![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I was browsing randomly and happened on a claim that Netflix cancels shows after two to three seasons. Curious, I briefly searched on Google and lo, it is in fact a thing that happens on Netflix. (Obviously, there's more than one article, but I find the Business Insider article to be the least opinionated.)
As I'm reading these articles, I came across this title:
I first encountered the use of
Churn is one of the worst things to happen to the video game industry, where companies compete to see who can grab the next spender rather than trying to get out a product that is good enough to entice people into shelling out money and buying. And now, it's happening to Netflix.
The reason we have this is because we're at a state where we've reached post-scarcity. There are more TV shows, video games, books, plays, movies and all sorts of entertainment than the consumers could be reasonably expected to consume. Supply has far, far outstripped demand. As such, in a capitalist economy, where the consumer, not the producer, set the price for labor, labor becomes obnoxiously cheap. This is what will ultimately lead to another economic downturn when the bottom of the pyramid is unable to sell their services at a reasonable price to those at the top and thus won't have the money to purchase the necessities for survival. Demand hasn't magically gone down, it's the purchasing power that has dropped.
The only way to fix this is to systematically change how the economy works. We must understand that we've reached a post-scarcity economy. The capitalist model is only going to harm production and productivity if we keep going on this path. We've already caused global warming due to the manufactured discontent from industries in an attempt to try to sell us more stuff than we can ever need, so maybe it's time to take a hard, hard look at how much we really need the stuff.
Netflix isn't evil for succumbing to the same business practices that many of the video game industry has already perpetuated in a cold, unfeeling, unethical manner. It's the natural end to any industry that works under the capitalist system. Regulation, subsidies, redistribution of resources, and communally owned means of production is the only way to function in the future. If we don't destroy ourselves first, somehow we'll get to this end, it's inevitable.
(And no, this isn't about the
As I'm reading these articles, I came across this title:
Feeling The Churn: Why Netflix Cancels Shows After A Couple Of Seasons & Why They Can’t Move To New HomesNow, firstly, don't take the article too seriously, given that 80% of those paragraphs starts with
—Nellie Andreeva, Deadline
I hearwith no source cited, not even an anonymous one. Secondly, it's the language that really catches my attention. The writer chose to call it
churn.
I first encountered the use of
churnas an industry concept in my research on video game development. Specifically casual gaming and MMOs. Churn, for the uninitiated, refers to the turn-over of new users in a game. In other words, when a player drops a game, they become part of the churn and the game must find a new player to replace the one who dropped out. In classic video game distribution model, retention and churn reduction is paramount, keeping old players for as long as possible is very important. However, in mobile gaming and many casual MMOs, high churn ratio is seen as part and parcel of the attempt to get money, since anyone who drops the game isn't going to be spending money and therefore you don't actually want them taking up the resources that could be better spent luring in new players who could potentially spend. Anyone who doesn't spend on games (which, statistically, makes up something like 95% of mobile games), is just a drain on resources and the industry would like to churn through them as quickly as possible to hook the paying customers instead.
Churn is one of the worst things to happen to the video game industry, where companies compete to see who can grab the next spender rather than trying to get out a product that is good enough to entice people into shelling out money and buying. And now, it's happening to Netflix.
The reason we have this is because we're at a state where we've reached post-scarcity. There are more TV shows, video games, books, plays, movies and all sorts of entertainment than the consumers could be reasonably expected to consume. Supply has far, far outstripped demand. As such, in a capitalist economy, where the consumer, not the producer, set the price for labor, labor becomes obnoxiously cheap. This is what will ultimately lead to another economic downturn when the bottom of the pyramid is unable to sell their services at a reasonable price to those at the top and thus won't have the money to purchase the necessities for survival. Demand hasn't magically gone down, it's the purchasing power that has dropped.
The only way to fix this is to systematically change how the economy works. We must understand that we've reached a post-scarcity economy. The capitalist model is only going to harm production and productivity if we keep going on this path. We've already caused global warming due to the manufactured discontent from industries in an attempt to try to sell us more stuff than we can ever need, so maybe it's time to take a hard, hard look at how much we really need the stuff.
Netflix isn't evil for succumbing to the same business practices that many of the video game industry has already perpetuated in a cold, unfeeling, unethical manner. It's the natural end to any industry that works under the capitalist system. Regulation, subsidies, redistribution of resources, and communally owned means of production is the only way to function in the future. If we don't destroy ourselves first, somehow we'll get to this end, it's inevitable.
(And no, this isn't about the
communism revolution rar!This is about the inevitability of communism. It will come, or we go extinct. The facade of scarcity is currently harming the very environment we're living in. Either we all accept that there's too much production, or we kill ourselves by destroying the environment so much that our species die out.)
 |   |
