WP3
Part 1:
Dear Executives,
I am writing this letter to you as both a subscriber and a filmmaker. In the fast-changing landscape of the media industry, there is a constant need to reevaluate strategies and priorities. With the introduction of streaming platforms, there has been a drastic shift in which media companies are prioritizing their shareholders and Wall Street over their subscribers. It’s crucial to remember that subscribers’ satisfaction shouldn’t be neglected as they are driving the success of those platforms.
In the span of six months in 2022, Netflix’s shares lost 65% of their value, which culminated with the company losing 54.4 million of its market capitalization overnight.1 This significant drop impacted the share price of all other streamers and should have been a wake-up call to rupture with Wall Street's model, wherein the share price is predicated solely on subscriber growth. Yet the only solution proposed was to crack down on password sharing, which contradicts the claim that the companies care about their customers. Netflix famously tweeted in March 2017: “Love is sharing a password”.2
As advertising for revenue generation on streaming platforms grows3, there is an opportunity to shift the perception of subscribers as individuals rather than mere numbers. Subscriber engagement could become a new metric for financial success. Considering that the price of an ad is not only determined by the number of eyeballs reached but also by the quality of the target audience, there is an incentive to have platforms that engage their subscribers. The more engaged subscribers are, the more likely they are to pay closer attention to the ads they are exposed to. The ultimate goal is to have users who consume content with higher frequency and watches a show or movie in its entirety. This approach could lead to an increase in revenue and substitute for the subscriber growth metric. However, to successfully engage subscribers there is a need to create quality content and reimagine the way platforms make their content accessible.
The current user interaction with the streaming platform appears as if the content is simply being dumped there without efficient organization, except for the top 10 ranking and genre categories. In Nielson’s recent poll, it was revealed that 20% of those polled said if they didn’t know what to watch during their allotted TV time, they’d give up and do something else. Hence, it might be a great idea to explore other models in which content is presented on the platform and explore ideas such as the ones used by YouTube and Roku. The former stands out for its exceptional algorithm that enables the curation of content based on a user's watch history. The Monthly Gauge by Nielsen, which measures how much time people spend watching TV, points out that YouTube is the leading platform. It scored 9.3 points, with Netflix behind at 7.8, and other platforms lagging with only a score of 2.8.4 This might not come as a surprise considering that Netflix is also one of the rare platforms having a competent algorithm. As for Roku, it exemplifies the return of the channel model associated with linear television. This model, considered archaic, enables platforms to curate content and facilitates content selection for the audience. Moreover, this can help smooth the transition for traditional television viewers to adopt streaming as more household cut the cord
As a filmmaker, I applaud streaming platforms for propelling television into a great creative age. The platforms have been able to break the conventions of television content and innovate. However, with the shortage of financial resources, I encourage you to reconsider how you produce content and how to budget shows. It is not uncommon for episodes to cost $20 million and $200 million per season or movie.5 However, these big gambles don't often materialize, and it's difficult to make a return on investment with the existing model. Consider making multiple smaller movies of $20-40 million each while attempting to focus on quality and taking more creative risks, potentially leading to significant rewards. It's essential to underscore that media conglomerates thrived on the commitment of creatives striving for excellence and creative innovation, exemplified by industry legends such as Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, Carl Laemmle, etc.
Furthermore, it's important to recognize that the theatrical business is not the enemy. A synergy between theatrical exhibition and streaming can be created to elevate the content, earning it prestige and return on investment, especially for expensive films. One of the most notorious examples is "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery," where Netflix spent $450 million solely on the rights before production costs. According to estimates, it could have grossed up to $50 million if given a traditional theatrical release during Thanksgiving.6 While streamers are winning accolades for their series, there is a struggle to replicate that with films. It seems to mostly stem from expecting to garner recognition from the industry without financially supporting it by enabling theaters to exhibit films created by streaming platforms. Rectifying this relationship could result in a warmer reception from critics by changing their perception of what a streaming movie is.
Full or semi-theatrical run could help address a common shortfall in streaming films: gaining momentum in their awards campaign. By incorporating theatrical exhibitions, there is a possibility of extending the discourse and excitement about a film for a longer period. Oppenheimer and Barbie are great examples of this model, as both films were still considered front runners at this year's Academy Awards despite being released in July 2023. The counter-programming, the headlines generated by the box office success, and the limited number of seats per theater contributed to the creation of a cultural phenomenon that could sustain itself until Oscar season and impact the votes of academy members.
By prioritizing subscriber engagement, reevaluating content production strategies, and enabling the exhibition of your properties in theaters, streaming platforms can help sustain a more sustainable industry that will truly enhance the product for subscribers. More importantly, it can act as some sort of reparation for all the disruption streaming caused in Hollywood, and heal the rift crews and talent have with the industry leadership. As the writer and actor strike is over, I urge you to consider these perspectives as you navigate the ever-evolving landscape of media.
Sincerely,
Ben Abergel
Part 2:
While completing research for Writing Assignment 2, I expect to write an article or a research paper. However, upon further consideration, I determined that an open letter might be more suitable. The data and articles I read made me realize that I have a unique take on the streaming industry, which I was interested in bringing to the attention of executives of those platforms. Contrary to previous pieces of writing, I decided to write from a personal and more subjective perspective, leading me to choose an open letter instead of writing a critique or an opinion piece, as I truly hope that my words might reach those in power and perhaps have an effect on the future of the industry.
This was my first time writing an open letter, so I had to figure out what the conventions of that genre were. Unlike other times, this time I did more planning prior to my writing to ensure that I don't get lost as I try to figure out how to write in this specific genre. I selected several points that I deem problematic in the current state of the industry and wrote a paragraph for each of them, which included the problem, supporting data if necessary, and what I deem as a good solution. Consequently, I am not relying as much as I used to on sources to build an argument, as my target audience knows the numbers and the current state of the industry better than I do. However, the sources I read were instrumental in helping me gain a comprehensive perspective on the streaming industry, which granted me more freedom and knowledge to compose the letter.
Yet when I wrote that, I did follow the stylistic and formatting conventions of an open letter. This was mostly evident by being more persuasive in my writing and addressing a specific group of people and the problems and subjects related to them. When it comes to the tone, I opted for formal yet natural to keep the conversation direct, respectful, and simple. I also chose to conclude it with a call to action and clarify to those executives that it is their responsibility to take care of their subscribers and the filmmakers working for them.
Executives' decisions are often data-driven, rely on experts' opinions, and are often decided by an exclusive and elitist circle. For that reason, I thought that writing an open letter could circulate my ideas more easily among filmmakers and subscribers while still finding their way into executives as they get a hold of that letter. Moreover, by addressing executives and not directly to CEOs of the streaming platforms, I believe that the letter could have a bigger impact. It can lead to a dialogue between the people who supervise the smooth operation of those platforms and hopefully make its way up the hierarchy all the way to the CEOs. Also, by addressing executives, I am encouraging them to be part of the change and not just execute the plan after reining CEO.
Despite being public companies, streaming platforms are notorious for lacking transparency with the data they gather about users. For that reason, I chose to write an open letter. Its formatting makes it very clear what the writer is demanding, who its target audience is, and what encourages the document's writing. Considering that, I believe that open letters will continue to be a valuable tool for advocacy. They are great reminders of the importance of transparency, accountability, and opening channels of communication for anyone to use their voice to mobilize and raise awareness of what they deem important.