Content Consumption in the SVOD Era (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Watch Essentially Identical Shows Repeatedly) - Part 1

NOTE: I LOST ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THIS ARTICLE FOR REASONS I DON’T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHEN I HIT “PUBLISH.” SO ENJOY MARK 2 (WHICH I’M NOW PUBLISHING IN 2 PARTS, AND WHICH I THINK IS INFERIOR). I HAVE LEARNED MY LESSON AND WILL NEVER WRITE AN ARTICLE IN A LINKEDIN BLOG WINDOW AGAIN.

PART 1

I've been thinking a lot over the past few weeks about how the transition from broadcast TV and theatrical motion picture exhibition to digital platforms has changed content consumption habits (and, by extension, content acquisition habits by buyers. And by extension to that, content development habits by sellers). The transition to SVOD and FAST/AVOD platforms has fundamentally changed entertainment, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. After all, it is now possible to watch Fear Factor or Baywatch 24/7 on Pluto TV if so inclined - they each have dedicated channels that exhibit nothing but back-to-back episodes.

Before I set the table for this hypothesis (and that's all it is, for now), a shoutout to Briana Hill who put the germ of a thought in my head about twelve months ago by pointing out Netflix's seemingly insatiable desire for shows about families living in haunted or magical houses (count them if you want!).

The Old World

To contextualize these thoughts, it's useful to think about how the entertainment business used to work, first by examining the old broadcast model. TV networks generally reserved the 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. slots on Monday to Friday for original programming. That's 3 hours per night, or 15 hours per week (maximum, because the 10 p.m. slot would often be reserved for shows like 20/20 and Dateline). Of course, each network would traditionally carry a mix of half-hour shows (generally sitcoms) and one hours shows (often procedurals). The net result was a very finite number of shows that could be aired by any network (and that's not even accounting for reruns and live sports).

The limited number of broadcast slots had very direct implications for the decisions that the networks made in selecting the shows that they elected to develop, order and cancel. If you have a relatively successful show set in a hospital in its third year, you're probably not going to order a second hospital show. Likewise, if you have two comedies about a quirky group of urban friends in development, you're probably going to order only one (at most). Maybe you can make room for a couple of cop shows (especially if part of a franchise like CSI or Law & Order), but that's it. The cable model eventually deviated somewhat from this (e.g., Bravo, with its five largely identical Housewives shows), but broadcast never did. And, of course, any time a network even slightly deviated from the formula and found success, all of the other networks simply mimicked with their own inferior versions (which explains the slew of horrendous Lost clones between 2005 and 2008). Obviously this was all governed by the overarching business model - persuading companies to advertise their products against specific shows.

Similar rules applied in motion picture. You greenlight your slate for the year, which by the late 90s was also incredibly predictable - blockbusters for the summer, awards contenders in the fall, horror, romcoms and failed development for January through March. Each studio only had a certain number of slots (and, indeed, there are a finite number of screens), so it was essential to identify your big August four quadrant release, and put all your marketing energy and money behind it.

All of that has been totally blown up by digital.

The Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this article is essentially this: in a digital world where all of the restrictions on amount of programming have eroded, content buyers can, will and should produce a large number of extremely similar shows aimed at a core and dedicated group of viewers. It's fairly easy to identify the kinds of groups I'm talking about. Some of those examples would be reality TV aficionados, horror junkies, superhero fans, anime viewers, and romcom devotees.

My theory is this: during the broadcast era, entertainment consumers were exposed to, and consumed, a range of genres and types of content. If you subscribe to the idea that, a lot of the time, viewers simply turned on the TV and watched what was on, then the same viewer might watch a detective series, a cop procedural, a sci-fi show, and two different sitcoms in the same week. I don't think that's happening any more, at least not to the same extent.

Instead, I think that viewers are essentially becoming "superconsumers" of a particular type of programming. Reality TV is an easy example to cite. It is my theory (and I have no data for this) that a lot of viewers essentially watch only reality television. If you are a reality TV series fan, you are probably watching one or more Housewives shows, Selling Sunset, Million Dollar Beach House, and maybe Indian Matchmaking (for which a fellow Vandy Law grad is the breakout star). There’s a reason that Netflix is investing so heavily in reality. And I think this is transferring into other areas. If you are a superhero fan, then I would suggest that you are watching The Boys and Umbrella Academy, and you’re looking forward to the Marvel shows arriving on Disney Plus. Moreover, you are more likely to watch a show that is superhero focused than most other available genres.

Of course, this trend is both facilitated and accelerated by the emergence of algorithm-driven recommendation engines, which encourage viewers to watch more of the types of content that they demonstrably like. If Netflix knows that I binged The Haunting of House Hill in a week, you’d better believe that I’m going to see The Haunting of Bly Manor (and probably dozens of various horror movies) on my home page come October. Moreover, it is well publicized that SVOD platforms are making development and greenlight decisions based on view behavioral data. It’s impossible for me to say exactly what the data is showing, but based on what I’m seeing in terms of programming strategies, I believe that it is suggesting the following: that, assuming that budgets can be reasonably controlled, certain genres and types of programming are always a good idea because, irrespective of originality and quality, they will always find an audience among their “superfans” – and some will also manage to break through to find a broader audience. Accordingly, because SVOD platforms are unencumbered by the limited “slots” that limited their broadcast and theatrical predecessors, they should churn out many of that type of category as reasonably possible.

To illustrate, it’s worth mentioning two genres with virtually insatiable audiences: romantic comedies and horror. If I were in charge of programming at a SVOD platform, I would make it a medium term mandate to have at least one new romantic comedy and at least one original new movie on the service every week of the year. The rationale is exactly as set forth above: a handful of those movies will be very good, and will find a wider general audience or make some noise in popular culture (although, let’s be honest, a movie doesn’t have to be good to make waves in today’s meme culture). The remainder of the movies will be mediocre, derivative or poor, but it doesn’t matter. Their core “superfan” viewers will still watch them all, and it will help keep those viewers as subscribers - which, in the subscription model, is the main aim of the game.

IN PART 2:

CONTENT ACQUISITION TRENDS

THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

CATALOG HITS

WHAT HAPPENED TO SITCOMS?