Casual Viewing
December 20, 2024 7:15 AM Subscribe
Netflix’s movies don’t have to abide by any of the norms established over the history of cinema: they don’t have to be profitable, pretty, sexy, intelligent, funny, well-made, or anything else that pulls audiences into theater seats (sln+1)
I did mention a long time ago that a friend of ours, an author, had a pitch meeting with Netflix. The executive told him point blank his pitch had too much plot; they wanted media that people could second stream without paying attention. Our friend had previously had moderate success being on the writing team for Netflix's now-cancelled original series Away.
I did mention a long time ago that a friend of ours, an author, had a pitch meeting with Netflix. The executive told him point blank his pitch had too much plot; they wanted media that people could second stream without paying attention. Our friend had previously had moderate success being on the writing team for Netflix's now-cancelled original series Away.
...they wanted media that people could second stream without paying attention.
I mean, I’ve done supposed movie nights with groups of friends from all across the age spectrum, and few of them could watch the movie without also staring at their phones or getting into discussions with each other about completely unrelated stuff. So, yeah, I totally get where the Netflix exec is coming from. They aren’t Criterion. They are wallpaper that occasionally does something fun or surprising that you can rewind and see what you missed.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
I mean, I’ve done supposed movie nights with groups of friends from all across the age spectrum, and few of them could watch the movie without also staring at their phones or getting into discussions with each other about completely unrelated stuff. So, yeah, I totally get where the Netflix exec is coming from. They aren’t Criterion. They are wallpaper that occasionally does something fun or surprising that you can rewind and see what you missed.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
I've watched some movies with kids at school, and even the kids who choose which movie we'll watch on the half day / day before break / etc often won't really watch it, it's usually just background noise. Same as having the radio on all day to keep you company.
posted by subdee at 7:33 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:33 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I guess the question that raises for me is, at what point does a streaming service have enough wallpaper that they don't even need to bother spending millions to make more of it?
posted by humbug at 7:39 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
posted by humbug at 7:39 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
Netflix is really the worst cesspool of algorithmic fuckery over quality these days.
I don't even have my own account anymore, I just rent a slot on a family account via a nice man in India. The username/password changes all the time, I have to log in all over every two to five weeks, and I can't really keep a history. But for as much as I watch it, the $5.49 this guy charges me is a better match of price to value. (MeMail about this if you like. It's a journalist's side hustle and he is organized and reliable.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:42 AM on December 20 [21 favorites]
I don't even have my own account anymore, I just rent a slot on a family account via a nice man in India. The username/password changes all the time, I have to log in all over every two to five weeks, and I can't really keep a history. But for as much as I watch it, the $5.49 this guy charges me is a better match of price to value. (MeMail about this if you like. It's a journalist's side hustle and he is organized and reliable.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:42 AM on December 20 [21 favorites]
Netflix is really the worst cesspool of algorithmic fuckery over quality these days.
Not been over to Prime lately, have you? YouTube remains the champ of “wtf do they think I want to watch that?” of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:48 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
Not been over to Prime lately, have you? YouTube remains the champ of “wtf do they think I want to watch that?” of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:48 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I haven't enjoyed Netflix in years but I think it's because I am very very slow in keeping up with stuff. I have reached an age--or again, I think it's my ADHD--where I can't sit still enough to binge a lot of episodes. When Shepherd and I watch stuff--and he's a dedicated second streamer--together, I am good for about two episodes or a 90-100 minute movie, but after that, I want get off the couch and go do something else. (Like, I literally just finished Agatha All Along last weekend).
The article makes me sad in that yes, Netflix throws a shit ton of money to make stuff, but the stuff isn't good on purpose. Or rather, it's meant to tick off a list of what their stats say people want. But hey, if that's what the good watchers of Netflix want, this works out excellently for them.
And The Old Guard was damn good. Especially with a gay romance that didn't end in death.
posted by Kitteh at 7:51 AM on December 20 [13 favorites]
The article makes me sad in that yes, Netflix throws a shit ton of money to make stuff, but the stuff isn't good on purpose. Or rather, it's meant to tick off a list of what their stats say people want. But hey, if that's what the good watchers of Netflix want, this works out excellently for them.
And The Old Guard was damn good. Especially with a gay romance that didn't end in death.
posted by Kitteh at 7:51 AM on December 20 [13 favorites]
No no no you were right the first time.
If punk rock taught us nothing else, it s that "ticking off a list" equals "making stuff that isn't good on purpose."
the stuff isn't good on purpose. Or rather, it's meant to tick off a list of what their stats say people want
We need organization, and organization makes lists (or, "algorithms", "AI", "formula" however you want to label them)
Art is the spark of creation within limits, and the death of art is allowing the list and limits to direct the reason that you made the thing
posted by eustatic at 8:00 AM on December 20 [14 favorites]
If punk rock taught us nothing else, it s that "ticking off a list" equals "making stuff that isn't good on purpose."
the stuff isn't good on purpose. Or rather, it's meant to tick off a list of what their stats say people want
We need organization, and organization makes lists (or, "algorithms", "AI", "formula" however you want to label them)
Art is the spark of creation within limits, and the death of art is allowing the list and limits to direct the reason that you made the thing
posted by eustatic at 8:00 AM on December 20 [14 favorites]
Not been over to Prime lately, have you? YouTube remains the champ of “wtf do they think I want to watch that?” of course.
I was speaking about what Netflix pays to make as original content, which is horrible and clearly arrived at via the stupidest calculations. End of world + second tier Marvel star + cute starlet = $$.
Netflix's recommendation engine remains excellent. ("Hey DOT... want some more contemporary Indonesian horror?" WOW. Seriously, wow.) Prime's recommendation engine is and has always been trash. YouTube's model is and for some time, seems to have been "What is the lowest number of Bacon-like degrees of watch-next recs that we can use to make this person an obsessive extremist who watches our content all day as though their life depends on it?"
The issue on Prime isn't that they never make anything good, it's that they make and/or license so much shit that there's no consistency. I could no sooner say "Prime's content is good" than I could say "Wal-Mart's content is good."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:02 AM on December 20 [11 favorites]
I was speaking about what Netflix pays to make as original content, which is horrible and clearly arrived at via the stupidest calculations. End of world + second tier Marvel star + cute starlet = $$.
Netflix's recommendation engine remains excellent. ("Hey DOT... want some more contemporary Indonesian horror?" WOW. Seriously, wow.) Prime's recommendation engine is and has always been trash. YouTube's model is and for some time, seems to have been "What is the lowest number of Bacon-like degrees of watch-next recs that we can use to make this person an obsessive extremist who watches our content all day as though their life depends on it?"
The issue on Prime isn't that they never make anything good, it's that they make and/or license so much shit that there's no consistency. I could no sooner say "Prime's content is good" than I could say "Wal-Mart's content is good."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:02 AM on December 20 [11 favorites]
I give it a few years (maybe less?) before the majority of this second streaming content is AI-generated. I don't think the technology is up to making a full-length feature yet but, as highlighted by a recent post, people are already making minimally viable shorts films
posted by treepour at 8:04 AM on December 20
posted by treepour at 8:04 AM on December 20
The sad reality is that it doesn't matter if AI can make a good film. It can make mediocre slop cheaply and that's apparently enough for most people. It will make money for these services so that's what's going to happen. Why spend the money and resources trying to make great art when you can spend a fraction to produce good-enough junk that still sells/pulls in subscribers?
The future of cinema is going to be a vast sea of slop endlessly churned out by automated AI slop mills with a few high-end boutique studios still doing expensive human productions for a tiny niche audience of wealthy cinephiles who care about and can afford it.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:10 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
The future of cinema is going to be a vast sea of slop endlessly churned out by automated AI slop mills with a few high-end boutique studios still doing expensive human productions for a tiny niche audience of wealthy cinephiles who care about and can afford it.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:10 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
(Secretly hoping that this new world of disappointing movies and TV means that your nerd friend with a basement full of excellent, obscure Blu-Rays becomes super popular.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:16 AM on December 20 [18 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:16 AM on December 20 [18 favorites]
Sort of like Cable TV all over again?
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Lol love Reed Hastings origin villain story that he forgot to return a copy of Apollo 13 to Blockbuster, got charged $40 in late fees and then basically became The Joker over it.
posted by windbox at 8:33 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
posted by windbox at 8:33 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
But there has always been dross made for regular/repeat viewings for Commercial Purposes. Isn't that the whole raison d'etre for the long running soap? There's a tonne of media released daily via
film, cable, TV, streamers - how much of it do you expect to be high art? I've never really understood this argument. There are millions of creatives out there wanting cash to realise a vision, but the chance meeting of quality and quantity is pretty rare.
posted by freya_lamb at 8:45 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
film, cable, TV, streamers - how much of it do you expect to be high art? I've never really understood this argument. There are millions of creatives out there wanting cash to realise a vision, but the chance meeting of quality and quantity is pretty rare.
posted by freya_lamb at 8:45 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
But there has always been dross made for regular viewings.
That's for sure true, freya. And maybe we tend to memory hole how bad TV was before the recent "Golden Age." Network TV was bad. TBS/TNT/USA/SyFy content was mostly very bad.
But it's still definitely notable that outlets like Netflix have discernibly shifted from trying to produce shows people will like to trying to make shows that will light up an algorithm and get views, even if no one really enjoys them.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:49 AM on December 20 [10 favorites]
That's for sure true, freya. And maybe we tend to memory hole how bad TV was before the recent "Golden Age." Network TV was bad. TBS/TNT/USA/SyFy content was mostly very bad.
But it's still definitely notable that outlets like Netflix have discernibly shifted from trying to produce shows people will like to trying to make shows that will light up an algorithm and get views, even if no one really enjoys them.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:49 AM on December 20 [10 favorites]
Netflix has given me a lot of good stuff to watch lately. Dandadan, Kengan Ashura, Castlevania, Demon Slayer, Nobody Wants This, Beef, stuff I’ve already seen like The Good Place.
My wife just got season 3 of this anime she loves called Beastars. It’s kind of our anime place which is surprising.
I just cancel one service and start another. Bopping around isn’t too bad.
Netflix also has a lot of good Asian and worldwide horror movies.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:10 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
My wife just got season 3 of this anime she loves called Beastars. It’s kind of our anime place which is surprising.
I just cancel one service and start another. Bopping around isn’t too bad.
Netflix also has a lot of good Asian and worldwide horror movies.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:10 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
If streaming content gets bad enough, doesn't that just meant that pop culture will move on or plumb the archives?
posted by Selena777 at 9:12 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 9:12 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Good article. Feels timely when last night I thought I'd try The Carry-On because I like Taran Egerton and then noped out after a few minutes because the opening dialogue between the young protagonist and his wife was so bad... which, according to the article, means I'll have been registered as a View because I watched more than two minutes of it.
They still make some okay television, but their movies... they're like when I was yearning for a Big Jim action figure as a kid one Christmas and ended up with an Action Jackson.
There's still good stuff to be found, but it takes a lot of digging—not unlike the experience of searching the shelves of a 1990s video store or flipping through dozens of cable channels.
I just cancel one service and start another. Bopping around isn’t too bad.
I figure everyone does this nowadays, but how long before the streamers all change to subs you can't cancel until six or twelve months have elapsed... charge us a hundred bucks or whatever for the first year or part year and then ten bucks a month thereafter, something like that. It has to be coming.
posted by rory at 9:16 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
They still make some okay television, but their movies... they're like when I was yearning for a Big Jim action figure as a kid one Christmas and ended up with an Action Jackson.
There's still good stuff to be found, but it takes a lot of digging—not unlike the experience of searching the shelves of a 1990s video store or flipping through dozens of cable channels.
I just cancel one service and start another. Bopping around isn’t too bad.
I figure everyone does this nowadays, but how long before the streamers all change to subs you can't cancel until six or twelve months have elapsed... charge us a hundred bucks or whatever for the first year or part year and then ten bucks a month thereafter, something like that. It has to be coming.
posted by rory at 9:16 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
rory, I am waiting for this too. We skip around streamers ourselves, never committing past either the trial stage or just keeping said service for the duration of a series. I have no doubt folks like us will be punished for that at some point.
posted by Kitteh at 9:28 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 9:28 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Sort of like Cable TV all over again?
Yes, this is inevitably what's going to happen and is probably already happening. Posters above are talking about just canceling and moving between services but that isn't sustainable for them. There are too many and it's all too fragmented. What's going to happen is that they're going to start banding together into service bundles to pool subscribers that you have to subscribe to if you want any individual one, just like you couldn't just get the few cable channels you actually wanted back in the day. That plus the subscription lock-ins rory describes.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:40 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Yes, this is inevitably what's going to happen and is probably already happening. Posters above are talking about just canceling and moving between services but that isn't sustainable for them. There are too many and it's all too fragmented. What's going to happen is that they're going to start banding together into service bundles to pool subscribers that you have to subscribe to if you want any individual one, just like you couldn't just get the few cable channels you actually wanted back in the day. That plus the subscription lock-ins rory describes.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:40 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
The phenomenon of Netflix movies that nobody sees very closely resembles a business practice that major studios employed in the 1930s. Back then, the bigger movie studios were vertically integrated with movie theaters, and they engaged in a practice called block booking. If your local movie theater wanted to show a blockbuster like Gone with the Wind, you also had to show several ho-hum "programmers" from the same studio, such as Getting Gertie's Garter. The mediocre "casual viewing" material on Netflix is just the same spillover effect of vertical integration as the forgettable "programmers" of the 1930s. The major difference in the newer Netflix model is that Netflix leans a lot on financial and algorithmic black boxes that they're using to screw creators out of residuals and engage in financial arbitrage both with & against Wall Street.
posted by jonp72 at 9:44 AM on December 20 [25 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 9:44 AM on December 20 [25 favorites]
This is a good article. Some things discussed in the article not discussed here are:
Their bullshit power move to cut residuals
Their power consolidation that militates against advertising, which then undermines watching anything as a cultural act, which does seem suicidal in a nation where culture is based on advertising
Their total lack of transparency on viewing data, which remains the worst aspect of their power mongering
It think it s the lack of viewer data transparency that will kill cinema, because the box office remains transparent as ever, but Netflix is well into it s disinformation campaign.
Just like Zuckerberg killed journalism with "pivot to video", and. Turns out, Facebook fabricated that viewer data
Netflix's real problem is its control over viewer statistics, and eventually people will just unsubscribe. I did.
posted by eustatic at 9:48 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Their bullshit power move to cut residuals
Their power consolidation that militates against advertising, which then undermines watching anything as a cultural act, which does seem suicidal in a nation where culture is based on advertising
Their total lack of transparency on viewing data, which remains the worst aspect of their power mongering
It think it s the lack of viewer data transparency that will kill cinema, because the box office remains transparent as ever, but Netflix is well into it s disinformation campaign.
Just like Zuckerberg killed journalism with "pivot to video", and. Turns out, Facebook fabricated that viewer data
Netflix's real problem is its control over viewer statistics, and eventually people will just unsubscribe. I did.
posted by eustatic at 9:48 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Happy with our NetFlix subscription. They even paid me ten bucks to fill out a fairly detailed survey. But we are not voracious consumers, and do not put stuff on in the background; if it's on the screen, we're intentionally watching it. Our list has too many things in it for how much time we can devote to watching.
I do wish they'd put more nature documentaries on, though. The ones they do produce are often quite spectacular, but we run out of them so quickly.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:50 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
I do wish they'd put more nature documentaries on, though. The ones they do produce are often quite spectacular, but we run out of them so quickly.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:50 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Yeah, Netflix really embodies the arc of data science over the last twenty years. "Put the right stuff in front of the right person at the right time" in products, ads, etc. has rapidly become "Permute until line goes up" - with LLMs as the pinnacle of that mindset. I'm glad the article touched on Wall Street, because the endless-growth requirement is really the root of this. Criterion and Kanopy can do what they do because they're privately held.
Anyway, these days I just use Plex to keep track of what I want to watch and where it's available cross-platform, and get my recommendations from... here, mostly.
posted by McBearclaw at 9:52 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Anyway, these days I just use Plex to keep track of what I want to watch and where it's available cross-platform, and get my recommendations from... here, mostly.
posted by McBearclaw at 9:52 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
It s fascinating to watch Disney fumble around with streaming
But it's interesting that Mandalorian is moving from streaming to the cinema, likely because Disney wants the benefits of the massive advertising machine that is part of theatrical release
posted by eustatic at 9:59 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
But it's interesting that Mandalorian is moving from streaming to the cinema, likely because Disney wants the benefits of the massive advertising machine that is part of theatrical release
posted by eustatic at 9:59 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
the $5.49 this guy charges me is a better match of price to value.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but you'd be better off with the cheaper version with ads. I tried it and think it's great value. I only maybe watch a couple things a month but the price is only $6 canadian. There's usually 2 ads per hour and they're 30 seconds each. Occasionally there's an ad before a show but that seems rare.
Recent decent watches for me were The Diplomat, Dead to Me, Mad Men rewatch, Nobody Wants This, the Bourne movies, and the Mission Impossible movies. Easily $12 worth of entertainment in two months. I'd previously unsubscribed for almost a year and only resigned up to watch The Diplomat S2.
posted by dobbs at 10:11 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I can't believe I'm saying this, but you'd be better off with the cheaper version with ads. I tried it and think it's great value. I only maybe watch a couple things a month but the price is only $6 canadian. There's usually 2 ads per hour and they're 30 seconds each. Occasionally there's an ad before a show but that seems rare.
Recent decent watches for me were The Diplomat, Dead to Me, Mad Men rewatch, Nobody Wants This, the Bourne movies, and the Mission Impossible movies. Easily $12 worth of entertainment in two months. I'd previously unsubscribed for almost a year and only resigned up to watch The Diplomat S2.
posted by dobbs at 10:11 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I wonder if Apple spending $200,000,000 on Killers of the Flower Moon will be seen in retrospect as something like the recording of Paul’s Boutique: something that, due to a fundamental change in an entertainment business model, will never be able to happen again.
There’s always someone doing “premium” content and I suspect there will continue to be. The problem is more one of the disappearing middle, and of the high-end stuff taking fewer chances and relying more on established names.
posted by atoxyl at 10:18 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
There’s always someone doing “premium” content and I suspect there will continue to be. The problem is more one of the disappearing middle, and of the high-end stuff taking fewer chances and relying more on established names.
posted by atoxyl at 10:18 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
you'd be better off with the cheaper version with ads
It'd be 20% more to watch the same content in 2K with ads that I currently can watch in 4K without ads. Plus, I'd lose the satisfaction of my tiny nothing of a victory over their crappy system.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:37 AM on December 20 [8 favorites]
It'd be 20% more to watch the same content in 2K with ads that I currently can watch in 4K without ads. Plus, I'd lose the satisfaction of my tiny nothing of a victory over their crappy system.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:37 AM on December 20 [8 favorites]
Great article. Thanks for posting it!
For years, I have thought music and entertainment had entered the commodities market. Songs or shows were equivalent to corn, let's say. Netflix seems to have turned into the processor who turns the corn into every snack food imaginable for an audience of everyone.
I think Coppola said, before the forthcoming digital camera revolution in the 1990's that he'd think that there would be wonderful films made but they'd be buried under an enormous pile of shit.
posted by zerobyproxy at 10:40 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
For years, I have thought music and entertainment had entered the commodities market. Songs or shows were equivalent to corn, let's say. Netflix seems to have turned into the processor who turns the corn into every snack food imaginable for an audience of everyone.
I think Coppola said, before the forthcoming digital camera revolution in the 1990's that he'd think that there would be wonderful films made but they'd be buried under an enormous pile of shit.
posted by zerobyproxy at 10:40 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Corn Syrup: The Network.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:58 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:58 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Question for DirtyOldTown:
Why are you bagging on the Netflix recommendation algorithm when you are sharing an account with god knows how many people? Maybe I don't understand this account sharing business model...
Side note, seems like a pretty sweet deal for the dude selling access to the account for $5.49 per user. He's gotta be raking it in! A premium plan in India is only 649 rupees per month, that's $7.64. every account after the second one is pure profit for this nice gentleman.
What am I missing here?!
posted by keep_evolving at 10:59 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Why are you bagging on the Netflix recommendation algorithm when you are sharing an account with god knows how many people? Maybe I don't understand this account sharing business model...
Side note, seems like a pretty sweet deal for the dude selling access to the account for $5.49 per user. He's gotta be raking it in! A premium plan in India is only 649 rupees per month, that's $7.64. every account after the second one is pure profit for this nice gentleman.
What am I missing here?!
posted by keep_evolving at 10:59 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Why are you bagging on the Netflix recommendation algorithm
I'm not. I specifically said above that the recommendation algorithm was excellent. I had my own Netflix account for close to fifteen years before giving up, so it was something I had plenty of time to get to know.
My complaint is that their original content has degenerated into productions made to represent clusters of checked boxes they think will get views, even partial views by people who do not enjoy the content, as opposed to focusing on making things that are actually good.
Also, recs are done based on user, not overall account. I have my own user slot on the shared account, so the recs I get are based solely on what I watch, not what other users on the same account watch. And, to Netflix's credit, given how briefly I get to stay on the same account, they still do quite well.
I just wish the productions they pay for weren't so mad libbed together.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:03 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
I'm not. I specifically said above that the recommendation algorithm was excellent. I had my own Netflix account for close to fifteen years before giving up, so it was something I had plenty of time to get to know.
My complaint is that their original content has degenerated into productions made to represent clusters of checked boxes they think will get views, even partial views by people who do not enjoy the content, as opposed to focusing on making things that are actually good.
Also, recs are done based on user, not overall account. I have my own user slot on the shared account, so the recs I get are based solely on what I watch, not what other users on the same account watch. And, to Netflix's credit, given how briefly I get to stay on the same account, they still do quite well.
I just wish the productions they pay for weren't so mad libbed together.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:03 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Immediate apologies to DirtyOldTown: I misread your comment! These old eyes of mine just aren't what they used to be...
I still have questions about this guy selling account access, but that's besides the point.
posted by keep_evolving at 11:05 AM on December 20
I still have questions about this guy selling account access, but that's besides the point.
posted by keep_evolving at 11:05 AM on December 20
In India (and various other countries) the monthly price for Netflix is far lower (less than $8, I think). This gentleman sets up family accounts and sells people monthly access to the six individual user slots for $5-ish each. Netflix catches him semi-regularly and cuts him off, but he just keeps a backup account ready and switches us over when that happens.
He makes $20-ish a month for every account he does this with, and I think has maybe ten or twelve going. In a country where a middle class person often makes as little as $500-600 US per month, it's an excellent side hustle.
This particular guy is a journalist. I'm happy getting one over on Netflix, but even happier that it's keeping a journalist's bills paid.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:11 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
He makes $20-ish a month for every account he does this with, and I think has maybe ten or twelve going. In a country where a middle class person often makes as little as $500-600 US per month, it's an excellent side hustle.
This particular guy is a journalist. I'm happy getting one over on Netflix, but even happier that it's keeping a journalist's bills paid.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:11 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
"The username/password changes all the time, I have to log in all over every two to five weeks, and I can't really keep a history. But for as much as I watch it, the $5.49 this guy charges me is a better match of price to value. "
That seems like a lot of work to save $1.50*, and get a worse overall experience by not having a history.
* Netflix's standard plan with ads is $6.99
posted by jonathanhughes at 11:20 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
That seems like a lot of work to save $1.50*, and get a worse overall experience by not having a history.
* Netflix's standard plan with ads is $6.99
posted by jonathanhughes at 11:20 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I watch Netflix an average of once or twice a month, so the logging in again isn't a big deal.
Anyway, it's really not about $1.50, it's about 4K and no ads. I hate ads.
The 4K, no ads plan is $23/month. It does indeed remain true that I could choose to watch the handful of things I ever watch in half the quality and interrupted by ads, but I am choosing not to do that.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:22 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Anyway, it's really not about $1.50, it's about 4K and no ads. I hate ads.
The 4K, no ads plan is $23/month. It does indeed remain true that I could choose to watch the handful of things I ever watch in half the quality and interrupted by ads, but I am choosing not to do that.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:22 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Yeah, Netflix really embodies the arc of data science over the last twenty years. "Put the right stuff in front of the right person at the right time" in products, ads, etc. has rapidly become "Permute until line goes up" - with LLMs as the pinnacle of that mindset.
Can you elaborate about what you mean here because I have no idea what you're talking about.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:22 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Can you elaborate about what you mean here because I have no idea what you're talking about.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:22 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
This article goes into some of the minutia Netflix uses to analyze content and potential acquisitions.
TLDR: it's not about who thinks what is good, it's all data analytics about click-throughs, watch-time, etc.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:27 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
TLDR: it's not about who thinks what is good, it's all data analytics about click-throughs, watch-time, etc.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:27 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I’m, ugh, intimately familiar with data science at Netflix, I just don’t know what those sentences are supposed to mean.
I’m sorry are there people who think Netflix recommends movies based on what they think is good art not on what people will watch?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I’m sorry are there people who think Netflix recommends movies based on what they think is good art not on what people will watch?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I think those sentences were supposed to mean that not only are Netflix douchey data science people who make weird content decisions based on their supposed data, but they continue to double down on it in a way that reflects the worst corporate impulses to abdicate decision making to impersonal computer processes, so much so that they're kind of emblematic of the worst of that impulse.
Not my argument and maybe a little hyperbolic, but I can see what they're trying to get across easily enough.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:42 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Not my argument and maybe a little hyperbolic, but I can see what they're trying to get across easily enough.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:42 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
What decision was abdicated to a ‘computer process’ at Netflix?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:46 AM on December 20
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:46 AM on December 20
None of this is complex or surprising. If you disagree with the user's argument, by all means, go into that. But it does not feel like you are actually having any trouble understanding. So I don't really know what you are on about.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:52 AM on December 20
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:52 AM on December 20
Whatever else is wrong with Netflix, encouraging people to "binge watch" TV is repulsive. It's like an eating contest- mindless overindulgence .
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:54 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:54 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
But it does not feel like you are actually having any trouble understanding.
Because what I quoted makes no sense.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:57 AM on December 20
Because what I quoted makes no sense.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:57 AM on December 20
See to me, it does. And I tried to explain it but either I'm not the one to explain it to you, or you already know and this is a bit you're doing in service of an as-yet-unspecified point. So good luck with all of that, in either case, I am of no use here.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:59 AM on December 20
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:59 AM on December 20
[Blockbuster's] system was widely despised — customers filed twenty-three separate class-action lawsuits against Blockbuster over unfair late charges — but outrageously profitable. In 2000, near the company’s peak, Blockbuster collected nearly $800 million in late fees, accounting for 16 percent of its annual revenue. Internally, company executives described its business model as one of “managed dissatisfaction.”
Yes, yes, we all know what capitalism is.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:00 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Yes, yes, we all know what capitalism is.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:00 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I think Netflix is largely shite but apparently their commitment to teen drama from all over the world means my SO will continue to make our payment every month. All our other subscriptions get rotated regularly.
posted by biffa at 12:05 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 12:05 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Netflix is really the worst cesspool of algorithmic fuckery over quality these days.
My husband and I have the mean time to nekkid metric which for Netflix originals is around 8-11min, guaranteed.
few of them could watch the movie without also staring at their phones or getting into discussions with each other about completely unrelated stuff
The show has to be good though. If not it’s too tempting. Plus I am too busy in the evening to sit and watch a show in full I have to be adulting during those times, these insurance claims / email replies ain’t gonna submit themselves.
for family movie night if I even glance at my phone my kids start yelling MOM WATCH THE MOVIE which means I’ve raised them right?
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:11 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]
My husband and I have the mean time to nekkid metric which for Netflix originals is around 8-11min, guaranteed.
few of them could watch the movie without also staring at their phones or getting into discussions with each other about completely unrelated stuff
The show has to be good though. If not it’s too tempting. Plus I am too busy in the evening to sit and watch a show in full I have to be adulting during those times, these insurance claims / email replies ain’t gonna submit themselves.
for family movie night if I even glance at my phone my kids start yelling MOM WATCH THE MOVIE which means I’ve raised them right?
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:11 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Next two FIFA women’s world cups to air only on Netflix.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:34 PM on December 20
posted by Thorzdad at 12:34 PM on December 20
The thing I'm driving at is that recommendation algorithms can be tuned for all kinds of things: probability the user chooses anything to watch, how quickly the user chooses something to watch, the probability that they finish what they chose, the rating the user gives to the show after watching. All components of a good user experience.
Netflix and other streamers are inevitably going to prioritize whichever metric (or combination thereof) is best associated with new subscriptions, or reduced churn, or whatever the investors demand that quarter (and whatever internal politics demands that promotion cycle).
And so Netflix's UI famously changes its recommendations, the ordering of its ribbons, etc. until they get the outcomes they want. Why do they put the mobile games above "Continue watching"? Because they've computed that the expected return of getting me started on games is better than the increased risk of me churning because they make it so annoying to just keep watching the fucking shit I want to keep watching. Permute. Line goes up.
So why wouldn't they do that with their movies, too? I'd bet serious money that St. Peepsburg's "mean time to nekkid" is a real, data-driven thing. Cranking out 20 Hallmark-style movies per year gives them plenty of data to work with.
The reason that's a problem is that it's not just Netflix - it's every streaming service, every social network, every newspaper. Because they all must grow. Disney+ is a perfect example: a streaming service with the Disney animated movies and Star Wars alone would print money. But if the revenues aren't increasing, the investors will feel sad. And so the executives and everyone downstream has to fight like hell to keep those revenues increasing, even if it means manipulating users with dark patterns and paying huge sums to make movies that nobody actually wants because the data has shown that steady mediocrity is good for the bottom line.
posted by McBearclaw at 12:51 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Netflix and other streamers are inevitably going to prioritize whichever metric (or combination thereof) is best associated with new subscriptions, or reduced churn, or whatever the investors demand that quarter (and whatever internal politics demands that promotion cycle).
And so Netflix's UI famously changes its recommendations, the ordering of its ribbons, etc. until they get the outcomes they want. Why do they put the mobile games above "Continue watching"? Because they've computed that the expected return of getting me started on games is better than the increased risk of me churning because they make it so annoying to just keep watching the fucking shit I want to keep watching. Permute. Line goes up.
So why wouldn't they do that with their movies, too? I'd bet serious money that St. Peepsburg's "mean time to nekkid" is a real, data-driven thing. Cranking out 20 Hallmark-style movies per year gives them plenty of data to work with.
The reason that's a problem is that it's not just Netflix - it's every streaming service, every social network, every newspaper. Because they all must grow. Disney+ is a perfect example: a streaming service with the Disney animated movies and Star Wars alone would print money. But if the revenues aren't increasing, the investors will feel sad. And so the executives and everyone downstream has to fight like hell to keep those revenues increasing, even if it means manipulating users with dark patterns and paying huge sums to make movies that nobody actually wants because the data has shown that steady mediocrity is good for the bottom line.
posted by McBearclaw at 12:51 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Corn Syrup: The Network.
It's called Corncob TV.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:00 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
It's called Corncob TV.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:00 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
IMO that's always been the case---for the main movie studios, increasing profit is all that matters.
What's jarring to me about the comments here and the actual article is that the article really has nothing to do with data science or algorithms or LLMs. The article is saying that for Netflix, producing cheap crap movies that people barely watch makes them money. That's the structure of their business model and you don't need any fancy ML to tell you that, you just see that users who watch crap are less likely to churn. If the same incentives faced any of the big studios, the same thing would have happened.
As the spotify post on the FPP shows, this is how a lot of people mindlessly consume music. Just put it on and don't pay attention to it. An explanation for that is what I want to read!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:14 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]
What's jarring to me about the comments here and the actual article is that the article really has nothing to do with data science or algorithms or LLMs. The article is saying that for Netflix, producing cheap crap movies that people barely watch makes them money. That's the structure of their business model and you don't need any fancy ML to tell you that, you just see that users who watch crap are less likely to churn. If the same incentives faced any of the big studios, the same thing would have happened.
As the spotify post on the FPP shows, this is how a lot of people mindlessly consume music. Just put it on and don't pay attention to it. An explanation for that is what I want to read!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:14 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]
This feels so much like the video version of the Spotify piece on ghost music from earlier today.
It feels like we're seeing the future of culture: an endless algorithmic data-rotted ouroboros of third rate garbage and AI generated slop regurgitating the early 2020s cultural artifacts until it congeals into blipverts, all in the name of profit.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 1:30 PM on December 20 [10 favorites]
It feels like we're seeing the future of culture: an endless algorithmic data-rotted ouroboros of third rate garbage and AI generated slop regurgitating the early 2020s cultural artifacts until it congeals into blipverts, all in the name of profit.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 1:30 PM on December 20 [10 favorites]
I completely agree that anyone would do the same with the same incentives. It is not possible for any public company to do any differently. That is very much the problem.
The difference to me is captured in jon72's and rambling_wanderlust's comments about vertical integration and the "endless algorithmic data-rotted ouroboros". By becoming the sole distributor of its productions, the incentives and decisions all become tremendously streamlined - and the data science (by which I just mean recommendations, experiments, user analytics) is used to put an estimated ROI on every choice, including the films themselves.
posted by McBearclaw at 2:13 PM on December 20
The difference to me is captured in jon72's and rambling_wanderlust's comments about vertical integration and the "endless algorithmic data-rotted ouroboros". By becoming the sole distributor of its productions, the incentives and decisions all become tremendously streamlined - and the data science (by which I just mean recommendations, experiments, user analytics) is used to put an estimated ROI on every choice, including the films themselves.
posted by McBearclaw at 2:13 PM on December 20
In contrast to other times in the film industry or in other film companies, where they did not place an estimated ROI on every choice?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:18 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:18 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Not estimates driven by the granular viewing choices of 250 million people, no.
posted by McBearclaw at 2:46 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by McBearclaw at 2:46 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
But they’re not making individual movies for individual people. Is everyone else simply getting the ROI wrong, consistently, in the same direction, because all the focus groups and survey research etc was just biased all in the same direction that favored good movies? Or is it something else?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:49 PM on December 20
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:49 PM on December 20
It's a question of precision and a lack of external gatekeepers. Netflix has an unusually good sense of how many of its viewers will watch a thing, and it doesn't have to convince any external party to distribute it, nor critics to draw people's attention to it.
posted by McBearclaw at 2:57 PM on December 20
posted by McBearclaw at 2:57 PM on December 20
I think that makes sense. If they made money by bringing in repeat viewers who love popcorn and buying merch, we’d get different movies from them.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:04 PM on December 20
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:04 PM on December 20
Not estimates driven by the granular viewing choices of 250 million people, no.
This explanation is tautological - "Netflix can tell exactly when people will end the stream via its awesome data collection" so shouldn't that produce content that is exactly what people want, or at least holds them in?
Isn't the thrust of the argument that the material they are producing is subpar, on every level?
I think the better explanation is they are producing low quality material to save on costs, which increases their margins. So the McDonalds of streaming is the better analogy than some amazing data. McDonalds didn't need algorithms to cut costs and become relatively ubiquitous. It has to "be there" (line from the movie Vengence about Whataburger - that's most important) and the content has to be acceptable.
To see the exact opposite of 'being there', look at the constant rebranding of HBO.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:35 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
This explanation is tautological - "Netflix can tell exactly when people will end the stream via its awesome data collection" so shouldn't that produce content that is exactly what people want, or at least holds them in?
Isn't the thrust of the argument that the material they are producing is subpar, on every level?
I think the better explanation is they are producing low quality material to save on costs, which increases their margins. So the McDonalds of streaming is the better analogy than some amazing data. McDonalds didn't need algorithms to cut costs and become relatively ubiquitous. It has to "be there" (line from the movie Vengence about Whataburger - that's most important) and the content has to be acceptable.
To see the exact opposite of 'being there', look at the constant rebranding of HBO.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:35 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
* Netflix's standard plan with ads is $6.99
Is this US$?!
In Canada it's $5.99, which is us$4.17.
posted by dobbs at 4:31 PM on December 20
Is this US$?!
In Canada it's $5.99, which is us$4.17.
posted by dobbs at 4:31 PM on December 20
OK, I give. My Google-fu is failing me; what the hell is “second streaming” or a “second streamer”? Is this something you have to have a (second) TV to understand?
posted by stopgap at 4:49 PM on December 20
posted by stopgap at 4:49 PM on December 20
Second streaming is the term that people who refer to all media as 'content' use to explain anyone watching a thing while also (semi) concentrating on another thing.
Usually it's watching on a large screen TV and/or monitor and also using a smaller screen - mobile phone and/or tablet - to do something else like scroll tictok or Instagram or Pinterest texting or looking up things on IMDb etc.
It also refers to people who use video as 'background noise' while ignoring the screen completely so while crafting or doing house cleaning, or walking the dog
posted by Faintdreams at 2:03 AM on December 21 [6 favorites]
Usually it's watching on a large screen TV and/or monitor and also using a smaller screen - mobile phone and/or tablet - to do something else like scroll tictok or Instagram or Pinterest texting or looking up things on IMDb etc.
It also refers to people who use video as 'background noise' while ignoring the screen completely so while crafting or doing house cleaning, or walking the dog
posted by Faintdreams at 2:03 AM on December 21 [6 favorites]
IME people have always done this—-that’s exactly why, as every sick kid home from school in the 80s and 90s knew—-that daytime TV is utter crap. I used to watch informercisls. I think what’s different is that this is about movies and we don’t have Sunday night HBO quality shows anymore, anywhere
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:20 AM on December 21 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:20 AM on December 21 [3 favorites]
Great article. I liked it so much that I cancelled my 13-year-old Netflix account after reading it.
Thank you!
posted by signal at 9:20 AM on December 21 [1 favorite]
Thank you!
posted by signal at 9:20 AM on December 21 [1 favorite]
What do you plan to do for entertainment from now on, signal?
posted by Selena777 at 10:13 AM on December 21
posted by Selena777 at 10:13 AM on December 21
Most of what we watch wasn't on Netflix, so it's no great loss.
posted by signal at 1:59 PM on December 21
posted by signal at 1:59 PM on December 21
Thanks for the clarification. There’s a quote I think from the Manchurian Candidate: “There are two kinds of people in this world: Those that enter a room and turn the television set on, and those that enter a room and turn the television set off.” I’ve always been the second type, so I can’t stand the idea of having a TV on as background noise and not paying attention to it. But I guess this explains people who try to have a conversation when I thought we were both watching and paying attention to a show together.
posted by stopgap at 8:46 PM on December 21 [2 favorites]
posted by stopgap at 8:46 PM on December 21 [2 favorites]
we don’t have Sunday night HBO quality shows anymore, anywhere
I might direct your attention to Apple TV+, as much as it pains me to say.
There have been other terrific shows made over the past few years by others, but nobody has been as consistent at it. There's stuff on there I don't want to watch, but it's because it's not my thing, not because it's background noise.
posted by wierdo at 6:20 AM on December 22 [2 favorites]
I might direct your attention to Apple TV+, as much as it pains me to say.
There have been other terrific shows made over the past few years by others, but nobody has been as consistent at it. There's stuff on there I don't want to watch, but it's because it's not my thing, not because it's background noise.
posted by wierdo at 6:20 AM on December 22 [2 favorites]
I've only just had a chance to read this, and now the conversation has moved on, but I wanted to say what a great (if grim!) piece this was! Thank you for posting it!
posted by mittens at 1:41 PM on December 27
posted by mittens at 1:41 PM on December 27
« Older Burning Bright | Drew Magary's yearly hate-post! Newer »
posted by Lemkin at 7:20 AM on December 20 [18 favorites]