>

That's fair. I feel like I usually understand what's going on strategically at the companies I work for, but also all the businesses I've worked for have had less than 200 employees or so, so it's not that hard. I imagine the level of transparency is not high at a Fortune 500.
I canceled Netflix because they canceled so many unsuccessful shows that I thought were pretty good >

Sure, if you define success as not having been cancelled, his statement is correct >

They most likely define success as views and retention. I haven't seen the metrics, but my guess would be that most shows are "a small group of people really likes it but it doesn't draw the larger audience and as such doesn't pay for itself". Yes, a show does need to have a large audience to exist, otherwise it's a waste of money. No, the fact that you personally really really liked it doesn't make it "successful" >

Just like all things statistics, meaning is derived by how you view the numbers. A show can be successful in terms of overall viewership and still be deemed a failure due to stable numbers. In most scenarios stable is good, but to TV execs and venture capitalists anything less than constant growth is a failure. You shouldn’t be so quick to throw shade at fans for the defense of their fandom. >

And you shouldn't be quick to throw shade on people whose entire job is to manage their business. Finance department people who do nothing but calculate which metrics exactly the show needs to hit in order to be worth it. I mean, I'm not gonna say that the business doesn't make mistakes. Businesses make lots of mistakes, and sometimes quite stupid ones. But yes, unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary, my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs they were employed to do, and that the decisions they make are sensible >


... unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary

That's easy. Watch Netflix.

... my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs. 

Have you met people? Personally, I look at low odds of getting a group of competent ones together at the same place, and use the default assumption that at one point they were less incompetent than their competitors and that momentum can keep things going for a long time after that is no longer true. >

Can't cancel a successful show if you cancel everything before it has a chance to become one! >

That's cool Ted. I've never told anyone to watch Netflix because all the shows I like get cancelled. They already know about the 5 popular ones. >

Is he okay? >

He's obviously delusional. 
These idiots don't want just success, they expect all their shows to reach Stranger Things or Squid Game levels of success.
What really determines that a show is successful anyway? They should be looking into that instead of just saying bullshit like this. >

Shows are only successful if everyone binges them in the first week. Having a backlog of shows that last all the way to the end of the story seems to not be important to them. >

I never really appreciated the episode per week format until someone pointed out the benefits. It lets viewers form a community that discusses each episode, speculates on new developments, and savors it over time.
From the platform's standpoint, that means fewer people subscribing just to binge a show or two. Hence Disney can trickle out Mandalorian episodes that retains subscribers, but Netflix drops Stranger Things in one or two batches every year or more that might get fewer sustaining subscribers. >

I completely agree. Binge watching is a short term "pleasure" but I think it's detrimental to the long term impact of shows. Either you binge everything asap, or you get the show spoiled on next Mondays lunch break. 
It turns the entire thing into a solitary experience. You never really feel like there's a point in talking to acquaintances about the shows, because the odds of you being at the same point in the show are so low. >

Dude, you're projecting.  Just because you need an artificial release schedule to force you into a social sharing experience, that doesn't mean others need that mechanism or want that same result.  If your social group is going to spoil all your shows on lunch breaks then find a better social circle. >

That’s called a self fulfilling prophecy Ted. >

I want Mindhunter back. >

I want more Dead end Paranormal Park. >

I want more Inside Job.
I wanted more Santa Clarita Diet. >

I also wanted more 1899 and those are just recent ones! >

I never watch Netflix shows until they have a few seasons >

Final space still got fucked >

Final Space was Turner and Adult Swim. Netflix only had the streaming rights >

Really? I never saw anything about it on adult swim. I knew it was conans company >

I actually watched it on Adult Swim, stumbled upon it looking for something as background noise while I did dishes, saw Final Space aaaaand.. Dishes weren't done that night. God I was so upset when I saw it was cancelled (ON YOUTUBE.). >

Damn that video was heartbreaking. Assuming you saw the one from the creator. >

yeah, it really was, the last piece of Final Space we got was the VR game... >

Cool. So when is Travelers coming back? >

I really loved that show.  Started off as a I guess I can have this on while doing chores.....moved to omfg I'm going to have to rewatch it immediately. >

This title suggests Ted Sarandos is hopelessly out of touch with the audience and is incapable of equating the cancellation of multiple popular shows with the loss of viewers who are sick of buying into characters and storylines only for the shows to be cancelled after one or two series.
I recently cancelled my 8 year Netflix membership and have no intention of going back despite how many "Lets get back together" and "we've added x TV programmes and films" junk emails they want to send me. 
I had brand loyalty and was naively against services like Disney+ who i thought simply wanted a piece of the streaming pie, now given the decline of Netflix I've decided was misplaced and there are many better options. >

HBO Max has an awesome library of content and renews even mid-tier shows that nobody talks about. They did recently axe a lot of kids/family stuff though but I’m child free so I don’t care. >

Huh, seems like somebody greenlit a LOT of unsuccessful shows. I wonder who did that, Ted? >

What about Santa Clarita Diet? Disjointed? >

I'm still mad about Santa Clarita. That show was so good and the chemistry between all the characters (not just Drew and Timothy, but the whole cast) was super enjoyable. >

Mr ball leg needs a spin off >

i hate merchandizing but Wednesday could use a more plush sidekick >

I mean, once you cancel it it’s no longer successful, so he’s right! >

Funny that it’s on the AV club, which came from the onion. >

So they've never had a successful show? >

Show of hands, who calls bullshit? >

Netflix has George Santos energy >

I don't understand why the author of the piece is shocked that someone would say out loud that a cheap series doesn't have to make as much money as an expensive series. Do people not generally get that? Just because a fan base is vocal or highly concentrated in a subreddit doesn't mean it's actually popular. >

Didn’t they cancel Dark Crystal literally hours after it won an Emmy? >

I am still upset about this. That season was amazing and had me grafted to the screen.
All the big investments were done, the building of the sets, the characters etc.
All Netflix had to do was let things play out and once the show was complete vieuws would have probably skyrocketed. >

MST3K?
Fans funded the whole 13th season on their own after funding a lot of 11 so that Netflix could pick it up, throttle the 12th season, then drop it >

As much as I hate that Netflix cancelled MST3K, I'm pretty happy it is back with Joel and the people who love it the most. Tom and Crow are too special to be in the hands of those corporate monsters. >

What's his definition of "successful show" >

Whatever internal benchmarks a show of a given budget needs to meet for Netflix to continue it.
Thus his statement is absolutely true, but also almost tautological to the point of being useless. >

This is some 'the front fell off' levels of bullshit, really.
"We're cancelling your show because it's not successful."
"How do you know it's not successful?"
"Well, we're cancelling it for starters. That doesn't happen when it's successful." >

If Netflix wasn’t free courtesy of Comcast, I’d have cancelled that shiz a long time ago. >

I think they are using some metrics a lot of us wouldn’t agree with. >

thats a huge lie >

Wasn't "I'm not okay with this" cancelled due to difficulty dealing with a large cast during covid. Weren't there other shows that fell under that reason for cancelation?  Please tell me if I'm wrong about the reasoning but if I'm not then don't those count as successful cancelations? >

Say you only watch the most popular shows without saying you only watch the most popular shows >

Do people really think he’s going around canceling all the best and most profitable shows, and he’s doing it just to punish you, personally, knowing it’s going to hurt the Netflix bottom line, because you’re all quitting the service? 
Reading these comments, the answer seems to be “yes”. >

A detail missing is that Netflix clearly throws too much money, and thus expectations, at a show that is just not likely to meet it. It was obvious that Cowboy Bebop, and Resident Evil were doomed to be cancelled when they released. They were too high-budget, too risky and even a relatively positive reception wasn't likely to translate to enough watchers.
They set shows up to fail too often by doing this. >

so, bad judgement AND full of shit.  got it >

You know, I watched that 90s show. Not the best thing ever, but I enjoyed it enough.
Been googling "That 90s Show cancelled" once a day ever since - just know it's coming. >

stares at the grave of Altered Carbon >

I finally bought the books on my kindle to fit the hole the cancelled show left behind. I'm enjoying them a lot but since the series followed the books pretty loosely I'm interested in where the show was going next. >

I assume the metric for success is simply a ratio of operating cost versus viewership. Seems pretty obviously like all other television networks, but what's the ratio? 
Does that count too for tentpole or award bait properties, though? >

Shall we start listing them all now, or wait a few minutes? >

The list of "series that I like" is not the list of "succesful series". >

/facepalm >

Ted Sarandos is happy to announce that Ted Sarandos is canceling Ted Sarandos for lack of being a successful show. >

Tell that to the Dark Crystal >

sad 1899 noises >

Talk about out of touch with your user base. >

Great application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. >

I really miss Daredevil >

I mean that was Disney not Netflix. Plus another season is coming out. >

A lot of people seem to be taking that headline at face value with some bad hot takes, in my opinion.
The full quote is this:

We have never canceled a successful show. A lot of these shows were well-intended but talk to a very small audience on a very big budget. The key to it is you have to be able to talk to a small audience on a small budget and a large audience at a large budget. If you do that well, you can do that forever.

I don't have the data to know for sure whether he's speaking truth, but why wouldn't he? Be critical in your assessment of that. What could he possibly gain by being misleading about that? >

You stupid fucks are confusing successful for “show I like” Why the fuck would Netflix cancel shows that make money? Nah Teds probably right. They probably only canceled shows that lose or aren’t making enough money. And that’s how they measure success >

This may be literally true, but a detail missing is that Netflix clearly throws too much money, and thus expectations, at a show that is just not likely to meet it. It was obvious that Cowboy Bebop, and Resident Evil were doomed to be cancelled when they released. They were too high-budget, too risky and even a relatively positive reception wasn't likely to translate to enough watchers.
They set shows up to fail too often by doing this. >

Cowboy Bebop had positive reception someplace? >

No, but I meant even if it did, it was unlikely to gain enough watchers. >

So so so massively incorrect. Seems like they’ve mostly only cancelled successful shows. And didn’t they just let their CEO go? >

That's him >

So much ignorance on this thread about how shows get made and how the streaming business works. 
Luckily Netflix gives few shits about Redditors, unless they are gifting millions in free positive publicity for a show. It will not preserve that show for you, but appreciate the pub! >

Guess that makes Ted a liar now, don’t it >

He is not liar. He have more information than you. If you like a show dont mean that is succesful. >

Oh yeah? It’s not like the writing hasn’t been on the walls for years. The joke used to be that they were so desperate for content that they’d greenlight anything. Now their quantity over quality strategy is backfiring and they’re known for canceling anything before it has a chance to become popular. The executives at Netflix are misunderstanding their customers’ behaviors, which is obvious if you’ve ever read through any posts about shows that are canceled. Who wants to invest in watching a show when it might be canceled before it’s conclusion? Sometimes they don’t even adequately market shows. How can a show become “popular” when too few people know it exists? >

His head is certainly pretty far up his ass. >

Best for Netflix is small budget large audience...
But don't tell them that. >

His ass is sucking wind. >

What's the oniony bit here?
Netflix has metrics for success.  They cancel shows that don't meet them, and don't cancel shows that do. >

Their metrics are bad. They focus entirely on short term, rapid growth hits (like Squid Game and Stranger Things) that bring in new users and not on a long-term plan around loyalty and retention. Then they wonder why they can't keep users around.
Their stock has been on a downward slope for a long time now so I think they should listen to their users. >


They focus entirely on short term, rapid growth

This is pure speculation on your part.  I like how you treat it as a fact.

Then they wonder why they can't keep users around.

Care to speculate some more, maybe on when and why I canceled my subscription?  It'll be funny to see you completely whiff another one.

Their stock has been on a downward slope for a long time now 

No, it hasn't.  It had a precipitous fall in the first half of 2022.  It's been steadily trending upwards since then.

so I think they should listen to their users.

You should probably learn what their actual motives are and what their stock is actually doing before forming such opinions. >

Of course this is a useless source in a Reddit argument but my friend is an engineer at Netflix and I'm mostly echoing her takes. Ofc she can be wrong but I'm not completely speculating. I don't really care why you cancelled your netflix subscription. >


Ofc she can be wrong but I'm not completely speculating. 

Unless she's routinely invited to board meetings or she's peeping at people's emails, she is.  I was an engineer at Paypal and I can tell you exactly 0% about how top management came to their decisions.  Same with every other Fortune 500 company I've worked for, and there are a handful.