Forum - View topicNEWS: Netflix Lays Off 300 More Employees
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Connor Dino
Posts: 299 |
|
|||||||
You aren't being consistent with your argument. You said that people like me (who think regular tv and movies as they are now are broadly going to go the way for the dodo bird) should feel embarrassed because somehow netflix losing subscribers means that regular tv and movies are coming back. No where did you say that people are canceling their netflix subscriptions because they want to...go outside? Hang out with people? What exactly are you saying? I guess you could argue that, as covid concerns decrease, people's outside activities will increase and therefore the average person sees less utility in having multiple streaming channels, but that isn't what you argued originally. Furthermore, one would have to see a wider tread across ALL streaming platforms before making such a blanket statement. However, from what little I know of this space, that isn't the case. Cancelations appear based on platform content, options, price, and personal economic constraints. The percentage of people canceling netflix to "go outside"likely isn't zero, but it also likely isn't statistically significant. All of this is beside the point though. No one is arguing that, due to netflix, basic face-to-face human interaction is a thing of the past. That would be an absurd argument. I have never made it and nor do people who think like me...and it also isn't what YOU were arguing against. So I ask you again, what exactly do you think is going on here? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
jdnation
Posts: 1999 |
|
|||||||
That comedian is still very popular. The other stuff isn't. Unless you think a company should continue sinking money into things nobody is watching? Do you think Netflix is actually doing that? Why should they continue to fund things that don't do well? Or if things are not doing well overall, why wouldn't it make sense to cut the things that make the least? Besides, if anyone is cancelling Netflix, it is more likely to do with stuff like Cuties, or merely because of competition from other studios who want to have their own subscription services, and people figure,"why subscribe annually, when I can just hop around between services and only subscribe for a month to binge the few new shows that are there?" Also, now the people are no longer being imprisoned in their homes by big brother government, perhaps they want to spend more time outside as it has been nearly 2 years of lockdown. Subscription services benefitted a lot from that time because people didn't have anything better to do.
That depends on the size of the audience. Clearly according to Netflix's own metrics, the Chappelle audience outweighs the ones who don't like him. Whatever Netflix might be, I guarantee that is what it comes down to at the end of the day. Chappelle was worth keeping. The other stuff was not. Streaming services saw their boom. Now like all things going up, things come down and it plateaus somewhere. That is what we are now seeing, where things are settling and the experimentation phase of throwing money around to see what sticks or resonates is over. It not like Netflix wasn't catering to both audiences. One was substantially larger, and the other smaller one apparently couldn't live and let live and demanded the other audience's interest be cancelled or else... Netflix chose "or else." If you have confidence in what Netflix let go of, then they'll certainly find other sources of funding or other channels. So I wouldn't worry. Netflix is not obligated to give them money. And they are free to shop their wares elsewhere that will be more accomodating and also have dedicated audiences who want it. So you can join them there too and vote with your wallet.
First, stop and consider why they paid him as mich as they did.... Does Netflix just like giving money away? The answer is, no. If they paid Chappelle that much, it is because there is a bidding war on for Chappelle. This is all part of the free market. You don't think Netflix executives would have wanted Chappelle for cheaper? The price was where it was because not only did Netflix want Chappelle, but they wanted him exclusively, obviously requiring them to outbid their competitors and because they believed it would drive subscriptions or at least maintain them. Maybe it didn't work out? Guess we'll know when time comes to see who gets Chappelle next time and for how much.
No, Chappelle came out of this intact because audiences still like him, pay for him, and agree with him and disagree with the side that demands that he be taken away. Those audiences don't demand that Netflix take down any of its other LGBT content. They did cross a line with Cuties for many, and so likewise, they simply voiced their displeasure and left. Everyone else is free to do the same. Netflix is not obligated to give anyone money and are free to pursue who they want and live to reap or lose according to those decisions. Likewise, nobody is obligated to give Netflix money. In any case, when companies are doing very well, they take chances on things and try to expand into riskier areas. When times are tough, they become more conservative. They focus on their larger and more dedicated audiences. This turns out to be Chappelle and more typical but popular content. It is the same for PlayStation and Nintendo as it is for Netflix. Top Gun makes money. Great indy films like The Northman didn't. And even nicher stuff makes even less. S'how it goes. There is a teason why those soets of things get lower budgets. Sure, sometimes simething niche catches lightning in a bottle and unexpectedly does very well. But those are incredibly rare and unpredictable. Not everything gets to be Stranger Things or Squid Game. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
MaritLage
 Posts: 140 |
|
|||||||
|
Connor Dino , those are Strawman Arguments .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Personally , i actually would argue that Netflix is erasing the perceived need for human interaction by using algorithms to predict viewer reaction to such a degree of intensity that it creates the illusion that people are being interacted with directly , incentivising them to stay indoors while the the bonds of society decay necrotically (a process which is wreaking havok on municipal infrastructure , as people are spending less and less time paying attention to their surroundings , and are hence losing the ability to discern what needs repairing and what doesn·t) . |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group