I don't expect companies like Amazon to do so since they're extremely secretive about viewership numbers.

rezonant 3y ago
Interesting- I'm not sure there's been any streamer more secretive than Netflix about its numbers though.
thebradbain 3y ago
Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members! I.E. They do not have to release the numbers publicly, but they’re not really bound by NDA either. I imagine most, if not all, will go the direct route so they can spin the numbers how they want.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members! No, the Guild would assemble an audit committee of likely three people or a third party auditor would be appointed. It absolutely wouldn't be shared with the entire membership. It would be extremely easy to find the source of a leak, and they'd be subject to ruinous penalties. This is existing practice in a few areas.

rezonant 3y ago

This is fantastic!! Excited to see more data from the other providers, and perhaps building useful things around the data :-D

blitzar 3y ago

I expect they fought for, and won, something that will ultimately work against their best interests. Netflix etal. didnt hide this data to pay writers less, they hid to to juice their stock price. If they disclosed how few views they recieved for the piles of cash they were throwing at original content the magic money tree would have dried up.

flanked-evergl 3y ago
What is really insane is that stockholders didn't press this, but then you remember that most stock is held in trust by the likes of BlackRock who couldn't give less of a damn, and it all makes sense.
- blitzar 3y ago
  Said stockholders as well as the VCs had/have the exact same incentive as the management of Netflix, namely to see the price of the pieces of paper they hold increase in value.
thebradbain 3y ago
And then the WGA and SAG would’ve gone back to primarily working on network television, as they have since the 60s—as that sector of the industry has shown it actually knows how to run a sustainable business. If Netflix can’t run a sustainable business, then it’s everyone’s best interest—workers and investors—that they shut it down. That’s just business. Their numbers suggest otherwise, though— that they can run an extremely profitable business, and now those they depend on can better negotiate for their piece of the pie.