What would a world be like in which cultural and entertainment works Were they created by artificial intelligence? To have a suspicion, you can take a look at Netflix’s own catalog. There are fictional series like churros, of eternal seasons, that would seem elaborated by algorithm: reluctant by archetypal in their characters and developments, cloned in their narration, routine in their ease. One over another. Before the appearance of ChatGPT we had already seen crimes, students and dramas on Netflix written as the commitment of a robot.
The biggest problem that the leading platform has, flagship and icebreaker of the global audiovisual market, is to give meaning to your product and create an assortment of productions with criteria and attraction for an audience of more than 200 territories. The prestige of the names with the checkbook is sometimes just not enough (disappointments like the feature film The Irish, by Martin Scorsese; the Ryan Murphy series Hollywood; or an animated series by Matt Groening like disenchantment) and the resounding successes that justify the promotion of subscriptions such as the squid game they are monumental The Crown they are sporadic. Even the great Spanish success, which opened up the market and possibilities for more fictions and talent, Money Heist, was not born on the platform but on a television channel, Antena 3. Álex Pina since he signed for Netfix has not repeated the hit (lucky) of the robbers.
For seduce 231 million customers spread all over the globe, Netflix allocates some 17,000 million dollars a year to its own production, plus what is acquired from the ‘conventional’ chains and operators, in an overwhelming offer that ends up suffocating many users who, without the proper prescription, cannot find something that convince them. The novelties go down the drain of dispersion and the most recurring titles, even those that are already widely watched, end up being the option (the new La que se avecina is more like Aquí no hay quien viva, incombustible). Own releases that rival movie theaters such as Blonde have been somewhat disconcerting for the public. Lack of hook and general success on Netflix.
The controversy of cap the shared accounts on Netflix and forcing you to pay extra has not improved the company’s image. What is a maneuver to increase income in defense of improving content has turned into discomfort among many users who see their pockets squeezed for little satisfaction.
To check if the multinational’s response is going to be more attractive content, Ted Sarandos will be in the front row, but the founder Reed Hastings, now more focused on philanthropic work, will not be CEO, returning part of what society has given him. His business went from being a video store by mail to transforming the audiovisual business with content on demand online. The video store went from the corner to the app Are we talking about television? Not exactly. And the spectator is perceiving it more and more clearly.
The platforms are huge visual libraries, shelves full of titles and invitations but the lustful avalanche, to be seen at home or in the palm of your hand anywhere, lacks a soul, a sincere connection beyond the merchandise. The client feels more and more alone between empty recommendations and on the other side there are only limitations to share, to download…
Streaming platforms, in general, have been concerned with compete to give a lot (a lot, not better), increasingly, perhaps with content so artificially intelligent and politically correct clichés (calculated portions of nudity, sex, teen dramas, LGTBI characters) that the stories have really been forgotten. Of stories that attract. the platforms they keep the customer in mind to charge him, but at the same time the viewer fades away. And this is what happens with Disney +, with Prime Video or with HBO Max (not so much and the past as a television channel is still noticeable). They have affordable prices but they are becoming expensive products because you don’t end up getting into them.
An indisputable potential of conventional TV channels is their proximity. And as much as it is said that television is going to die, a spectator sitting on the sofa will always prefer to be served rather than served. There is an affective thread with the chains and a confidence in the programming and television creates habit. Platforms do not create habits (no, they do not create habits) and that is why their consumption has stagnated (according to the people meters in Spain about eight minutes a day). Do you watch less television now? yes but the rival of the television is the mobile. If we were to spy on ourselves, we would see ourselves in front of the screen at home while we pass our finger across the glass to consult a website, answer a WhatsApp, get angry over a comment on Twitter. And with the television on, sideways.
Netflix does not make television, but content. And their own content is less and less dazzling. And that is extensible to each of the other platforms. Even when programs like those on TV have been created, type Bake Off on Prime Video, cumulative viewership has been sparse. The documentary is the rising genre, why? Because it tells real things. More and more the fictions of the platforms are not that they are fantasy, they are indifferent. And despite what the platforms decide and do, the TV channels must continue to make television.
Se has overstated and overestimated the power, role and importance of platforms of streaming. They cannot and will not supplant TV.
Ideas how to make a cheap package (It is not cheap, it is rather shabby) on Netflix devalues that exclusive merchandise itself. If the basic package continues to cost 8 euros since 2015 (7.99, but let’s not get lost with the commas), it is almost ridiculous to lower it to 5.50 euros to have the ordeal of ads. If the public embraced the platforms, it was precisely to run away from advertising for a small price. The packages that allow more devices and downloads, the standard (13 euros) and the premium (18 euros) are now penalized with 6 euros if you want to share with a child who lives in another house or with the neighbor. Netflix had a mission to unite generations and create community that it has now scorned for a handful of coins.
While the large payment platforms are confusedly entangled in futures, the horizon is clearing up for free platforms such as Pluto TV, Runtime or services such as RTVE Play. In their catalogs, the amortized content tends to prevail, but they compensate the users in experience, who come and go without remorse of spending. Like conventional television itself, if the price is to see advertising, we are used to it with resignation. The new generations, with their own habits, with a different relationship with the screens, will decide the audiovisual future, but with today’s audience, no one can take the usual television for granted: the one that accompanies information, with recognizable spaces, with its events and his daily fictions. That experience was renounced by the platforms in streaming. And the premium platforms type Movistar Plus +, Vodafone They charge them (in quantity and quality in sports and to a certain extent with recent movies and their own productions) complementary to their telephone services.
Since 2015 Netflix has gone adding every two years 1 euro for each superior package (standard and premium). It’s not exactly that he triggered prices, but rather that he was calculating expansion and rate increases in rhythm. Now it needs to expand and hits a ceiling of customers for not knowing how to respond, causing discomfort by turning shared accounts into something suspected of abuse. Was it bad to share accounts with a brother-in-law? More than touching the client’s pocket, it has touched the heart And that has unforeseeable consequences.
