>

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.
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"