Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

Someone, SOMEone, someone should make the radio? Radio, RADIO, RadioLab how to.

Not only that was hilarious, but also grabbed at the same time the essence of Netflix, and all that is wrong with it. 300K a year Netflix producers...take notes.:-)

Yup. This is exactly what we do at work. At least the past few years, most people couldn't tell the difference. We pump them out. It's 80% as good as something way harder to make. But by now people have seen so many, maybe they're starting to tire of it.

That was hilarious btw.

That was great thanks for sharing.

Never saw this video before. It absolutely made my day. Brilliant!

That was must see TV. Thanks for sharing.

lol

HBO's Chernobyl is not a documentary...

Chernobyl is historical drama based on real events, not a documentary. Some characters are entirely invented, sometimes multiple different people are merged into one and so on. The authors even made podcast where they explain what is made up and why

It realistic and quite close to what went on, but not documentary at all.

Maybe the story just isn't as exciting as Chernobyl. I mean, nobody died. Nobody even got sick with radiation poisoning. Not to be morbid, but that just isn't going to be as compelling a story.

I wonder if they just greenlit it because they had such a success with the Chernobyl series and wanted to do it again.

> Disney pretty clearly proves rehashing the exact same thing over and over again is a never ending gold mine.

And yet, Disney's business itself was once a brand new, revolutionary idea.

Perhaps the table stakes aren't just "making something innovative", but creating opportunities for themselves to build the next Big Thing.

Yeah, I am little confused by all of this as well. Maybe because I don't "stream". But from the article:

> “We have to have an Adam Project and a Bridgerton every month and to make sure that that’s the expectation of the service constantly,” he said.

Are there people to watch an "Adam Project" and a "Bridgerton" (I assume these are interesting shows) every month? Are there people that are some kind of stream-receptacle?

So stream cutting is the new cord cutting.

Curiosity Stream + Nebula App are a great deal together.

The OA, in particular, was one that I loved. It lived in this niche that I really like. Abstract supernatural horror? Lynchian stuff.

Dark was around the same time as well.

My perception of the untouchable Netflix was changed when they cancelled The OA. For one, I didn’t really trust them with multi-season serialized content anymore and, two I started to notice good content on other streaming service.

I sort of wonder if every faithful Netflix subscriber had an OA moment over the last few years? Where they lost faith in the service because of a poorly-handled choice for a show they enjoyed.

(By the way, if you dig the OA and Sense8 you might like Severance on Apple TV.)

> Netflix is in the streaming business, not the risky content creation business.

You could say this about anything. “Walmart is in the selling business, not in the food business.” But in the end, when, in a remote village in France, 3 dads discuss at a bar about how Netflix has probably gone below TV level (which is quite a performance), then you business opportunities dwindle pretty fast.

It’s known. People discuss it for lunch. Everyone’s looking for a Netflix alternative and is discussing their experiments. Only young teens without much taste are satisfied, and not that much.

I agree. Though slightly off topic, Forensic Files was pretty biased. The educational aspect mostly makes up for it, but they make forensic science appear way more rock solid than it was back at the time. Many of the crimes featured were solved because the perpetrator was so incompetent. But every episode had to end with something along the lines of "this would have been the perfect crime if not for the science!"

Would be nice to have a show like that again with a similar format but eased back on the law enforcement propaganda.

This seems like a mirror to the other classic apocryphal story where the IBM ask a new Japanese manufacturer to only have a 3/1000 defect rate and the Japanese seem alarmed by this request.

When the product arrives there's a seperate little box with the defective items that have been manufactured seperately to meet the spec.

(There's also the "half of my advertising is effective, I don't know which half" line)

I get your point, but it doesn't necessarily implicate that you should try to replicate precious hits? Why pretend you've found the formula when it's clear you have no idea?

It seems like every celebrity had their shot at a sitcom in the 90s for example. Is it like the saying about nobody getting fired for buying IBM? But then, risk-taking within that narrow space was limited. From the Seinfeld Wikipedia article:

'The pilot was first screened to a group of two dozen NBC executives in Burbank, California, in early 1989. It did not yield the explosion of laughter garnered by the pilots for the decade's previous NBC successes like The Cosby Show and The Golden Girls. Brandon Tartikoff was not convinced the show would work. A Jewish man from New York himself, Tartikoff characterized it as "Too New York, too Jewish".'

It was almost not even aired.

Squid Game seems to have been a gamble. I'd like to see more like that, but I'm afraid they'll over-fit to that success as well. US remake perhaps? Sequels, prequels, spin-offs. "The 100 must-see dystopian Korean horror shows on Netflix 2023“?

> Instead they're always gambling by funding a bunch of movies and it only works out because the few hits pay for all the non-hits.

So, Venture Capital? xD

Unprofitable movies is just accounting. Something to do with Hollywood union compensation or something.

Metrics can easily fool you on Netflix, because many will watch an entire bad season of a show. If you had to watch an episode a week, and you don’t care for the show, missing an episode one week will easily cause you to just drop the show and viewer number quickly drop off.

On Netflix I’ve watch entire seasons of bad shows, because it’s easy, and it might get better and now I’ve already watched the first two episodes. What does happen, and which can’t be meassured, is how many shows I don’t start the second season at all, because season two of that other Netflix original was bad, so there’s a big risk this is as well.

Part of the problem could be eliminated by moving to more classical episodical shows, rather that trying to make every show storylines. It would also make meassuring easier.

Yes! It takes so much more to gain the kind of insight that is valuable for film/art. And it is very difficult to scale. I thought they were onto something when they were experimenting with the gamified Black Mirror stuff because A) it implied something totally new and proprietary in the artform and B) it could probably lead to more information and more feedback all around.

Also, they never even tried to build any sort of community or conversation around anything on the platform. No creative form of discovery for different types of viewers. It’s just a one-way interface of content rectangles that are presented to you in algorithmic order.

In my own personal view on this, I think we will see a whole plethora of boutique niche vod platforms built using off-the-shelf tech from the cloud providers. Netflix only had around a decade of a technological upper-hand and it’s been a couple years that anyone can build a VOD platform.

Very true. They find something that's kind of amusing, then milk it until it bleeds (gross analogy, sorry...).

"Nailed It", sure, I can watch it from time to time but it doesn't mean I will watch 150 other baking shows.

Same thing with "Jessica Jones". I literally found articles about "The top 30 superhero shows on Netflix this year", trying to remember the name of this one. After a while you realize that the funny premise stops being engaging after a couple of episode and the spell is broken.

I watch almost no Netflix these days but I got excited about the new season of Russian Doll, but despite an original script, it doesn't have the punch of the first season. Perhaps it's not just a money grab, but I would have preferred more risk-taking. Why not let created Natasha Lyonne, Leslye Headland, and Amy Poehler do something new and crazy instead of a season 2, for example?

Most of what I watched on Netflix was this cookie cutter rubbish, but what they don't know is I was usually just putting that on in the background or when falling asleep.

Even though that accounts for 90% of what I watch, I cancelled Netflix because the 10% I actually care about isn't there now.

Arguably, MLB Advanced Media killed Netflix by commodifying streaming tech.

Using MLBAM, any company could set up high quality streaming services cheaply and instantly.

For example, WWE went from announcing they would be creating a streaming service to actually delivering a highly successful and glitch free one within months.

These last few years have been fantastic for show developers, screen writers, and anyone in series development, as all the new streaming services are literally trying to buy the talent to make their services successful.

> bought anything half decent

The problem is, it's not even close to half-decent. It's just a huge amount of pulp that is so boring you actually ask yourself existential questions after a few minutes of watching this.

Science fiction and fantasy

> Nobody knows how to reliably create "quality"--the definition of which will vary by person.

Try different things. Don't be afraid to experiment. Don't be afraid to fail. Do things nobody's ever done before. Create new trends. Hire professionals so that every scene gives the users some level of satisfaction in terms of plot and aesthetics. For example, in a good comedy, each scene (if not each line) should at least bring the corners of your mouth slightly up.

Instead, Netflix is doing the opposite: recycle, recycle, recycle. This is maybe fine for some genres like romantic comedies for Netflix-and-chill, you kind of expect everything but it doesn't bother you. But for the rest, Netflix has become a symbol of mediocrity to the point that I explicitly choose only movies/shows without the N letter on them.

HBO seems to do it.

Pixar? Sure their track record isn't 100%, but I'd say they know how to create quality, even if they don't always fully succeed at it.

Netflix bores me to tears (I’m into stuff like Criterion and Kino) but I begrudgingly have to admit that they offer a ton of kids shows. Disney+ is better quality but they too don’t have a lot to offer, or didn’t three months ago, in terms of episodic kids entertainment.

Disney is also hoarding the giant catalog of classic or older films. Fox wasnt just XMen and Simpsons, they had been making films since the 30s. Seems like Disney is going to trickle out the old content slowly.

No doubt about it. The question is for how long will 'all you can eat' be sustainable in the longer term. Only so long until everyone will have had their crappy experience, loses trust and/or desire to continue paying, brand becomes tarnished etc.

I'm not saying this is an end to Netflix - losing your competitive advantage and having others catch up doesn't put you out of the race. Their brand is huge.

While it is a valid point, Id argue that Netflix could have survived this - they had billions of dollars to create original content, and then they did create it, but some how screwed it all up. There’s at best 1 or 2 good show and no good movie Netflix has made in years. And anything half decent they cancel mercilessly without giving it a chance. This is not just in the US. The comparison of original content quality between Netflix and other services in India for example is even more laughable.

In the end, Netflix is a company that used to be great and kinda made some of the most genius ideas to fight the Goliath but was undone by a single dude leading a team making poor choices on what content to make. 3 Adam Sandler movies for half a billion dollars? I’m assuming this is as big or a bigger blunder than Zillow, and was powered by stupid data science ideas as well, probably.

That's not stupid consumers that's people not rightly giving a f what nonsense licensing setups requested by ip owners and enforced by a government monopoly on force. The consumer just wanted to watch the media, which is fair because they probably just spent 8 hours at some nonsense unnecessary job and would like to switch off... again.

No vote no power.

Great analogy, and it's what I think about every time I hop on Netflix.

The old Netflix was an absolute gold mine. There was sooooo much good content and almost none of it was their own. The place was overflowing with great movies from every genre. It had all these great movies because they were the only game in town and the studios hadn't yet identified them as a competitor. It was a novelty. "Hey sure, movies on the internet. Why not! Here's our entire back catalog. Go nuts."

Once everyone realized this wasn't a novelty the IP holders began to pull back. First it was increased rates, which meant Netflix could have fewer of the top items available for streaming at any given time. Fine, kind of annoying that I can't find everything I want anymore but there's still a lot of good stuff! Then the megacorps that own all of the studios began to develop their own platforms to cash in on the money train and stopped licensing their content to Netflix altogether. Instead they began to pile the IP up to be released exclusively on their own platforms. Netflix knew this was going to happen so they went absolutely nuts on the spending, trying to produce enough of their own content to fill the gap left by 60 years of the top IP that was (mostly) banished from their platform.

The spending didn't work because it turns out making high quality IP is really, really hard. Think of all the film and television IP created over the last 60 years. Not the hits, I'm talking about everything. Now think of the hits. Those are like, what, 1% of the total? Netflix can't fill their catalog to compete with who they used to be. It's not physically/creatively possible. That means they will never live up to the initial experience of using the site.

As a consumer, I'd prefer they shift to become something closer to HBO/Apple TV+. A company that focuses on high quality, carefully curated productions. At least then I would have a good reason to continue subscribing. As it is, I don't find much value in the endless stream of schlock they've been producing to try to fill in for the lost IP. Quantity doesn't have a quality all its own when it comes to entertainment.

>Ever played Settlers of Catan and find out another player had 9/10 victory points? Everyone does everything in their power to not trade with that player, send the robber, and limit their chances

This is why my group of friends stopped playing Catan after a while..

If only there was a way to what whatever soap 2 day you wanted.

I'm seeing that a lot too. Netflix killed piracy with price and more importantly convenience. But the extreme fragmentation of the streaming market is driving people back to the torrents. They don't want to sign up somewhere for every new show that they hear about.

The industry is killing itself this way. Netflix is just the first to take the hit because they have the largest market saturation.

I'm totally fine with spending $100+ per month on streaming. My issue is consistency.

Every streaming service had their own app which may or may not be available on my TV, tablet, phone or computer. The experience is varying on each device (e.g I can disable auto playing trailers for Netflix on my phone but not TV).

Then on top of that, each streaming service requires additional complexity (logins, setting up profiles) and has varying UI (search, continue watching, subtitle and quality control).

It's significantly less hassle for me to just Jellyfin + *arr services than try to manage this on a daily basis.

Interesting to call out Netflix for high price and then the examples for torrenting are Apple shows which is much cheaper.

This is basically me. I have the 15 dollar tier of Netflix and then my friends and i share a Plex hosted at a buddy's house where we get whatever content we want.

> is this more about keeping up with friends and families and what they watch?

Yeah. I love discussing shows with friends and family and I’ve been finding it harder and harder to watch shows together or watch them later on our own time to discuss them later.

For example, I recently watched Pachinko and would highly recommend it but none of my friends have Apple TV so they can’t watch it (unless they pirate it)

Any reason you don’t do, say 3 to 4 months of each service so you cycle through 3 or 4 services in a year to see everything that interests you

Just put Netflix on hold for few months and pick a another service for that time. This is what I do and works great.

Well no, but I also don’t want to constantly be switching just to watch one or two shows. The original benefit of Netflix was that you could have a service with a decent selection, no hassle.

If I click unsubscribe, that’s more or less final.

While that makes a lot of sense, that's a difficult sell when you have multiple people in a household.

Yeah, this is not rocket science. Subscribe to one service at a time. Switch to another service when you want to watch something different. It's not like the old days where switching from cable to satellite TV was a huge hassle.

I think all your points are spot on. One thing to add is that we are in the golden age of content (it takes some volume to discover on good shows), and it is probably coming to end as cheap money goes away. At no point in history has so much money been spent on content creation.

At 17B/year Netflix alone spends ~$48/year for every single person in the US. Prime spends 13B, Apple 6B, Disney 33B, Warner (HBO, etc...) 18B. Or put another way ~$250/person in the US/year on content.

Even if accounting for world wide distribution, these numbers are just not sustainable from an investment standpoint.

Very good points.

I’m not sure if there’s something Netflix could have done honestly. They had a technology moat with video streaming tech at a time when everyone else focused on cable but video streaming and streaming apps became a commodity over ten years or so.

To expect them to also become a great studio company when they started out with the tech moat would be a bit of Silicon Valley hubris. It works for a few like Amazon but even Amazon is facing similar issues where online shopping tech is now commoditized and rivals have better depth in retail itself.

I think the issue of low-quality filler being the issue is debatable. House of Cards or Orange is the New Black hasn't stopped the platform from sinking to where it is now. But as long as people are watching something, they're subscribed to the platform. The real problem is a lack of shows with nine seasons and plenty of shows that got canceled two seasons in. Viewers will take a chance on a new show, binge watch the two seasons, then end up blankly staring at the Now Playing screen and this hollow feeling of Netflixlessness - that listless feeling you get when your life was previously consumed by a show that you've now caught up to, so you have nothing to watch.

The worst thing the service can do is force viewers back to that New Playing screen, and just hope they find something before giving up, disgusted at your library's lack of content. Netflix never did conquer the Now Playing page. If I don't have a show that someone else has promoted to me, I'm not opening the Netflix app, that page is where dreams of just watching some TV go to die. Not for lack of trying, mind you, they've run a large number of experiments on that page, it's just a difficult problem when you don't have the content your users really want. It's thoroughly unsatisfying a UX, especially if you can't find something before your attention span gets bored of trying to find something to watch, and you switch away entirely. To Fortnight or TikTok, as the article suggests.

Spin-off shows don't generally do well on network TV, but things are different for streaming, and mediocre content set in the same universe as existing shows, for easy transference of viewing keeps users on your platform. Even if viewers are rewatching The Office for the Nth time. Because that show has nine seasons, Netflix might as well just be The Office streaming program and it would keep subscribers just fine. You're right that they're "settling" hours, but not everyone is a TV show snob. Netflix was never going to afford to be at ABC/Paramount/Disney level but it's trying to play there and make shows that rivaled their quality - and cost - that killed them.

> To me, the big misstep seems to be that Netflix invested too much in low-quality filler that shows up as "viewing hours"

Reflecting on that: I’ve started to reduce my consumption all together. Bought Blu-ray’s of one or two shows I was interested in and that have been around long enough to buy at a reasonable price for all season (though I won’t bother with that anymore after relocating to a different region).

But the biggest change: turning away from the TV in the evening hours. Back to educating myself or gaming.

> if you could go back in time (knowing what you know now) and take control of Reed Hastings, what would you do differently

Is that a new series?

Given Netflix comp levels, "trying to survive" might be overplaying it. The reason for the schadenfreude mentioned in the article is the massive cost inflation Netflix spending levels created.

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread could be summed up as, maybe Netflix should have been content to be a low margin tech supplier to the studios rather than try and spend it's way to becoming a new Disney. A lot of tech firms are built off the back of the fact that it seems to be harder for other industries to learn how to be a tech firm than the other way around. Streaming video is clearly one of those cases where it's the opposite and that fact had been hidden for a long time by the flood of QE funny money.

I can't match the near-unhinged brilliance of the above comment, but I'll add that many meditation traditions encourage serenity by inspecting the details of the ordinary instead of a constant grasping for new stimulation.

> From bud light to like whatever quadruppel or super IPA monstrosity someone in the Bay Area decided to brew and that may work as an antiseptic

On this note, Pliny the Elder (the highest rated IPA in the Bay Area) used to be hard to find but recently is just everywhere, and it turns out it tastes horrible. But it’s like single-origin horrible. Like drinking the highest quality grass clippings.

Another commenter described what I meant using what I think is a more accurate term: assembly line.

My point is that creating original content is a creative endeavor that doesn’t naturally scale. MrBeast is obviously successful but that doesn’t mean you can just cookie cutter another 100 MrBeasts. That’s not how it works.

To vaguely respond with an analogy, when I don't care what I'm drinking I don't drink Budweiser, I drink water.

It's good to not be insufferable in constantly policing oneself to follow the trend. sure. But watching Marvel movies isn't the only alternative.

This view seems to be contradicted by the extent to which people binge-watch shows, which involves way more than 90 minutes of continuous contents.

That’s a short ass movie

Except they fail in the execution. I appreciate that Netflix puts a red N on content that is Not Good.

It's possible it caters to their watching habits. I don't get those shows recommended either.

> Netflix can make a case that content continues to make an impact on subscription revenue over a larger window of time, and so expenses should equally be recognized in relation to the income statement.

How many people are getting Netflix subscriptions to watch Bright (2017 Will Smith+Orc movie) this year?

Or from a Disney perspective, how many people are getting Disney+ to watch Coco (2017 Day of the Dead 3d cartoon)?

I suspect the data teams have a lot of sway at netflix right at the top exec levels. I know this anecdotally since I am close to someone who has approached Netflix and was told it wont work for them.

Their reasoning was as simple as it can get. Their data showed what shows people liked in terms of genres and runtimes.

That might seem reasonable for short term gains until you realise how silly it is for longevity.

>A metric fuckton of content that caters to people with below average intelligence.

The big question is how big is the fraction of people who are below average intelligence. Depending on that ratio, it could make sense to produce content for that part of the population ...

Additionally, highly intelligent people earn more money and don't have to buy content wholesale. They can afford to buy movies directly which means that each view of intelligent content is worth much more. Now, how can Netflix integrate that into their platform? There won't be any bargains left. Even young talented creatives will demand what they are worth.

There have to be different streaming services for different quality levels. Netflix has decided to serve some fraction of the bell curve and leaves other fractions to others.

Indie movies are absolutely notorious for their habit of appealing to low intelligence people, it's practically their main market. They don't have much budget to tell an interesting story with, and are often being written by grant funded people without much experience and who are just desperate to make a movie (any movie) so they end up relying a lot on faux depth and complicated BS to make the movie seem like it has more to say than it really does. Critics lap that stuff up but most people who just want to be entertained with a risky but well made idea that doesn't puff itself up, the bigger studios are where you'll find them.

> Shows need to be pitched and run for three seasons max

with this as the case, they’ll likely be wrapped at the end of S03.

There’s not much to be done if they’re cancelled before S03.

> fear it ending suddenly without resolution

I don't mean to sound like some "well akshuallyyy"ing Comic Book Guy figure, but you must realise it's not real life? If it's a Poirot-type mystery where the entire payoff lies in the resolution, then I totally understand, but for a regular TV show I can't see why you would enjoy the episodes any less simply because it might end without resolving all your questions. There's no real suspense - it's not real people, it's just a bunch of people performing in front of a camera. Being distressed about 'what happened to them?' seems, well, puzzling to me.

Some other ones I watch again from time to time: Big Bang Theory, NYPD Blue, Supernatural, Cheers, ER, Law & Order, Blue Bloods, Waltons, Parenthood, Little House on the Prairie, Cosby Show, West Wing, MaGyver, Seinfeld, LoveJoy, Rumpole of the Bailey

> How I Met Your Mother 9 seasons

Luckily the last season only has 22 episodes!

A lot of series jump the shark of they get dragged out for long. Even worse, if it's a slow decline, it kills rewatchability. Some manage, but it goes wrong more often than not. And especially if your concept does not lend itself to a lot of seasons (like Chernobyl, for example), you should stop while it's still good.

Another thing I've noticed, they should only do about a dozen episodes per year. Anything more than that, and a much higher percentage are filler.

The problem with American TV is that almost everything is unbounded. Some shows manage to keep things going. Others jump the shark.

It’s not that having 10 seasons is bad. But many shows tell the story they wanted to tell in much less time. At which point you should just stop.

Some formats are interesting though like American Horror Story. It’s more like an anthology. Different story each season. Some actors might return with different roles.

Dr Who is also interesting since the mechanism for “reboots” is built in to the character.

Or go the Disney route and expand the individual character stories like they are doing with Marvel and Star Wars.

I'm a fan of shows or movies being as long as they need to be. To Old To Die Young is a great example of a show that is bold and does this. Episodes range anywhere from 30 to 90+ minutes.

That said, for shows that have a continuous, overreaching storyline I'm highly suspect of the writers having no idea how the thing is gonna end. Sure, in some lucky cases it works out super well, but in other cases it gets us unsatisfying stuff that undermines the show like with Lost or Battlestar Galactica. Come up with the story arch and tell the story. Please don't keep stretching the thing out endlessly and end it when it's bad or the crew wants to move on. That's fine with shows that have disconnected episodes, but for modern shows or can ruin the whole thing and leaves me feel like I wasted a ton of time.

But that's a problem. Watching a whole season makes you more invested in the show, so you're pissed off when it gets cancelled.

I also agree with OP that encouraging binge watching is not good. Netflix pumped out more content than any cable TV package I've ever had in the past, but by allowing binge-watching people binge and then get bored and say Netflix has no content.

If they spread out these shows it would be healthier for the viewers and would create a perception of more content.

This is not a good comparison, because except in very few cases, the audience of a pilot is not the general public. In fact, the general public will never have the chance to see the pilot unless it's picked up, and in that case they'll still have to wait until the entire season is filmed.

By contrast, Netflix uses the viewership ratings from the first season to determine whether to renew for a second season.

GOT wasn't milked. It outran the unfinished source materials and then the director/producers D&D "phoned it in" because they started working on Star Wars.

And seasons are so short that even the bad seasons weren't a lot of TV.

GOT had a lot of problems but dragging content out definitely wasn’t one of them

Some kid-oriented shows seem to get by just fine, albeit their story lines don't necessarily connect. Sponge Bob, and Big City Greens are two of my favorite kid shows with a ton of episodes. Maybe I just like kid shows...

In the children sitcom 'No good Nick' a female chef ignores feedback from her employee by accusing him of 'mansplaining'. The daughter accuses the white dad of 'cultural approriation' when he suggests taco Tuesday for the restaurant. And that was only the first minutes of one episode.

It is really funny to see comments like GP while netflix hosts Chappelle, tells its workers to leave if they don't want to work on projects they disagree with [1], and gets praised for it by the likes of republicans like Musk [2] who claim to be about free speech and what have you until they turn techno-fascist [3].

[1] https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/2022/05/15/netf...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-praises-netflix-te...

[3] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1525549535786717184

Try She-ra and Shadow and Bone with a kid... and note the paucity of straight characters in the first or the sweaty gay sex scenes in the second. Deemed not just appropriate, but seemingly an end-goal for children to see. At least they rate them as TV-14, but kids won't let that stop you.

Netflix finally implemented rating selection filters for profiles, but a few years too late for us. Try taking those shows away after they've already been watching them.

Nearly every video is extreme left propaganda like black actor playing English queen Charlotte. That was so dumb and disgusting to watch that a lot of people canceled subscription on that time.

Because they are a luxury car maker, a crowded sector. Tesla, to grow into its market cap, has to outsell the top automakers put together. They need something at the Toyota Corolla price point to do that.

Until a few months ago, Netflix was spaffing out content deals to support growth.(although they have announced a $250m deal with double negative animation.)

Everything is a genius growth model until its not.