4 ms·
This is an interesting statement to think about. At first, I nod in agreement. Upon second thought, I realize that it points right at the age-old debate about w
by eob 14y ago
This is an interesting statement to think about. At first, I nod in agreement. Upon second thought, I realize that it points right at the age-old debate about what makes art "art".
Is good art that which sells, or is good art that which connoisseurs find taste in?
Perhaps the only reasonable response is to admit that there is value in both definitions, and it would be a good thing if the television market allowed for both approaches to flourish.
That said, even if public investors aren't provided viewership numbers, you can sure bet Netflix is paying attention internally. So this is probably just a more private version of the same old ratings game.
- duaneb 14y agoWell, I think ratings will always be useful—not all new shows are good, and ratings help weed the failures from the successes. I just hope for a future where ratings don't dictate income, as they currently do via advertisements. Netflix doesn't have this problem because they aren't beholden to advertisers. I hope they get The News Hour or something soon, I would watch the fuck out of it.
- corin_ 14y agoRatings for Netflix shows may impact revenue less directly, but they still very much do, else they wouldn't be making them at all. A good show could bring subscribers in, or convince subscribers to keep paying, while a bad show.. well, it probably won't drive people away on its own, but it certainly could bring in / keep less subscribers than it cost to make.
- duaneb 14y agoI more meant they don't have the advertiser problem.
- corin_ 14y agoNews is not art. Or more accurately, art is not news. Sure, there's value in many things on the spectrum from trashy celebrity gossip to ground-breaking scientific reporting to reality television and music videos and much more - not all of it is news. In art, wine, whisky, software, many areas it's fine to argue whether quality or popularity is king ($20 blended vs. 30yo single malt, beautiful code vs. news.arc), but not in news. There's good news and there's crappy news, and sadly it seems crappy news is the more popular, but that doesn't mean it's better. It may generally be a snobby view to take, but I think I'm reasonably unbiased in that I light trashy celebrity gossip and shit entertainment forms as much as anyone. Side note: Sorkin's The Newsroom tackles the debate of quality vs. ratings when it comes to televised news. It's an absolutely fantastic show (at least it is if, like me, you share the creator's left-leaning politics, I've no idea if people with differing views would necessarily enjoy it as much as I do.)