Netflix popularized binge watching, but is it time to move on?

[Shawn Knight]

The big picture: Netflix recently announced it would be releasing Stranger Things 4 in two parts. The streaming giant and the show’s creators said the upcoming season was nearly twice as long as any previous season, and in an effort to get it to viewers as soon as possible, they’re splitting it into two volumes. But is that the real motivation behind the decision?

Netflix started experimenting with releasing full seasons of new shows all at once with originals like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. Going against the grain and trying something new is always risky, but the gamble paid off as viewers loved the newfound freedom. The term “binge-watch” was even selected as the Collins English Dictionary’s 2015 word of the year.

The streaming giant has expanded its use of the innovative viewing model over the years, but lately, some have publicly encouraged Netflix to reconsider weekly, paced releases.

The streaming landscape has shifted considerably over the last decade or so, and there are more content providers available to choose from now than ever before. With the enormous amount of content on tap, some argue that it’s all a bit overwhelming. Slowing things down could give viewers more time to stay current with the latest shows.

Timed releases also make it much more convenient to discuss developments with friends or co-workers around the watercooler. What’s more, the gap between seasons seems far lengthier with shows that are released all at once and consumed in an evening or weekend.

Proponents of the binge-watch model argue that it’s all about having willpower and pacing yourself. Fatigue could be real for some, but just because it’s available doesn’t mean you have to watch it right away. And with a little planning, one might even consider reducing the number of streaming services subscribed to and save a bit of money each month.

Not everyone has jumped on the binge-watch bandwagon. Showtime, for example, recently wrapped up Dexter: New Blood on a weekly schedule that spanned more than two months. Disney+ and HBO Max also regularly employ the traditional weekly release model for new shows.

Netflix likely has all of the data it needs to determine if binge watching is helping or hurting subscriber growth, and judging by their actions up to this point, it probably isn’t harmful. One could argue that the competition hasn't adopted the strategy simply because it's too expensive to release a new content at the rate that Netflix is capable of.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you prefer having everything at your disposal to consume whenever suits you best, or do you find yourself missing the days of appointment television and the anticipation that comes with waiting for a new episode to drop each week?

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/93529-netflix-popularized-binge-watching-but-time-move.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Binge watching is easy when you’re home with nothing to do.

Quarantine is over and the revenge is to get from under the TV and get out to do stuff.

 

[Dimitriid]

With all due respect, I think the article writer has things backwards: Is not a question of "Netflix and other services need to parse out the content, it's too much"

It's more a situation where Netflix back then (And largely still the case) *had to* give an incentive for people to subscribe to them with their own content because trying to license content from other media companies was not going to be a sustainable model specially after most of them decided to start competing services.

So how do you make up for a comparatively lower amount of available original shows and movies? Episodic content (Traditional TV series) just doesn't has as much impact as a serialized content (full season all at once) so people might (correctly) think Netflix original shows might not be as high budget and quality as competitors, but well at least there's no artificial waiting and padding they were used from cable and other media companies making sure to drip feed content little by little when people were clearly more interested in longer sessions to watch several episodes at the time and get through a full series.

For other companies it would be relatively easy to just go back to slower content drip feeds of an episode per week and such. But again, how is Netflix going to compete with a giant like Disney that can produce many more high quality shows per year? Their only option is to do anything they can to make them more attractive and the public has responded well to their binge watch strategy, changing it now without a realistic option to compete would be a terrible idea.

 

[GoldenGoat]

Asking to have to wait? who would do that? That makes no sense. Most people hate having to wait. It's like going to a bank or store when it's not busy and asking them to make you wait anyway. Nobody in their right mind would want that. Please video game server, we want longer wait queues. No, nobody says that.

 

[FaTaL]

No. its because netflix for the first time Q4 2021 did not have subscriber growth, so these greedy 8====D suckers are splitting seasons 6 months apart (prolly).

 

[yRaz]

No. its because netflix for the first time Q4 2021 did not have subscriber growth, so these greedy 8====D suckers are splitting seasons 6 months apart (prolly).

Maybe releasing them once a week or something, but I wouldn't put it past them. Actually, releasing an episode once a week over 10 weeks would probably make more money than releasing half a season once a year.

But I'll say this much about "binge watching". Modern TV shows, especially netflix, is such garbage that if I couldn't skip over stuff to get to watch what I wanted then I wouldn't watch it at all.

 

[wiyosaya]

I think the once a week model is more addictive because you have to wait which creates anticipation. I like having all the episodes available so I don't have to wait, however, I will never watch more than two episodes of any show in one day. I have a life to live, and life cannot be truly lived if one is glued to the episode viewer for any large portion of any day, and for me, that would be anything over two-hours a day.

I don't subscribe to Disney+ mainly because I like only a few series on the service. I will, however, subscribe for a month when all the episodes of the thrid season of The Mandalorian and all of the episodes of the second season of the Bad Batch are available, and then pace myself with no more than one episode of each or two episodes of one in any day. A month will be more than enough time for me to catch up both.

I am willing to bet that there exist internal memos within the Netflix hierarchy that are like the ones that were discovered among the google top management that said they knew what they were doing was addictive and did it anyway.

I will not fall into the trap.

 

[Aryassen]

I think there is no real problem here. During busy days, I didn't watch much, or any TV shows. Then came the weekend, and it felt good to play couch potato and watch 6 eopisodes for instance, in a row. On occasion, when I fanncied. Not every weekend.

I felt like I am given a choice: do I want to watch it episode by episode, or in larger chunks (and with a good show, the latter allows unparalled immersion). I didn't fnd any corelation between release schedule and quality, watching old shows episodes (released weekly or even more scattered) in a short period of time, I have sometimes realised a lot silliness I didn't recognise when watching it week by week (the focus is not that sharp).

For me, it is really just the freedom of choice, I don't feel it's a threat to my health or the root of bad habits.

 

[Nobina]

I can't remember the last time I watched a TV series, a couple of years ago maybe, but when I do, I see no reason not to keep watching as long as I have the time. And the fact that Netflix and Disney are churning out TV series out of their asses makes me want to watch them even less.

 

[SiJiL]

I liked the way Arcane was released - 3 lots of 3 episodes at a time. It let people who wanted to watch all 3 at once, and others spread them out over the week up to the next set.

 

[BSim500]

I don't get it. The article is written as if Netflix single-handedly "invented" not being limited to viewing one 30-60 min show per series per week in the mid 2010's, when in reality people have been doing that since at least the 80's / 90s with VHS / DVD boxsets of TV shows...

 

[George Keech]

Trouble is now, I think there is too much choice and I spend more time skimming through Services than watching them.

 

[okie11]

I just wait until all episodes are available and then I binge watch them, I watch on my schedule not theirs.

 

[Dimitriid]

I don't get it. The article is written as if Netflix single-handedly "invented" not being limited to viewing one 30-60 min show per series per week in the mid 2010's, when in reality people have been doing that since at least the 80's / 90s with VHS / DVD boxsets of TV shows...

I would point out there is a major difference: most of the TV that was popular in the 90s and 2000s was not really serialized content, maybe not 100% episodic but the overall plot of most shows was slow moving and only developed mostly in the season openers and season closers.

This means people with dvd collections could potentially watch the show as serialized content but you'd be hard pressed not to find an abundance of filler episodes on most of even those shows that actually had slow moving overall plots.

What Netflix did (Again, I maintain this wasn't entirely a creative decision but a constrain due to their limited production budgets) was to just basically cut out the filler episodes and release just the strong episodes in the beginning and end of the season.

The difference is that since these shows were never going to air on TV and didn't need to adhere to the 1 episode per week format, 22-24 episodes per season at all then the good parts could be condensed to what we used to call a mini series except now you can experience it in potentially just 1 day or a couple evenings.

Again this had the happy side effect of actually engaging the audiences more effectively since people put up with the filler episodes on TV just to get to the good stuff and because they were careful about how to compete but now, everything is the good parts so even if it wasn't (At first at least) just great content the fact that it didn't have the filler also meant that more people were more likely to get invested because of the relatively low commitment: you didn't need to become a fan of the show like in the 2000s and 2010s to follow along through thick and thin (Or worst, you weren't required to invest an unreasonable amount of time to follow endless undeciphereable plots of the soap opera era of people with what feels like 100x more time to watch those shows)

 

[Uncle Al]

LOL .... I've lived long enough to appreciate my fathers claim that television is "the one eyed monster" and is a waste of time. Other than the occasional news or sporting event like the Masters I simply don't waste time on it. I'd love to know how much more people and companies would be productive if TV and all forms of social media had never been invented.

 

[terzaerian]

LOL .... I've lived long enough to appreciate my fathers claim that television is "the one eyed monster"

This is why I use dual monitors

 

[Axeia]

Other than the occasional news or sporting event like the Masters I simply don't waste time on it. I'd love to know how much more people and companies would be productive if TV and all forms of social media had never been invented.

Waste of time is a weak argument, how's watching sports not a waste of time? Just because it draws the biggest crowds and it's the only thing the older generation cares about doesn't make it special in any way. Watching football (soccer) isn't any different from watching The Witcher when it comes to adding something of value to your life.

And let's face it, we all need a waste of time in our lives to unwind. Before TV it was radio, board games and books until you go back far enough where it's just sharing stories around a campfire.

 

[Feng Lengshun]

As an anime watcher, I prefer week-by-week release. Easier to catch up if I fall behind, longer period of discussion, generally more memorable, and can watch as soon as it's released in Japan. Binge-watching... generally doesn't have the same feel to it than with week-by-week watching (even in the case of rewatch events on r/anime)

Binge is fine if I want to just get it through as fast as I can, but as far as release scheme goes, weekly is probably the best one. Like, who is even talking about Stone Ocean right now? It's weird, right, considering how big Golden Wind was and how JoJo had a steady upward trend in popularity before Stone Ocean.