[thebradbain]

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

> 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.

[tiagopavan]

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]

Very interesting. Now that you know, how do you interpret those numbers ?

[oefrha]

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]

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]

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]

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?!

[antientropic]

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.

[thebradbain]

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]

> 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]

Interesting- I'm not sure there's been any streamer more secretive than Netflix about its numbers though.

[spiderice]

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

[thebradbain]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rr808]

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

[nine_k]

(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]

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...

[nindalf]

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”.

[bryanrasmussen]

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"

[rezonant]

That's just how it goes, though. I'm sure if we had music numbers, we'd see well known classics up the charts too. That doesn't mean that viewers don't want new content to watch- likely you would see classics go up when there isn't new content to watch [just throw on an episode of Friends!].

I'm actually excited to see non-Netflix shows on these charts, because this is a signal to Netflix to maintain access to non-Netflix show libraries.

Until recently one of the big problems of streaming licensing was that the rights were almost always sold exclusively, meaning if Netflix had show A but then Hulu won the bidding war for show A in the next round, Netflix had to get rid of it. As evil as Zaslov and his ilk are, this newer round of changes in the industry seems to be opening up the option for non-exclusive licensing. That's really the only way you're going to avoid having a subscription to every major network app (Peacock, Paramount+, Max, Netflix, etc) in order to have a good catalog of stuff to watch.

And frankly I'm tired of dealing with the uneven experiences of these apps, and having to keep a mental map of what show is owned by who in order to jump in to watch these shows without a JustWatch Google search every time. It would be nice if there was a decent shot of just trying an app and having a show I want to watch on it.

[Hasnep]

> I'm sure if we had music numbers, we'd see well known classics up the charts too.

We do have that, don't we? The music charts are literally a chart of the most popular music.

[watwut]

I discovered Breaking Bad exists this year. So, likely, whole bunch of people discovered it along with me.

Nothing sad about it, it is really good show.

[pjc50]

"Popular content is popular" surprise.

Also this is the re-establishment of a "canon". It's not bad to have a set of shows that "everyone" has seen, but to get there takes a lot of views.

[op00to]

Why is it sad? If that's what people like, that's what people like. I pretty much exclusively watch Bob's Burgers reruns.

[lmm]

Seems like a sign that the medium is finally maturing to me. Imagine if people only ever read new books.

[EvanKnowles]

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.

[mejutoco]

This has happened with books already and nothing (arguably) broke.

[rezonant]

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

[blitzar]

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]

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]

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]

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.