It’s not TV ... but what is it? Netflix growth continues
Service expands at dizzying rate
OK, class. Time for a pop quiz. Which of the following is not an actual show released by Netflix in the last six months?
a) “3%,”a dystopian thriller from Brazil
b) “Quinnsurrection,” a loosely autobiographical dramedy starring Colin Quinn as a mistanthropic comedian
c) “Beat Bugs,” a kids’ show about backyard insects, featuring music by the Beatles
If you said (b), you’re right. But let’s face it: Unless you happen to write about television for a living (and even if you do) you may have had to give it some thought.
Since its first commissioned series “House of Cards” was released in February 2013, the streaming service has expanded its original (and acquired) programming at a dizzying rate. What began as a steady flow — the “Arrested Development” reboot a few months later, followed by the premiere of “Orange Is the New Black” — has turned into a full-blown torrent.
In the last month alone, Netflix has released a revival of a beloved, female-skewing CW dramedy (“Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life”); a trippy supernatural mystery from two acclaimed indie filmmakers (“The OA”); and a miniseries about the life of Pope Francis (“Call Me Francis”). That’s not even getting into Netflix’s growing stable of feature films, such as the recent biopic “Barry,” about a young Barack Obama.
And the tsunami will grow only larger in the coming year, during which Netflix plans to roll out 1,000 hours of original programming — enough to sustain nearly 42 days of binge-watching.
Forget about Peak TV; we’ve reached Peak Netflix.
Any attempt to define Netflix’s brand these days seems to be an exercise in frustration. How do you possibly characterize a service that offers both a critically reviled revival of a bad ’80sspawned sitcom (“Fuller House”) and the continuation of a niche favorite British series exploring the darker side of technology (“Black Mirror”), except to say it’s pretty inclusive?
On one level, this expansive approach is commendable, particularly in an era when pop culture, like politics, has become deeply factionalized, and the gap between the shows entertainment journalists obsess over and what vast numbers of Americans actually watch has only grown wider. (“Game of Thrones” is arguably the only current show that captures both demographics.)
But being everything to everyone is not only exhausting, it’s also an ineffective strategy for building new hits. Having a recognizable brand identity isn’t just about marketing, it’s about creative focus and financial priorities. Writers, producers and talent are drawn to Netflix for the creative freedom it famously affords, but if the service has more shows than it can realistically promote, if it’s just adding to the popculture clutter, will it remain as enticing an option?
In its defining years, HBO had “it’s not TV, it’s HBO.” AMC had “story matters here.” Tellingly, Netflix doesn’t even have a slogan.
The expression “Netflix and chill” hints at its formlessness: It’s the thing teenagers put on in the background while making out.
But it also speaks to the Netflix’s cultural pervasiveness. Netflix no longer has a distinct programming brand, but in a few short years it has become the default place for many to watch TV. And in a landscape where the choices can be downright overwhelming, that’s a powerful advantage — at least for now.