tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/hulu-5744/articlesHulu – The Conversation2024-03-21T12:24:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2254272024-03-21T12:24:46Z2024-03-21T12:24:46ZJames Clavell’s ‘Shōgun’ is reimagined for a new generation of TV viewers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582911/original/file-20240319-30-7y6fii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C3754%2C2510&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Actress Anna Sawai, who plays Mariko in FX's 'Shōgun,' attends the Los Angeles premiere of the series on Feb. 13, 2024.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/anna-sawai-attends-the-los-angeles-premiere-of-fxs-shogun-news-photo/2009310007?adppopup=true">Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1980, when James Clavell’s blockbuster historical novel “<a href="https://www.blackstonepublishing.com/sho-gun-bhdr.html#541=2907599">Shōgun</a>” was turned into <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080274/">a TV miniseries</a>, some 33% of American households with a television <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2024/03/09/tv-streaming/shogun-hiroyuki-sanada-last-samurai/">tuned in</a>. It quickly became one of the most viewed miniseries to date, second only to “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075572/">Roots</a>.”</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=M4O349MAAAAJ&hl=en">I’m a historian of Japan</a> who specializes in the history of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Tokugawa-period">the Tokugawa</a>, or early modern era – a period from 1603 to 1868, during which the bulk of the action in “Shōgun” takes place. As a first-year graduate student, I sat glued to the television for five nights in September 1980, enthralled that someone cared enough to create a series about the period in Japan’s past that had captured my imagination. </p>
<p>I wasn’t alone. In 1982, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/25/education/adapting-shogun-for-the-classroom.html">historian Henry D. Smith estimated</a> that one-fifth to one-half of students enrolled in university courses about Japan at that time had read the novel and became interested in Japan because of it. </p>
<p>“‘Shōgun,’” he added, “probably conveyed more information about the daily life of Japan to more people than all the combined writings of scholars, journalists, and novelists since the Pacific War.” </p>
<p>Some even credit the series <a href="https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240305-shogun-tv-hit-fx-violent-japanese-history">for making sushi trendy in the U.S</a>.</p>
<p>That 1980 miniseries has now been remade as FX’s “Shōgun,” a 10-episode production that is garnering rave reviews – including a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/shogun_2024/s01">near-100% rating from review-aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes</a>.</p>
<p>Both miniseries closely hew to Clavell’s 1975 novel, which is a fictionalized retelling of the story of the first Englishman, <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374706234/samuraiwilliam">Will Adams</a> – the character John Blackthorne in the novel – to set foot in Japan.</p>
<p>And yet there are subtle differences in each series that reveal the zeitgeist of each era, along with America’s shifting attitudes toward Japan.</p>
<h2>The ‘Japanese miracle’</h2>
<p>The original 1980 series reflects both the confidence of postwar America and its fascination with its resurgent former enemy.</p>
<p>World War II had left Japan devastated economically and psychologically. But by the 1970s and 1980s, the country had come to dominate global markets for consumer electronic, semiconductors and the auto industry. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12815-0_7">Its gross national product per capita rose spectacularly</a>: from less than US$200 in 1952 to $8,900 in 1980 – the year “Shōgun” appeared on television – to almost $20,000 in 1988, surpassing the United States, West Germany and France. </p>
<p>Many Americans wanted to know the secret to Japan’s head-spinning economic success – the so-called “<a href="https://hbr.org/1998/01/reinterpreting-the-japanese-economic-miracle">Japanese miracle</a>.” Could Japan’s history and culture offer clues?</p>
<p>During the 1970s and 1980s, scholars sought to understand the miracle by analyzing not just the Japanese economy but also the country’s various institutions: schools, social policy, corporate culture and policing. </p>
<p>In his 1979 book, “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/771294">Japan as Number One: Lessons for America</a>,” sociologist Ezra Vogel argued that the U.S. could learn a lot from Japan, whether it was through the country’s long-term economic planning, collaboration between government and industry, investments in education, and quality control of goods and services.</p>
<h2>A window into Japan</h2>
<p>Clavell’s expansive 1,100-page novel was released in the middle of the Japanese miracle. It sold more than <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/shogun-novel-japan">7 million copies in five years</a>; then the series aired, which prompted the sale of another 2.5 million copies.</p>
<p>In it, Clavell tells the story of Blackthorne, who, shipwrecked off the coast of Japan in 1600, finds the country in a peaceful interlude after an era of civil war. But that peace is about to be shattered by competition among the five regents who have been appointed to ensure the succession of a young heir to their former lord’s position as top military leader.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Black and white photo of middle-aged man sitting at a typewriter by the ocean." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582898/original/file-20240319-26-80u5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Shogun,’ which James Clavell published in 1975, has sold millions of copies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/james-clavell-on-typewriter-by-the-ocean-1977-news-photo/135869841?adppopup=true">Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the meantime, local leaders don’t know whether to treat Blackthorne and his crew as dangerous pirates or harmless traders. His men end up being imprisoned, but Blackthorne’s knowledge of the world outside of Japan – not to mention his boatload of cannons, muskets and ammunition – save him.</p>
<p>He ends up offering advice and munitions to one of the regents, Lord Yoshi Toranaga, the fictional version of the real-life Tokugawa Ieyasu. With this edge, <a href="https://www.japan-experience.com/plan-your-trip/to-know/japanese-history/tokugawa-ieyasu">Toranaga rises to become shogun</a>, the country’s top military leader.</p>
<p>Viewers of the 1980 television series witness Blackthorne slowly learning Japanese and coming to appreciate the value of Japanese culture. For example, at first, he’s resistant to bathing. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-long-history-of-japans-tidying-up">Since cleanliness is deeply rooted in Japanese culture</a>, his Japanese hosts find his refusal irrational. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Bearded man with shoulder length brown hair wearing a kimono and holding a samurai sword." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582905/original/file-20240319-18-q4d2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Actor Richard Chamberlain as John Blackthorne in the 1980 NBC miniseries ‘Shōgun.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/richard-chamberlain-us-actor-wearing-a-kimono-and-holding-a-news-photo/120543334?adppopup=true">Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Blackthorne’s, and the viewers’, gradual acclimatization to Japanese culture is complete when, late in the series, he is reunited with the crew of his Dutch ship who have been held in captivity. Blackthorne is thoroughly repulsed by their filth and demands a bath to cleanse himself from their contagion. </p>
<p>Blackthorne comes to see Japan as far more civilized than the West. Just like his real-life counterpart, Will Adams, he decides to remain in Japan even after being granted his freedom. He marries a Japanese woman, with whom he has two children, and ends his days on foreign soil.</p>
<h2>From fascination to fear</h2>
<p>However, the positive views of Japan that its economic miracle generated, and that “Shogun” reinforced, eroded <a href="https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5880.html#1989">as the U.S. trade deficit with Japan ballooned</a>: from $10 billion in 1981 to $50 billion in 1985. </p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/29/opinion/bashing-japan-isn-t-the-answer.html">Japan bashing</a>” spread in the U.S., and visceral anger exploded when <a href="https://sourcesforcourses.com/post/136624898100/american-auto-workers-smash-toyota-gm-in-protest">American autoworkers smashed Toyota cars in March 1983</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/07/13/boycott-toshiba-computers-but-dont-let-congress-force-you/a6130b8a-7be4-4737-8150-adc74e53443b/">congressmen shattered a Toshiba boombox</a> with sledgehammers on the Capitol lawn in 1987. That same year, the magazine Foreign Affairs warned of “<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/1987-12-01/coming-us-japan-crisis">The Coming U.S.-Japan Crisis</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Newsweek magazine cover that reads 'Japan Invades Hollywood' and features a graphic of a woman in a kimono posing like the woman in the Columbia Pictures logo." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582909/original/file-20240319-20-kiek7w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newsweek’s Oct. 9, 1989, cover describes Sony’s purchase of Columbia Pictures as an invasion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.wolfgangsvault.com/m/xlarge/OMS793331-MZ/newsweek-vintage-magazine-oct-9-1989.webp">Newsweek</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This backlash against Japan in the U.S. was also fueled by almost a decade of acquisitions of iconic American companies, such as Firestone, Columbia Pictures and Universal Studios, along with high-profile real estate, such as the iconic <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2017/07/18/ma-flashback-the-takeover-of-rockefeller-center-capped-a-1980s-frenzy-now-a-new-mania-is-afoot/?sh=8f095">Rockefeller Center</a>.</p>
<p>But the notion of Japan as a threat reached a peak in 1989, after which its economy stalled. The 1990s and early 2000s were dubbed Japan’s “<a href="https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,984426,00.html">lost decade</a>.”</p>
<p>Yet a curiosity and love for Japanese culture persists, thanks, in part, to manga and anime. More Japanese feature films and television series are also <a href="http://interacnetwork.com/best-japanese-dramas-to-watch">making their way to popular streaming services</a>, including the series “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7256504/">Tokyo Girl</a>,” “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1882928/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_midnight%2520diner">Midnight Diner</a>” and “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16970638/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_6_tt_8_nm_0_q_sanctuary">Sanctuary</a>.” In December 2023, The Hollywood Reporter announced that Japan was “<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/japan-content-boom-1235753598/">on the precipice of a content boom</a>.” </p>
<h2>Widening the lens</h2>
<p>As FX’s remake of “Shōgun” demonstrates, American viewers today apparently don’t need to be slowly introduced to Japanese culture by a European guide. </p>
<p>In the new series, Blackthorne is not even the sole protagonist.</p>
<p>Instead, he shares the spotlight with several Japanese characters, such as Lord Yoshi Toranaga, who no longer serves as a one-dimensional sidekick to Blackthorne, as he did in the original miniseries. </p>
<p>This change is facilitated by the fact that Japanese characters now communicate directly with the audience in Japanese, with English subtitles. In the 1980 miniseries, the Japanese dialogue went untranslated. There were English-speaking Japanese characters in the original, such as Blackthorne’s female translator, Mariko. But they spoke in a highly formalized, unrealistic English.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Japanese man wearing glasses and a suit." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/583251/original/file-20240320-20-fql0t2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Actor Hiroyuki Sanada plays Lord Yoshi Toranaga in FX’s ‘Shōgun.’ Though Sanada’s character speaks in Japanese, there are English subtitles for viewers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/LAPremiereofShogun/b73143a975a7403bb99e91e837324d5d/photo?Query=Hiroyuki%20Sanada&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=127&currentItemNo=6">AP Photo/Chris Pizzello</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with depicting authentic costumes, combat and gestures, the show’s Japanese characters speak using the native language of the early modern era instead of using the contemporary Japanese that made the 1980 series so unpopular among Japanese viewers. (Imagine a film on the American Revolution featuring George Washington speaking like Jimmy Kimmel.) </p>
<p>Of course, authenticity has its limits. The producers of both television series decided to adhere closely to the original novel. In doing so, they’re perhaps unwittingly reproducing certain stereotypes about Japan. </p>
<p>Most strikingly, there’s the fetishization of death, as several characters have a penchant for violence and sadism, while many others commit ritual suicide, <a href="https://theconversation.com/japans-most-famous-writer-committed-suicide-after-a-failed-coup-attempt-now-new-photos-add-more-layers-to-the-haunting-act-151903">or <em>seppuku</em></a>.</p>
<p>Part of this may have been simply a function of author Clavell being a self-professed “<a href="https://www.columbia.edu/%7Ehds2/learning/index.html">storyteller, not an historian</a>.” But this may have also reflected his experiences in World War II, when he spent three years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Still, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/13/magazine/making-of-a-literary-shogun.html">as Clavell noted</a>, he came to deeply admire the Japanese. </p>
<p>His novel, as a whole, beautifully conveys this admiration. The two miniseries have, in my view, successfully followed suit, enthralling audiences in each of their times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Constantine Nomikos Vaporis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Compared to its 1980 predecessor, the new FX series presents a more authentic portrayal of early modern Japan.Constantine Nomikos Vaporis, Professor of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2145442023-09-29T12:23:56Z2023-09-29T12:23:56ZThe fight for 2% − how residuals became a sticking point for striking actors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550993/original/file-20230928-27-9gozwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C21%2C7018%2C4643&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The SAG-AFTRA actors union has been on strike since July 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/members-of-the-writers-guild-of-america-joined-by-members-news-photo/1585226795?adppopup=true">Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Streaming disrupted the entire entertainment industry, upending the DVD-purchasing, film-renting, moviegoing model of decades past.</p>
<p>That shift has also changed how actors get paid. And some of the gains actors made through prior labor struggles – <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190336979/actors-strike-residuals-sag-aftra-wga">particularly through residuals</a>, which are a small percentage of shared earnings from film or television – have vanished.</p>
<p>Though the Writers Guild of America <a href="https://deadline.com/2023/09/wga-strike-officially-end-leaders-approve-tentative-deal-1235556919/">ended its strike</a> on Sept. 27, 2023, actors represented by SAG-AFTRA remain on strike. Residuals are one of their main <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/media/hollywood-writers-strike-deal.html">sticking points</a>: They want to receive 2% of revenue generated by shows they appear in on streaming platforms.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/actors-strike-why-sag-aftra-streaming-revenue-proposal-rejected-1235541505/">Studios counter that the number is unrealistic</a> – that it amounts to actors not assuming any financial risk when shows and movies flop, while reaping rewards when they succeed.</p>
<p>But in reality, actors simply want to adapt existing payout models to changing technology and consumption habits.</p>
<h2>The pandemic revealed a glimpse of the future</h2>
<p>The extent to which streaming changed the entertainment landscape came into focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/regal-cinemas-decision-to-close-its-theaters-is-the-latest-blow-to-a-film-industry-on-life-support-147535">With many movie theaters shuttered</a> because of government restrictions and most people reluctant to sit in a theater, some movie studios decided to release their movies through streaming services using what they called <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/business/media/universal-premium-video-on-demand.html">premium video on demand</a>.</p>
<p>For the made-to-be-blockbuster “Black Widow,” Disney decided to <a href="https://people.com/movies/black-widow-will-be-available-to-all-disney-plus-subscribers-earlier-than-expected/">release</a> the film simultaneously in theaters and on its propriety streaming service, Disney+, for US$30. </p>
<p>The film’s star, Scarlett Johansson, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/disney-sued-by-scarlett-johansson-over-black-widows-streaming-release/">sued Disney</a> for breach of contract. Johansson claimed to have lost $50 million from the simultaneous release, because her contract did not have the same revenue-sharing deal in place for streaming as it did for a theater release.</p>
<p>At $30, the price to stream “Black Widow” on television was <a href="https://www.natoonline.org/data/ticket-price/">equivalent to</a> roughly three theater tickets. At the same time, premium video on demand cuts most costs associated with exhibiting a film in the theater: The studios <a href="https://observer.com/2021/07/hollywood-movie-theaters-vs-streaming-pros-cons/">generally keep 80% of the revenue</a> as opposed to the standard 50% split with theaters.</p>
<p>Actors <a href="https://time.com/6294212/sag-aftra-actors-strike/">decided to strike</a> because they see the pitfalls for their own livelihoods tied to the structure of the contracts they are currently fighting to negotiate.</p>
<h2>A struggle for dignity</h2>
<p>The tensions today echo Hollywood’s 20th-century labor battles.</p>
<p>The Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s <a href="https://www.umsl.edu/%7Egradyf/film/STUDIOS.htm">was an era</a> of vertical integration in the film industry. The “Big Five” major studios – Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros., Paramount, 20th Century Fox and RKO – <a href="https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-studio-system-in-hollywood/">employed</a> directors, writers, actors and camera operators. Filming, editing, distribution and showings were all handled in-house.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Black and white photo of buildings from the sky." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551068/original/file-20230928-29-c65001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A c. 1930 aerial shot of MGM Studios in Culver City, Calif.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-mgm-studios-in-culver-city-california-circa-1930-news-photo/1139655537?adppopup=true">Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This created an efficient system that allowed for assembly-linelike production of films, not unlike <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/fordism">Ford automotive factories</a>. Actors – just like everyone else employed by the studios – received a salary for the length of their contracts. They didn’t make any extra money if a film became a blockbuster hit.</p>
<p>This period was <a href="https://cinemascholars.com/movie-stars-in-the-studio-system-secrets-and-rules/">rife with exploitation</a>, with low wages, <a href="https://theconversation.com/literature-has-long-been-sounding-the-alarm-about-sexual-violence-in-hollywood-87496">sexual violence</a> and little bargaining power for actors. </p>
<p>Actors fought hard against this system; they wanted to be able to negotiate payouts tied to their work on specific films. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the studio system <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-day-the-supreme-court-killed-hollywoods-studio-system">violated antitrust laws</a>, ending these unfair contracts. Actors’ newfound free agency allowed them to sign contracts with studios for individual films. This resulted in large earnings for some stars, but they were still largely cut out of any studio revenue.</p>
<p>Some actors began receiving residuals in the 1950s as part of their individual contracts. The system was modeled on royalties earned in music based on the sale of copyrighted music. But where composers and recording artists share in the copyright, actors do not have a claim to copyrights.</p>
<p>In the 1960s, SAG-AFTRA <a href="https://www.sagaftra.org/about/our-history/1960s">went on strike</a> to insist on residuals as part of the basic contract to provide revenue sharing with all actors. Ultimately, they received them.</p>
<h2>Getting a slice of streaming revenue</h2>
<p>It’s key to remember that today’s actors already receive <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/07/15/actors-strike-what-are-residuals/">2% residuals on revenue</a> from traditional television in secondary markets. A secondary market is a market outside of the film or television show’s original domestic release. Examples include foreign box office revenue, DVD sales, syndicated television shows and theater releases that appear on television. </p>
<p>So shows originally produced for broadcast television aren’t an issue. When “Friends,” which was originally an NBC sitcom, generates $1 billion dollars on streaming platforms, the five leads <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/07/15/actors-strike-what-are-residuals/">each earn</a> 2%, or $20 million apiece. But a show like “Stranger Things” – produced and owned by Netflix – never goes to a secondary market as long as it is aired only on Netflix, so the stars earn only their original pay. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1706768558150267106"}"></div></p>
<p>The problem, then, comes from the fact that the existing residual model, per the expiring SAG-AFTRA contract, doesn’t take streaming into account.</p>
<p>In the streaming era, all new shows produced by streaming platforms are concurrently reruns and original runs. Actors want 2% of streaming revenue generated by the show or film to replace this line of income. </p>
<p>One issue is that revenue from streaming remains an opaque process. <a href="https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/disney-sued-by-scarlett-johansson-over-black-widows-streaming-release/">Data on earnings tied to streams</a> aren’t as clear as ticket sales or advertising revenue, and streaming platforms tend to keep this information in-house. But streaming services have their own metrics to determine the value of a show or film to the company, such as the number of streams, the first show a subscriber watches upon paying for a subscription and how long a customer remains a subscriber.</p>
<p>This 2% of streaming demand isn’t all that different from what <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/wga-ends-strike-releases-details-on-tentative-deal-with-studios-writers-hollywood/">writers received</a> to negotiate the end of their strike on Sept. 27, 2023. As part of that deal, the <a href="https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/summary-of-the-2023-wga-mba">Writers Guild of America</a> negotiated residuals based on viewership on streaming platforms, and producers agreed to share data with the WGA, such as total streaming hours, to help determine payouts.</p>
<p>While 2% of revenue generated from shows and films equates to a larger demand for residuals than the WGA, <a href="https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/SAG-AFTRA_2020TV-Theatrical_Summary.pdf">actors have always had higher residuals</a> <a href="https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/contracts/mba20.pdf">than writers</a>.</p>
<h2>Closing the loophole</h2>
<p>The original shows and movies created for streaming services like Netflix, Max or Disney+ reflect a vertically integrated system in which the platform owns the studio and the rights to those productions. In this sense, it harks back to the old studio system of the 1930s and 1940s.</p>
<p>For this reason, there is no benefit for studios and platforms to offer actors revenue for every stream, because technically there is no secondary market. Studios and platforms see larger profit margins, while actors see a loss of income. This is the loophole striking actors are looking to close.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/business/media/hollywood-writers-strike-deal.html">When reporters characterize</a> SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher as taking a “hard line” for 2% of revenue, they fail to see that is what actors already have. Actors simply want it to apply to shows and films that originate on streaming platforms.</p>
<p>They fought this battle to end the studio system. The fight for 2% is about demonstrating that the work actors do for streaming television is just as valuable as it’s always been.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Arditi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Studios say the number is unrealistic − that it amounts to actors not assuming any financial risk for content that flops. But actors simply want to adapt existing payout models to changing technology.David Arditi, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at ArlingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2122422023-08-31T12:23:04Z2023-08-31T12:23:04ZMichael Oher, Mike Tyson and the question of whether you own your life story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545972/original/file-20230901-21-zovk4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C26%2C2977%2C1985&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michael Oher and his family celebrate his selection by the Baltimore Ravens at the 2009 NFL Draft. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/baltimore-ravens-draft-pick-michael-oher-poses-for-a-news-photo/86217296?adppopup=true">Jeff Zelevansky/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What if you overcame a serious illness to go on to win an Olympic medal? Could a writer or filmmaker decide to tell your inspiring story without consulting you? Or do you “own” that story and control how it gets retold?</p>
<p>Michael Oher, the former NFL player portrayed in the 2009 blockbuster “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0878804/">The Blind Side</a>,” has sued Michael and Anne Leigh Tuohy, the suburban couple who took him into their home as a disadvantaged youth.</p>
<p>In his official complaint, Oher claims that through forgery, trickery or sheer incompetence, the Tuohys enabled 20th Century Fox to acquire the exclusive rights to his life story. </p>
<p>The Tuohys, Oher continues, received millions of dollars for a “story that would not have existed without him,” while he claims that he received nothing.</p>
<p>Just a year earlier, former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/08/media/mike-tyson-hulu-series/index.html">similarly incensed</a> when he learned that Hulu had created <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14181914/">a miniseries dramatizing his career</a> without seeking his permission. </p>
<p>“They stole my life story and didn’t pay me,” Tyson charged <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cg7JRAeLY9B/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8c5ce5bc-6faf-4c49-b355-4b25d72418b8">in an Instagram post</a>.</p>
<p>Oher and Tyson – not to mention countless influencers and wannabe celebs – share the conviction that they own, and can monetize, their life stories. And given regular <a href="https://www.ibtimes.com/kurt-warner-movie-20th-century-fox-acquires-rights-former-qbs-life-story-plans-film-adaptation">news stories about studios buying</a> “life story rights,” it’s not surprising to see why. </p>
<p>As law professors, we’ve studied this issue; <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4480628">our research shows</a> that there is no recognized property right under U.S. law – or the laws of any other country of which we are aware – to the facts and events that occur during someone’s life.</p>
<p>So why are Oher, Tyson and others complaining? And why do publishers and studios routinely pay large sums to acquire rights that don’t exist?</p>
<h2>No monopoly on the truth</h2>
<p>In most states, the commercial use of an individual’s name, image and likeness is protected by the so-called “<a href="https://rightofpublicityroadmap.com/">right of publicity</a>.” But that right generally applies to merchandise, apparel and product endorsements, not facts and actual events. So you can’t sell a T-shirt with Mike Tyson’s face on it without his permission, but writing a book about his rise to fame is fair game.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the freedom to describe historical events is rooted in <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-1/ALDE_00013537/">the free speech clause</a> of the First Amendment, and it’s a fundamental principle that no one – whether it’s a news agency, political party or celebrity – holds a monopoly on the truth.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html">The law doesn’t sanction the invasion of privacy</a>, so an investigative journalist who uncovers some unsavory detail of your past can’t publish it unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. Nor does it condone the dissemination of false information, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/18/business/fox-news-dominion-trial-settlement">which can lead to defamation lawsuits</a>. </p>
<p>The First Amendment, however, does allow authors and film producers to truthfully depict factual events that they have legitimately learned about. They are not required to receive authorization from or pay the people involved.</p>
<h2>The origin of life story ‘rights’</h2>
<p>Film producers, however, are accustomed to paying for the right to repackage or use existing content. </p>
<p>Copyright licenses are required to commission a script based on a book, to depict a comic book character in a film and to include a hit song on a movie soundtrack. Even showing an architecturally distinctive building often requires the consent of a copyright owner, which is why the video game “Spider-Man: Miles Morales” <a href="https://www.ign.com/articles/spider-man-miles-morales-doesnt-have-the-chrysler-building-due-to-copyright-issues">had to remove the Chrysler Building</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Manhattan skyline with art deco skyscraper in the foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Studios hoping to include a shot of the Chrysler Building in their films might have to pony up.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-chrysler-building-stands-in-midtown-manhattan-january-9-news-photo/1079651514?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with these other rights and permissions, Hollywood studios have paid individuals for their life stories for at least a century. </p>
<p>Yet, unlike copyright clearances, life story deals do not involve the acquisition of known intellectual property rights. Life story “rights” are not rights at all. Instead, they bundle together a set of contractual commitments: the subject’s agreement to cooperate with the studio, not to work on a similar project, and to release the studio from claims of defamation and invasion of privacy. </p>
<p>By packaging these commitments under the umbrella of “life story rights,” studios can signal to the market that they have acquired a particularly juicy story. </p>
<p>For example, Netflix’s quick deal with convicted fraudster <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scammers-like-anna-delvey-and-the-tinder-swindler-exploit-a-core-feature-of-human-nature-177289">Anna Sorokin</a>, the subject of the popular streaming series “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8740976/">Inventing Anna</a>,” seems to have <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56113478">deterred competing adaptations</a> of Sorokin’s story.</p>
<p>What’s more, the acquisition of life story rights has become so common that it is viewed, in many cases, as a de facto requirement for film financing and insurance coverage and thus part of the standard clearance procedure for many projects.</p>
<h2>Exceptions don’t make the rule</h2>
<p>As always with the law, though, there are exceptions. </p>
<p>Notably, the producers of the 2010 film “The Social Network” <a href="https://perma.cc/SN4H-UXAP">did not obtain the permission</a> of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg before dramatizing the origin story of his company. In moving forward with the project, they risked a defamation or publicity suit by Zuckerberg and others depicted in the film. But their gamble paid off: Zuckerberg, while <a href="https://perma.cc/SN4H-UXAP">critical of his depiction</a>, didn’t sue.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, other subjects who have been depicted in dramatic features without their authorization have sued to recover a share of the profits. </p>
<p>Silver screen legend Olivia de Havilland, for example, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/de-havilland-v-fx-networks-llc-1">sued FX Studios</a> for briefly depicting her in a miniseries about Hollywood rivals Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. She won at trial, though an appeals court reversed her victory, citing the producers’ First Amendment rights. </p>
<p>Lawsuits can even be brought when the characters’ names and story details have been changed. U.S. Army Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver, the bomb-defusing expert who inspired the Oscar-winning film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_the%2520hurt%2520locker">The Hurt Locker</a>,” <a href="https://casetext.com/case/sarver-v-chartier">sued the film’s producers</a> for violating his right of publicity. He lost.</p>
<p>Lawsuits like these are not the norm. But many producers hope to get ahead of a flimsy lawsuit and bad publicity by acquiring nonexistent rights.</p>
<h2>History is in the public domain</h2>
<p>Ultimately, there is nothing wrong – and much that is right – with paying individuals to cooperate with the production of features about themselves. Doing so can convey respect toward the subject and make the production go more smoothly. </p>
<p>But the fact that life story acquisitions have entered the popular consciousness has spurred the widespread belief that any portrayal of a factual series of events entitles those depicted to a lucrative payday. This expectation increases production costs and the risk of litigation, thereby deterring otherwise worthwhile projects and depriving the public of meaningful content that is based on true stories.</p>
<p>What could be done about this situation?</p>
<p>One idea <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4480628">that we’ve written about</a> would prevent right of publicity laws – the basis for many life story lawsuits – from being used against works that convey ideas and tell a story, such as books, films and TV shows.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most important thing that can be done, though, is educating people that they don’t have a right to cash in on every description of the events of their lives. </p>
<p>Collective history, in our view, belongs in the public domain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212242/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Publishers and studios routinely pay large sums to acquire ‘life story rights.’ Two law scholars explain why the phrase is misleading.Jorge L. Contreras, James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law and Director, Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of UtahDave Fagundes, Baker Botts LLP Professor of Law and Research Dean, University of Houston Law CenterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2049842023-05-05T12:17:13Z2023-05-05T12:17:13ZThe exploitation of Hollywood’s writers is just another symptom of digital feudalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524444/original/file-20230504-17-q7bqzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=112%2C22%2C4865%2C3285&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Striking workers picket outside of Warner Bros. Studios on the second day of the Hollywood writers strike on May 3, 2023, in Burbank, Calif.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-picket-outside-of-warner-bros-studios-on-the-second-news-photo/1252595408?adppopup=true">David McNew/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The current Hollywood writers strike has drawn international attention to the plight of TV and film writers <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1108/9781839827686">in the streaming era</a>. </p>
<p>Much has been made of television’s <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/welcome-to-tvs-second-golden-age/">golden age</a>, during which streaming platforms have offered audiences an abundance of well-written, highly produced television shows, often called “<a href="https://www.vulture.com/2017/03/prestige-tv-signs-youre-watching.html">prestige TV</a>.” </p>
<p>Whereas older television shows tended to be formulaic sitcoms or crime dramas, newer shows more closely mimic <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2021/10/serial-fiction-part-1/">the serialized novels of the 19th century</a>, with cliff-hangers that encourage <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-tv-bingeings-bad-rap-74399">binge-watching</a>. </p>
<p>But not everyone in the industry has equally reaped the rewards. While there are certainly more writing jobs to go around, these roles <a href="https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-amptp-contract-strike-deadline-1235599161/">often pay less and place writers on short-order contracts</a>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the unyielding demand for content, as more and more platforms compete for subscriptions, has trapped writers in what I call “<a href="https://books.emeraldinsight.com/book/detail/digital-feudalism/?k=9781804557693">digital feudalism</a>.” </p>
<h2>Echoes from medieval Europe</h2>
<p>I use the phrase digital feudalism because today’s version of capitalism increasingly mirrors the transition from feudalism to capitalism in 16th-century England.</p>
<p>Beginning in the 16th century, the English Parliament passed <a href="https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/the-enclosure-acts/">a number of enclosure acts</a>, which abolished common land and defined it as private property that the government reallocated to the elites.</p>
<p>These laws kicked peasants, <a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Serf/">known as serfs</a>, off the land where they had lived and worked for generations. Many of them ended up heading to cities in order to find work. The ensuing oversupply of workers drove down wages, <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm">and many ex-serfs couldn’t find jobs or housing</a>, becoming vagabonds.</p>
<p>In other words, serfs lost stability in their everyday lives as they were thrust into a new economic system.</p>
<p>Precarity, debt and a lack of stability <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2023/05/the-age-of-the-crisis-of-work-quiet-quitting-great-resignation/">are again the dominant themes</a> in today’s digital economy. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/what-gig-economy-workers/">The gig economy</a>, in which people can juggle two or three part-time roles to make ends meet, is largely to blame. These jobs <a href="https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-gargantuan-gig-swindle-albert">usually don’t offer</a> full-time benefits, livable wages or job security. The roles – whether they’re working as an Uber driver, delivering food for DoorDash or cleaning homes through Task Rabbit – are often managed through digital platforms owned by powerful corporations that give their workers a pittance in exchange for their labor.</p>
<h2>The serfs of Hollywood</h2>
<p>So, why are TV writers feeling the pinch of digital feudalism if this is the golden age of television? </p>
<p>Streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu and HBO Max brought about the golden age. <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/03/peak-tv-over-golden-age-hbo-streaming.html">But the gold prospecting has slowed</a>, as the number of <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2017/03/prestige-tv-signs-youre-watching.html">prestige TV shows</a> seems to have hit a saturation point. </p>
<p>Starting in the 2010s, streaming platforms began hiring more and more writers. To lure customers, platforms needed quality content – otherwise, viewers wouldn’t continue paying <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/is-streaming-actually-cheaper-than-cable-we-do-the-math/">the US$8 to $15 monthly cost</a> of a subscription.</p>
<p>Platforms couldn’t market their content like network sitcoms, so they had to constantly develop new ideas for shows. Large stables of creative writers ended up forming the core of studio strategy.</p>
<p>Yet, as TV writers <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/notes-on-hollywood/why-are-tv-writers-so-miserable">flocked to Los Angeles</a> and New York City, entertainment companies took a page from the gig economy playbook in ways that worked against writers’ livelihoods.</p>
<p>The contracts were short and <a href="https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-amptp-contract-strike-deadline-1235599161/">the pay lower</a>. The formats of streaming shows – more one-off miniseries rather than sitcoms that could run for as long as a decade – rarely guaranteed work for any lengthy period of time.</p>
<p>Furthermore, streaming shows tend to have fewer episodes per season, with larger gaps between seasons, known as “<a href="https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-amptp-contract-strike-deadline-1235599161/">short order</a>.” An eight-episode season of a popular show that has a two-year gap between seasons leaves TV writers scrambling to figure out ways to pay the bills in between seasons.</p>
<p>Then came COVID-19. While people were stuck at home binge-watching TV, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/03/10/how-pandemic-changed-tv-and-how-much-last/6826073002/">it became difficult to produce television</a>. There was a major backlog in TV production because of the difficulties shooting TV shows in studios while complying with COVID-19 health regulations. </p>
<p>This created <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/03/10/how-pandemic-changed-tv-and-how-much-last/6826073002/">a major slowdown in TV production</a>. At the height of the pandemic, TV studios closed to limit the number of people inside. With the slowdown of production, there wasn’t the demand for writers. As a result, many of the TV writers who had recently moved to Log Angeles and other big cities with high costs of living were faced with challenges finding jobs.</p>
<h2>Core demands</h2>
<p>Writers want to fix this by raising their minimum wage; they want writers for streaming platforms to receive the same royalties that theatrical film writers get; and they want to end <a href="https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/mini-rooms-writers-tv-pilot-series-orders-1235061733/">the practice of mini rooms</a>, where small groups of writers hash out scripts but often receive less compensation for a series that may not even get ordered.</p>
<p>Another key demand is to limit the use of artificial intelligence in television production. </p>
<p>Writers fear that studios will use AI to hire workers, select which shows to produce and, in the worst-case scenario, replace writers altogether. Interestingly, limits on AI have been the one point of contention that <a href="https://deadline.com/2023/05/wga-strike-chris-keyser-interview-failed-negotiations-amptp-ai-1235354566/">studios have been unwilling to even discuss</a>.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see whether the writers will be able to claw back some of the financial security that’s vanished across many industries, or if the larger economic forces that have powered the gig economy will work in studio executives’ favor.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Arditi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The writers strike lays bare all the ills of working on one of the lowest rungs of the entertainment industry.David Arditi, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at ArlingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1779612022-03-03T13:27:38Z2022-03-03T13:27:38ZWhat’s behind the obsession over whether Elizabeth Holmes intentionally lowered her voice?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449303/original/file-20220301-17-otvuzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Was the way she spoke another strand of deception in the web of fraud spun by the former Theranos CEO?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/elizabeth-holmes-dropped-out-of-stanford-in-2003-as-a-19-news-photo/1359151393?adppopup=true">Karl Mondon/MediaNews Group/Bay Area News via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a scene in Hulu’s new series, “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10166622/">The Dropout</a>,” where Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, wearing a white blouse, stands in front of a mirror and practices saying, “This is an inspiring step forward.” With each iteration, her voice deepens.</p>
<p>As the world has learned about Theranos’ <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-theranos-fraud-elizabeth-holmes-convicted-trial-blood-testing-start-up-11641330471">web of deception</a> – whether through John Carreyrou’s bestselling book, “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/549478/bad-blood-by-john-carreyrou/">Bad Blood</a>,” Apple’s podcast series “<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dropout/id1449500734">The Dropout</a>” or Hulu’s streaming series of the same name – Holmes’ <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/09/elizabeth-holmes-voice-the-dropout-devotes-an-entire-episode-to-her-odd-baritone/">supposed attempt to alter her voice</a> is a detail that captivates audiences. The behavior might strike some people as bizarre, even sociopathic.</p>
<p>But because of my training <a href="https://doi.org/10.3109/14015439609099196">in vocology</a>, which is the study of vocalization, and my interest in <a href="https://theconversation.com/tiktok-bamarush-and-the-irresistible-allure-of-mocking-southern-accents-166324">speech biases</a>, I’m intrigued by why Holmes may have felt compelled to change her voice in the first place. I see the story of her voice as part of a broader cultural fixation on the way women speak and sound.</p>
<h2>Reactions to Holmes’ voice</h2>
<p>Whenever Holmes is in the news, some questions always come up: </p>
<p>What’s with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI_a-B6F1Eg">that distinctively low voice</a>? Is she faking it? </p>
<p>I have not been able to find definitive proof, in the form of video or audio recordings, to show that Holmes’ voice is noticeably different in its current form than at some previous time. </p>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/lEArFDFcLZM?t=88">One video</a> claims to capture Holmes shifting between two very different voice modes. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lEArFDFcLZM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">During this interview with Elizabeth Holmes, commenters highlight a vocal switch between the 1:28 and 2:08 marks.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, it could have been easily edited. And dramatic, sustained pitch changes in speech can be associated with heightened emotional states without indicating a put-on voice. At the same time, <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-did-elizabeth-holmes-use-a-fake-deep-voice.html">people who know Holmes have claimed</a> that she changed her voice in order to cultivate a persona as a Silicon Valley wunderkind.</p>
<p>Only a clinician like a <a href="https://voicefoundation.org/health-science/voice-disorders/voice-care-team/otolaryngologistlaryngologist/">laryngologist</a> can make a voice-related medical diagnosis. But since I can’t definitively answer if Holmes’ voice changed intentionally, it is worth considering what natural or medical processes could cause a similar effect. Hormones <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592446/">directly impact</a> the voice, including pitch and the perception of roughness or hoarseness. Women’s voices tend to <a href="https://lithub.com/vocal-effects-how-hormones-change-the-way-we-sound/">decrease in pitch range during menopause</a>. </p>
<p>Holmes’ young age at the time she became known for her voice may rule out an age-related hormonal voice change, but a similar effect could be found with <a href="http://www.vocapedia.info/_Library/JOS_files_Vocapedia/JOS-069-5-2013-571.pdf">certain hormone therapy</a>. There are also several <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/voice-disorders">voice disorders</a> that impact pitch range. </p>
<h2>If she did it … how?</h2>
<p>There are all sorts of reasons people seek voice therapy or coaching to address vocal insecurities. Whether they’re concerned about their voice range or simply seeking skills to become better communicators, the voice is resilient and can be developed with training. There are also wonderful resources available for <a href="https://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/voice-and-communication-change-for-transgender-people/">gender-affirming voice</a> support for transgender people. </p>
<p>So what is the physiological process at play when someone intentionally lowers their voice? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman wearing mask seated in back seat of car." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449300/original/file-20220301-13-1yth1oh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elizabeth Holmes leaves a San Jose, Calif. courthouse after testifying in her defense in November 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/theranos-founder-and-former-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-sits-in-news-photo/1236759223?adppopup=true">Ethan Swope/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Engaging a tiny laryngeal muscle called the <a href="https://med.umn.edu/ent/patient-care/lions-voice-clinic/about-the-voice/how-it-works/anatomy">thyroarytenoid</a> causes the vocal folds, which are housed inside the larynx (or “voice box”), to relax and become shorter and thicker. Imagine decreasing tension on a rubber band. These shorter, thicker folds vibrate at a lower frequency, resulting in a lower-pitched voice, just as a thicker or more lax <a href="https://www.yamaha.com/en/musical_instrument_guide/acoustic_guitar/mechanism/mechanism003.html">guitar string</a> has a lower pitch.</p>
<p>It is likely the singular nature of Holmes’ voice is related not only to its low pitch, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7591156/">but also its resonance</a>, the unique tonal quality and placement of the voice. Holmes might adjust her resonance by consciously lowering the larynx. Doing so creates a longer space above the larynx, which boosts the <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132193">deeper, darker tones</a> in the voice. </p>
<h2>Women’s voices subject to scrutiny</h2>
<p>In my role as a theatrical <a href="https://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-make-theatre/voice">voice coach</a>, I’m sometimes asked to help women actors lower their voices. I’ve encountered directors and producers with significant distaste for higher-pitched women’s voices, especially when this pitch range is combined with <a href="https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/resonance-disorders/">nasal resonance</a>. </p>
<p>In movies and on TV, characters with high-pitched voices are often portrayed as comical, dim-witted and generally undesirable. Think of Lina Lamont, the character from “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Singin’ in the Rain</a>” memorably played by Jean Hagen. Her high, piercing voice became a source of consistent laughs. </p>
<p>Might sexist attitudes about women’s voices cause <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051216">women in leadership roles</a> to feel pressured to adjust their pitch range down?</p>
<p>Former British Prime Minister <a href="https://www.workingvoices.com/insights/busting-the-margaret-thatcher-voice-coaching-myth/">Margaret Thatcher</a>, nicknamed the “Iron Lady,” famously <a href="https://decider.com/2020/11/15/the-crown-season-4-gillian-anderson-margaret-thatcher-real-voice/">down-shifted her voice</a> to burnish her stature. <a href="https://www.americanscientist.org/article/how-voice-pitch-influences-our-choice-of-leaders">Research on perceptions of pitch</a> in women’s voices shows higher ones are associated with physical attractiveness, while lower voices are associated with dominance. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, many women <a href="https://youtu.be/JfgBgpFJYto">radio and podcast hosts</a> are barraged with negative listener feedback about “<a href="https://www.wired.com/video/watch/accent-expert-breaks-down-language-pet-peeves">vocal fry</a>,” the creaky mode of speaking made famous by Kim Kardashian. </p>
<p>Yet physiologically, to create this sound, the vocal folds must vibrate at a low frequency, associated with low pitch. This much-maligned vocal feature is at one end of the pitch spectrum. But there’s another equally hated speech feature that is achieved at the other end: the high-rising terminal intonation pattern, or “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28708526">uptalk</a>.” This feature is noted for the dramatic upward pitch at the end of each thought, which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z756L_CkakU">can make</a> statements sound like questions.</p>
<p>The insistence that women in media change the pitch of their voices often comes with little concern for the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2011.587447">anatomical and physiological factors</a> that will limit how much pitch change is ultimately possible. My current research is investigating perceptions of women’s speaking voices in the performing arts and considering whether it’s time to part ways with some old aesthetic preferences.</p>
<p>Either way, the delicate dance of trying to strike a happy medium – the Goldilocks voice profile, where one can be taken seriously as a leader without being perceived as inauthentic, grating or patronizing – seems to be elusive. Women’s voices are the subject of endless scrutiny at both ends of the range – it seems they just can’t win. </p>
<p>If everything about this story were the same except the gender of Theranos’ CEO, I wonder whether his voice would even be remarked upon. If it were, might the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/deeper-voice-gives-electoral-advant-12-03-14/">same vocal qualities</a> be perceived as positive traits befitting a capable, serious-minded leader? </p>
<p>Elizabeth Holmes undoubtedly lacks the practical skills and moral compass to be a great leader. But all the noise about her voice, and the potential that she changed it to get ahead, just may reveal a sexist double standard that women seemingly can’t escape.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation’s politics, science or religion articles each week.</em><a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-best">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/177961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Cunningham is a member of the Pan-American Vocology Association (PAVA) and Voice and Speech Trainers Association (VASTA). </span></em></p>A speech expert wonders what this says about the pressures women in leadership roles feel – and the broader cultural impulse to police the way women speak and sound.Kathryn Cunningham, Assistant Professor of Theatre, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1677662021-11-23T16:32:17Z2021-11-23T16:32:17ZHulu’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ casts Canada as a racial utopia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432954/original/file-20211121-19-okuarf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C126%2C1044%2C599&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hulu's 'Handmaid's Tale' Season 4 envisions escapes to Canada that draw on 19th century abolitionist narratives, yet the show doesn't acknowledge race. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Hulu/YouTube)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/hulu-s--the-handmaid-s-tale--casts-canada-as-a-racial-utopia" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>When Hulu’s series <em>The Handmaid’s Tale</em> premiered in 2017, reviewers noted <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/arts/television/review-the-handmaids-tale-creates-a-chilling-mans-world.html">its gripping drama and dystopian exploration</a> of rape culture and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/26/the-handmaids-tale-year-trump-misogyny-metoo">misogyny at a time when both were hallmarks of Donald Trump’s presidency</a>.</p>
<p>The series is adapted from Canadian author Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel. It has won numerous awards and was recently renewed for <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a35130606/handmaids-tale-season-5-news-date-cast-spoilers-trailer/">a fifth season</a>. But some commentators, including writer Ellen E. Jones, have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/31/the-handmaids-tales-race-problem">criticized the series for its use of colour-blind casting that created inclusivity but otherwise ignored race in storylines</a>. Others, including Noah Berlatsky, have analyzed how both the series and novel <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15808530/handmaids-tale-hulu-margaret-atwood-black-history-racial-erasure">erase Black people’s history</a>.</p>
<p>Our research examines representations of <a href="https://www.upress.state.ms.us/Books/R/Race-in-Young-Adult-Speculative-Fiction">race in speculative fiction</a> and of <a href="https://www.mqup.ca/reading-between-the-borderlines-products-9780773555136.php">Canada in U.S. literature</a>, leading us to notice how Hulu’s series represents race and national difference. </p>
<p>The show positions Canada as a morally superior nation that has rejected the dystopian society’s repressive and exclusionist thinking. This is especially apparent in Season 4’s focus on characters’ escape to Canada, a theme that references older abolitionist narratives. In so doing, the show obscures Canada’s history of slavery, colonialism and racism. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81PyH5TH-NQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Hulu’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ trailer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Atwood’s dystopian world</h2>
<p>Both the novel and show draw on U.S. history to imagine a dystopian world facing an unexplained fertility crisis. Gilead, a <a href="https://lithub.com/margaret-atwood-on-how-she-came-to-write-the-handmaids-tale">theocratic nation led by religious fundamentalists</a>, has overthrown the U.S. government. Atwood’s female narrator is an <a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA206534450&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00294047&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ec0791e64">educated white woman</a> forced to become a “handmaid.” Each month, a commander rapes her in a religious fertility ceremony. Babies born to handmaids are raised by commanders and their wives. The sole purpose of the handmaids is to rebuild Gilead’s population. </p>
<p>Writer Priya Nair explains that Atwood’s novel draws on the historical <a href="https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/anti-blackness-handmaids-tale">oppression of Black enslaved women and applies it to fictional white women</a>. For example, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Dark-Horizons-Science-Fiction-and-the-Dystopian-Imagination/Moylan-Baccolini/p/book/9780415966146">handmaids who are disobedient</a> are beaten or hanged. </p>
<p>Despite clear parallels to slavery, Atwood only obliquely
references slavery when the narrator <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2017/05/02/whats-not-said-handmaids-tale/">explains that the “Children of Ham</a>” have been relocated to the Dakotas. “Children of Ham” is a Biblical phrase that was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/arts/from-noah-s-curse-to-slavery-s-rationale.html">used historically to justify enslaving Africans</a>.</p>
<p>Nair also notes that the novel focuses on white women’s oppression, while seemingly ignoring “the historical realities of an American dystopia founded on anti-Black violence.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A crowd of women, of white, Black and Asian identities, seen in cloaks and bonnets." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433508/original/file-20211123-26-1jbixok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Actors are seen at the filming of Handmaid’s Tale at Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., February 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Victoria Pickering/Flickr)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the novel relies on historical experiences of Black Americans, its characters are predominantly white, a feature of Gilead that Atwood maintains in the 2019 follow-up <em>The Testaments</em>. As reviewer Danielle Kurtzleben notes, in this second instalment: “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/755868251/the-testaments-takes-us-back-to-gilead-for-a-fast-paced-female-centered-adventur">Readers hoping to hear more about race in Gilead will be sorely disappointed</a>.” </p>
<p>Atwood intentionally framed Gilead as both misogynist and racist: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15808530/handmaids-tale-hulu-margaret-atwood-black-history-racial-erasure">the theocracy is interested only in reproducing white babies and, therefore, only enslaving white women</a>.</p>
<h2>Colour-blind casting in Hulu’s adaptation</h2>
<p>In adapting the novel, Hulu relied on a diverse cast of actors. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005253/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">White actor Elisabeth Moss</a> plays June and <a href="https://blackbookmag.com/arts-culture/essay-the-handmaids-tale-star-o-t-fagbenle-on-racial-fairness-in-the-entertainment-industry/">Black British actor</a> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1282966/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">O-T Fagbenle</a> portrays her husband Luke. <a href="https://www.bustle.com/p/samira-wiley-on-doing-right-by-her-handmaids-tale-character-her-wife-the-queer-black-community-herself-8732193">Black actor</a> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4148126/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">Samira Wiley</a> was cast as June’s best friend Moira. Actors of colour portray characters of all class positions in Gilead’s society. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A Black woman dressed glamorously in red lipstick is seen arriving at an event in front of a Hulu / Handmaid's Tale sign." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433506/original/file-20211123-25-401rkr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Samira Wiley, who plays Moira, arrives for ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ FYC Phase 2 Event in August 2017 in Los Angeles, Calif.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0588005/">Executive producer Bruce Miller</a> acknowledges that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/31/the-handmaids-tales-race-problem">he cast actors of colour</a> in many roles to avoid creating an all-white world, which would result in a racist TV show. The show doesn’t address race, he explained, because: “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/31/the-handmaids-tales-race-problem">It just felt like in a world where birth rates have fallen so precipitously, fertility would trump everything</a>.” </p>
<p>The show then relies on colour-blind casting and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/16/the-handmaids-tale-proves-that-colorblind-casting-isnt-enough/">colour-blind storytelling</a>. </p>
<p>In Atwood’s novel, Canada is <a href="https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Canada">the place to which handmaids escape</a>, fleeing there on the Underground Femaleroad — a term that clearly invokes <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/underground-railroad">the Underground Railroad</a>.</p>
<p>In Hulu’s series, handmaids — <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5931656/?ref_=ttep_ep10">including Moira</a> — escape from Gilead to Canada where they find protection and safety, and are able to rebuild their lives. The series draws on older literary traditions that have been integral to maintaining the myth of Canada as free from racism. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/i-am-not-your-nice-mammy-how-racist-stereotypes-still-impact-women-111028">I am not your nice 'Mammy': How racist stereotypes still impact women</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Draws on abolitionist narratives</h2>
<p>In the 1840s and 1850s, U.S. abolitionist authors intentionally represented Canada as a racial haven. By casting <a href="https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jcs.2020-0025">Canada as morally superior</a>, abolitionists imagined what the U.S. might look like if slavery were abolished. </p>
<p>Abolitionist authors like Black songwriter and poet <a href="https://southernspaces.org/2020/white-people-america-1854/">Joshua McCarter Simpson</a> and white novelist <a href="https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/harriet-beecher-stowe/harriet-beecher-stowe-life/">Harriet Beecher Stowe</a> celebrated Canada as a place that resisted racial violence and provided legal protection for Black refugees fleeing U.S. slavery. </p>
<p>Some abolitionists sought to capture the nuanced accounts of Black refugees in Canada. Abolitionist editor <a href="https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/drew/drew.html">Benjamin Drew</a> published oral testimonies of Black refugees, including their experiences of racism in Ontario. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ancestry-ad-gets-it-wrong-canada-was-never-slave-free-116051">Ancestry ad gets it wrong: Canada was never slave-free</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Others, like Stowe, minimized the difficulties of the lived experiences of Black Canadians, focusing on stories of Black success in Canada. These celebratory narratives dominated representations of Canada in U.S. literature.</p>
<h2>Canada as utopia?</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A group of women in red cloaks and bonnets are seen walking by a cluster of trees outside." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433513/original/file-20211123-20-1n4hkjj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hulu’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ escape-to-Canada stories draw on historical narratives by abolitionists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Victoria Pickering/Flickr)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/chairholders-titulaires/profile-eng.aspx?profileId=4528">Literary scholar Nancy Kang</a> argues these abolitionist stories constructed an “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40033673">allegory of Canadian freedom reigning triumphant over American bondage</a>.” </p>
<p>Hulu’s <em>The Handmaid’s Tale</em> escape-to-Canada stories draw on these historical narratives. The handmaid Emily, portrayed by white actor <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0088127/">Alexis Bledel</a>, escapes Gilead dramatically, entering Canada by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8363118/?ref_=ttep_ep1">wading across a rushing river</a>, nearly losing June’s daughter. Once across, she weeps over the baby, recreating an iconic scene from Stowe’s <a href="http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/uncletom/uthp.html"><em>Uncle Tom’s Cabin</em></a>, when the enslaved Eliza escapes slave-catchers by fleeing across a river with her child.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-uncle-tom-still-impacts-racial-politics-152201">How 'Uncle Tom' still impacts racial politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Later in the episode, an Asian Canadian doctor welcomes Emily to Canada, saying: “You’re safe here.”</p>
<p>On some level, Hulu’s use of colour-blind casting, as Berlatsky notes, “addresses the narrative’s debt to African-American history.” But viewers are still watching an adaptation of a novel whose emotional horror is based on imagining violent, racist aspects of U.S. history <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15808530/handmaids-tale-hulu-margaret-atwood-black-history-racial-erasure">as if the atrocities happened to white people</a>.</p>
<h2>Myths of Canada</h2>
<p>The series avoids Canada’s history of anti-Black racism, slavery and state violence against Black bodies, as detailed by gender studies and Black/African diaspora scholar <a href="https://wgsi.utoronto.ca/person/robyn-maynard/">Robyn Maynard</a> in <a href="https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/policing-black-lives"><em>Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present</em></a>. It also overlooks Canada’s colonial <a href="https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060525">violence toward Indigenous peoples</a>. These <a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-shameful-history-of-sterilizing-indigenous-women-107876">forms of violence</a> are intertwined with seeking control over women’s reproductive rights and sexual freedom. </p>
<p>The series also overlooks Canada’s history of <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-immigration-act">racist immigration</a> <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/auschwitz-jews-not-welcome-in-wartime-canada">and asylum</a> policies.</p>
<p>Hulu’s series does explore some of the consequences of patriarchal oppression. But the show’s positioning of Canada as a racial haven obscures <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racism">its history</a> and the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/m_blog/dont-believe-the-hype-canada-is-not-a-nation-of-cultural-tolerance">contemporary reality of racism</a> experienced by BIPOC women and communities in Canada.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alyssa MacLean receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Miranda Green-Barteet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Myths of Canada’s moral superiority in contrast to the United States can be a barrier to acknowledging and addressing racism in Canada.Miranda Green-Barteet, Associate Professor, Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies, Western UniversityAlyssa MacLean, Assistant Professor, Department of English and Writing Studies, Western UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1659492021-08-17T19:58:46Z2021-08-17T19:58:46ZNine Perfect Strangers review: sharp dialogue and excellent performances can’t hide the hollowness of the story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416407/original/file-20210817-15-1tfo0qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C4%2C3000%2C1980&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Prime</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This review contains minor spoilers for the first six episodes of Nine Perfect Strangers.</em></p>
<p>Nine Perfect Strangers is a polished take on wellness culture that is less “eat the rich” than “pass the Kool-Aid”. Adapted from Liane Moriarty’s bestselling 2018 novel, it takes place at a secretive, high-end wellness retreat called Tranquillum, an on-trend Scandi dream of bare light wood and open spaces overseen by a mysterious Russian woman, Masha (Nicole Kidman). </p>
<p>Nine people — a grieving family, a couple on the rocks, and four individuals in crisis — have signed up for a ten-day plunge into self-actualisation. As Masha and the staff gleefully tell one another, the group is volatile. By halfway through the season, bets are on as to who is going to completely lose it, and how much damage they are going to do.</p>
<p>As the dreamy, psychedelic title sequence suggests, Masha’s version of therapeutic practice may be a little less conventional than the guests have anticipated. Tranquillum’s invasive techniques are barely masked by the soft voices and benign smiles of the staff. Behind the scenes, conflicts are getting out of hand. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dSBpHjUpuXI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Masha’s background is also murky. She brings the same ruthlessness to her role as wellness guru as she did her prior life as a CEO, before a life altering experience took her from boardroom to yoga studio. </p>
<p>As she ups her surveillance of the guests and her idiosyncratic therapeutic “protocols”, her motivations and sense of ethics are opaque. We know there has been tragedy at the retreat before, but for her, the promise of nine cathartic breakthroughs – nine changed lives – justifies the ethically dubious and probably illegal means. </p>
<p>She’s also being threatened; Tranquillum is not so safe. </p>
<h2>Suspense, and dramedy</h2>
<p>As in producer David E. Kelley’s other collaborations with Kidman, Big Little Lies (2017-19) and The Undoing (2020), the camera frequently lingers on Kidman’s uncanny face, emphasising moments of emotional intensity. She’s intense and willowy, Galadriel by way of Gwyneth Paltrow. It is nearly impossible to trust or read her. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Nicole Kidman" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416409/original/file-20210817-6629-qya4pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Masha: Galadriel by way of Gwyneth Paltrow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Prime</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These narrative lines provide a sense of mounting suspense, but the series’ mysteries are really window dressing. They are ultimately secondary to a very traditional character dramedy that wants to have things both ways. </p>
<p>Nine Perfect Strangers opens with overt suspicion of the commodification of wellness, present in both the (well-founded!) concerns of the characters and the framing of the retreat itself. Tranquillum offers the sort of bougie, self-indulgent therapeutic experience only the navel-gazing, super-rich can buy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/marketing-not-medicine-gwyneth-paltrows-the-goop-lab-whitewashes-traditional-health-therapies-for-profit-130287">Marketing, not medicine: Gwyneth Paltrow’s The Goop Lab whitewashes traditional health therapies for profit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But this initial satirical impulse is just a hook; there’s little critique present. Instead, as the show progresses, each desperate character embraces the process and addresses their damage. </p>
<p>There’s an uncomfortable sense that the over-priced, therapeutic model which distils trauma into bon mots, timetabling catharsis and manipulating its subjects, might not be a bad thing. </p>
<p>The show’s aesthetic heightens as the doors of perception open. Director Jonathan Levine offers luscious close-up sequences of fruit being macerated and blitzed for daily smoothies, capturing a dual sense of sensuality and latent threat. Images start to distort, colours intensify, and the camera roams woozily. Editing ably charts emerging alliances, catching fleeting glances and moments of candour. </p>
<p>Although the show is set in the US, the Australian location — which is rich with bamboo, bird of paradise flowers and banyan trees — gives a sense we are somewhere outside of the “real” world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man lounges in a pool" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416410/original/file-20210817-23-2eups7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Set in the US and filmed in Australia, Nine Perfect Strangers feels removed from our world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Prime</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Stellar performances</h2>
<p>The dialogue is clever and often funny – eminently quotable. As relationships develop, and the retreat intensifies, the exceptional ensemble cast shines. The guests, who have been carefully selected by Masha, are there to heal each other as well.</p>
<p>They share pointed intimate conversations while lazing on pool toys or sitting in swinging bowers surrounded by outdoor lamps. Each performer balances groundedness and vulnerability, even as their characters loosen their grip on reality. </p>
<p>The show cares about its characters (mostly), even as it puts them through the wringer, although it’s hard to feel sorry for a lottery winner whose wealth has led to existential boredom (Melvin Gregg).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man and a woman hold hands" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416411/original/file-20210817-59076-ojbuvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The show cares about its characters, even as it puts them through the wringer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Prime</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bestselling author Frances (Melissa McCarthy) is a bundle of shame and self-recrimination who strikes up an alliance with Tony (Bobby Cannavale), an abrasive burnout. </p>
<p>Grieving mother Heather (Asher Keddie) swings from depression to dreamy elation, as her husband Napoleon (Michael Shannon) loses grip of his happy-go-lucky exterior and succumbs to his pain. Their daughter Zoe (Grace Van Patten) celebrates her 21st birthday, supported by the guests but haunted by the death of her twin brother. </p>
<p>Lars (Luke Evans) is a prickly control freak with a hidden agenda. Samara Weaving gives a particularly beautiful, brittle performance as a sweet rich girl whose Instagram-perfect exterior hides extreme distress. Carmel (Regina Hall) is a woman on the edge, straying very close to a “crazy black woman” trope. </p>
<h2>‘Maybe I’m hollow’</h2>
<p>As Lars announces, “so much self-loathing, so little time”. But does the “nudge, nudge” self-awareness of the show make up for its conventional, reductive view of trauma? </p>
<p>Frances confesses her best-selling novels are gimmicky: they’re “shallow takes on whatever the flavour of the moment is, and I shove some romance into it – they’re hollow”, finishing with “maybe I’m hollow”. </p>
<p>After one of Masha’s speeches, another character asks “what did that mean? It sounded like it had meaning”. </p>
<p>In contrast to the excoriating satirical take on wealth and boredom present in television series The White Lotus, it’s hard not to see such comments as a get out of jail free card.</p>
<p>Nine Perfect Strangers is well-shot, entertaining and more than a little pulpy, but if you’re searching for enlightenment then it would pay to look elsewhere.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/freud-nietzsche-paglia-fanon-our-expert-guide-to-the-books-of-the-white-lotus-166187">Freud, Nietzsche, Paglia, Fanon: our expert guide to the books of The White Lotus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Nine Perfect Strangers will be streaming on Amazon Prime in Australia and New Zealand from this Friday.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erin Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nine Perfect Strangers tries to be a satire on wellness culture — and yet celebrates its trappings all the same.Erin Harrington, Senior Lecturer in English and Cultural Studies, University of CanterburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1253602019-11-08T12:14:20Z2019-11-08T12:14:20ZApple, Disney and Netflix’s streaming battle isn’t winner-take-all<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300712/original/file-20191107-10915-18agxtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Apple TV Plus has focused on recruiting big names for its shows.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Tony Avelar</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the <a href="https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-tv-plus-cost-review-and-everything-you-need-to-know">recent launch of Apple TV Plus</a> and the imminent arrival of Disney Plus, the video landscape has never looked so competitive. </p>
<p>These services join a crowded marketplace of subscription streaming services that includes Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video – with <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/20727317/nbc-universal-streaming-service-launch-date-2020-comcast">more to come</a> next year. For viewers, the proliferation of services means more choice in shows and services. For the companies, it means increased competition for talent and escalating budgets. </p>
<p>Although <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/afm-streaming-wars-loom-large-as-market-gets-underway-1252706">many</a> <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/media/streaming-wars-scorecard/index.html">publications</a> <a href="https://www.theverge.com/streaming-wars">have</a> <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/disney-rollout-shows-streaming-wars-are-over-viewers-lost-ncna1067276">described</a> the situation as “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2019-10-10/streaming-wars-winners-and-losers-disney-plus-netflix-hbo-max-peacock-quibi-apple-tv">streaming wars</a>,” these companies have different goals for each of their video services.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amandalotz.com">We have</a> <a href="http://opensquare.nyupress.org/books/9781479804948/">been studying</a> the recent <a href="https://global-internet-tv.com/">boom</a> in subscription video streaming to understand the implications for audiences and industry. Contrary to all this reporting, we find little evidence of a “streaming war.” </p>
<p>In fact, many of these services are playing different games.</p>
<h2>Diverse strategies</h2>
<p>The major streaming services – both old and new – all have different catalogs, pricing and strategies. While all services seek viewers’ time and attention, in other respects they are different beasts.</p>
<p>Take <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-streaming-service-launch-release-dates-prices-preorders-shows-movies-deals/">Disney Plus</a>. Disney’s strong suit is kids, family and its popular Marvel and “Star Wars” content. It has also invested in a few original series such as “The Mandalorian,” a “Star Wars” spin-off. </p>
<p>But unlike Netflix, Disney Plus doesn’t offer a full-service entertainment package. With its lowball pricing of US$7 per month compared with $13 for Netflix’s most popular plan, Disney Plus is pitched as a service to have alongside Netflix, rather than a direct replacement.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-tv-plus-launch-date-price-shows-movies-films-to-expect/">Apple TV Plus</a> – which debuted on Nov. 1 for $4.99 a month – has a tiny catalog of high-profile shows and stars, such as Oprah and Jennifer Aniston. Compared with Netflix’s library of <a href="http://unogs.com/countrydetail/">5,000 titles</a>, Apple TV Plus is a minnow. Its purpose is to add value and glamour to Apple device purchases not to replace another service.</p>
<p>In other words, neither Disney Plus nor Apple TV Plus is likely to be a “<a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/can-apple-tv-plus-be-a-netflix-killer-14908038">Netflix killer</a>” anytime soon. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The growing number of streaming services can co-exist.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manuel Esteban/Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Netflix is global</h2>
<p>Another key difference between Netflix and services such as Disney Plus, Hulu and Apple TV Plus is the amount of global content in the former’s library. </p>
<p>Today, <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-subscriber-peak-us-pwc-report-1203234190/">six out of every seven</a> new Netflix subscribers live outside the U.S. The <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/04/11/the-unique-strategy-netflix-deployed-to-reach-90-million-worldwide-subscribers_partner/">global market</a> is essential for Netflix’s future growth. </p>
<p>To support this endeavor, it is spending considerably on producing shows outside the U.S., and this original content is available to subscribers worldwide. Of course not every viewer is interested in series produced elsewhere, but Netflix is making the bet that sci-fi fans will turn up for a good adventure whether it is produced in the U.S. or Brazil.</p>
<p>In contrast, Disney and Apple are following a more traditional U.S. export model of media globalization. </p>
<h2>Room for other players?</h2>
<p>Many questions remain about the future of <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/how-does-hulu-work/">Hulu</a> now that its owners – Disney and Comcast – are launching other services.</p>
<p>Hulu provides a distinct service as a source of current series produced for Disney and NBC. Viewers that are cutting cable and satellite service – a trend that has <a href="https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/cord-cuttings-growth-has-more-than-tripled-in-2019/">increased</a> in the last year – may find Hulu a good replacement.</p>
<p>And more change is coming. Comcast announced a service called Peacock for next year. Peacock will draw heavily from the library of shows Comcast owns as the corporate parent of NBC and Universal. It will be free to Comcast subscribers and <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/01/nbc-peacock-free-report/?guccounter=1">possibly to everyone</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, AT&T will launch <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-hbo-max/">HBO Max</a> – the new direct-to-consumer portal for HBO content, some original series and titles from the Warner Bros. library such as “Friends.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disney can use data collected from its streaming service for other purposes, such as driving people to the theaters to watch ‘Frozen 2.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Arthur Mola/Invision/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What winning means</h2>
<p>In other words, the question of who will “win” the streaming war is more complicated than it appears. </p>
<p>Rather than one service to rule them all, there may be many winners because most are playing different games. Netflix is the only “pure” subscription video-on-demand service – meaning its only business is streaming video. It wins when viewers subscribe or keep subscribing. Apple and Amazon are playing another game entirely. Apple wins if you buy a new iPhone, and Amazon wins if you start buying more from its online retail service. Similarly, Comcast and AT&T are likely angling to increase internet subscribers.</p>
<p>Disney also wants viewers to pay to subscribe, but it has other ambitions too. Launching its own streaming service allows Disney to collect valuable data about who is watching and what they like. This kind of data is useful for driving viewers to theaters as Elsa and Anna return in “Frozen 2” and enticing families to buy lots of stuffed toys and maybe even visit its theme parks. </p>
<p>In other words, this is not a single war so much as a collection of different media and technology businesses that are using video streaming to accomplish different goals. </p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery programme (DP190100978).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ramon Lobato receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery programme (DP190100978).</span></em></p>Although some have dubbed the flurry of new video services coming out as a ‘streaming war,’ the reality is very different.Amanda Lotz, Professor of Media Studies, Queensland University of TechnologyRamon Lobato, Senior research fellow, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1167732019-05-09T18:25:39Z2019-05-09T18:25:39ZTV streaming titans are locked into a real-life Game of Thrones – here’s a way around this fight to the death<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273573/original/file-20190509-183112-1tzj83.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Let battle commence. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml">Vitalii Petrushenko</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American retail giant Walmart is <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/5/18530069/vudu-walmart-initial-slate-original-content-streaming-shows-free-ads">becoming</a> the latest challenger to clamber into the ring and take on the reigning TV/movie streaming heavyweights with original material.</p>
<p>At a press conference in New York, Walmart announced a slate of new commissions for its streaming contender, Vudu. Added to the 100,000-plus TV shows and movies already available on the service, viewers can expect the likes of Friends in Strange Places, a travel/comedy series overseen by Queen Latifah; interview documentary strand Turning Point with Randy Jackson; and a series-length reboot of 1983 Michael Keaton comedy Mr Mom. </p>
<p>The new offering is aimed primarily at Middle America, which Walmart feels has been undersold by streaming incumbents like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Vudu’s shows will be a vehicle for new interactive advertising going live over the summer which will allow consumers to buy what they see without leaving their sofa. Thanks to its monster customer database, a senior Vudu manager <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/335313/walmarts-vudu-positions-itself-as-sleeping-giant.html">recently described</a> Walmart as the “sleeping giant of the digital entertainment space”. </p>
<p>If so, it’s about to wake up to a very crowded marketplace. It’s only weeks since Apple <a href="https://www.whathifi.com/advice/apple-tv-app-and-apple-tv-streaming-service-everything-you-need-to-know">announced</a> streaming service Apple TV+, which is to combine licensed shows with original programming when it launches worldwide this autumn.</p>
<p>Disney, <a href="https://mashable.com/article/disney-plus-apple-tv/?europe=true">meanwhile</a>, is following suit with Disney+ in November – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/business/media/disney-plus-streaming.html">initially</a> in the US, then rolling out to other countries next year.</p>
<p>Other existing streamers include <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/09/disney-to-invest-in-more-original-content-for-hulu-expand-service-internationally/">Hulu</a> and <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/01/hbo-plan-to-win-the-streaming-wars">HBO Now</a>, while <a href="https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/discovery-to-launch-streaming-service-with-bbc-content">Discovery</a> and <a href="http://www.nbcuniversal.com/press-release/nbcuniversal-announces-direct-consumer-streaming-service-and-new-leadership-structure">NBCUniversal</a> are both launching rivals next year as well (click on the table below to make the full details bigger). Between them, these companies are spending many billions of dollars on content. It doesn’t take a seer to predict that a good few will likely fail. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273844/original/file-20190510-183086-vvjdg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">*US subscriptions only.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Sizing them up</h2>
<p>Among these newer announcements, Apple and Disney look the stronger contenders. Apple has the ready-made platform of a billion devices to promote and deliver its service, while Disney has the richest content portfolio across multiple categories – from video games to live sports to superheroes. </p>
<p>Vudu may have the heft of Walmart behind it, but the content investment is likely to be a fraction of the other two: Apple has said it will spend US$2 billion (£1.5 billion) a year at first, while Disney is spending only $500m on originals, including the likes of three Avengers spin-offs, but the group’s total annual content spend <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/12/10/netflix-spending-hollywood-disney-comcast-budget/">is nearly</a> 50 times bigger. Walmart has not said what Vudu is spending. On the other hand, Vudu’s offering will be mostly free while Disney+ and Apple TV+ will both charge monthly subscriptions. </p>
<p>At any rate, all three are likely to struggle – and the same goes for the other new arrivals. We are heading for a serious case of “subscription fatigue”. When consumers watch free-to-air television, broadcasters take care of the messy process of making deals with content owners, aggregating it and serving it up. As pay-TV operators like Sky or the cable networks started to emerge, consumers had to sometimes choose a package to get a particular channel or programme. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273576/original/file-20190509-183096-iq51a0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">They have been warned.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml">diy13</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But with streaming in future, this experience is going to become more and more frustrating – Where can I find Westworld? Where is Blue Planet these days? – not to mention expensive for anyone tempted by multiple offerings. By building competing services, all these media giants are playing their own Game of Thrones.</p>
<h2>The fix</h2>
<p>The way forward is clear, but controversial. Apple, Disney, AT&T, NBCUniversal and the other large players should collaborate to create a dominant content platform. Partnering among subscription services would take some of the burden off consumers and make the combined offering more appealing than existing options. Imagine subscribing to a single service to receive access to everything from classic TV and movies to the latest shows. The market can probably handle two or three mega platforms, but not more.</p>
<p>Ironically, Disney already has a ready-made option in its arsenal. Hulu was set up as a joint venture between Disney, NBCUniversal, Fox and WarnerMedia (now owned by AT&T). Yet Hulu’s claim to be a cross-industry platform is getting weaker, not stronger: Fox’s 30% share <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-disney-fox-merger-affects-consumers-hulu-marvel-streaming-2019-3?r=US&IR=T">defaulted</a> to Disney when it was taken over, and AT&T <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/15/18312068/disney-hulu-att-sells-stake-comcast-control-streaming">has announced</a> it wants to sell its 10% holding. Hulu may have recently diversified with its recent <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/12/hulu-and-spotify-launch-an-even-more-steeply-discounted-bundle-of-9-99-per-month/">partnership announcement</a> with music streamer Spotify, but Disney’s new dominance of the service will probably make it a less attractive option for other media companies to buy into than previously.</p>
<p>If media companies collaborated with their streaming services, it would certainly come with antitrust concerns. But unless they evolve into an industry platform soon, the door will open for other players to take the lead – I’m thinking digital giants like Google or Facebook, internet service providers or telecommunications companies.</p>
<p>Many of these players already have a subscription relationship with consumers, so it would be relatively easy for them to bundle video streaming into existing services. Amazon’s shift into the media world is a textbook example of how this could play out. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273578/original/file-20190509-183089-1m577og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One service to rule them all.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml">Metamorworks</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is reminiscent of the early 2000s, in which the record majors built walled gardens around their content only to watch in horror as Apple’s iTunes stole the market from under them with a convenient, cheap and comprehensive option. Spotify then stole it again a few years later. Media companies should also beware the prospect of consumers being driven in larger numbers to illegal or quasi-legal video consolidation services. </p>
<p>There are recent precedents that they could follow of competitive partnering in other industries: BMW and Daimler <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18235941/daimler-bmw-mobility-joint-venture-billion-dollars">recently announced</a> they would join forces to build common platforms for ride sharing and electric vehicle charging, among other things, having realised they are stronger together than apart. </p>
<p>The media giants would be well advised to start exploring similar possibilities.
Consumers <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/streaming-subscription-fatigue-us-consumers-deloitte-study-1203166046/">are already</a> baulking at both the cost of multiple subscription services and the inconvenience of having to keep track of which shows are on which services. The ultimate winner will be the first option that can provide scale and convenience at a reasonable cost. If today’s streaming companies aren’t careful, they will end up on the outside looking in.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Wade does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vudu, Apple TV+, Disney +, NBC Universal: there’s going to be a lot of blood on the carpet.Michael Wade, Professor of Innovation and Strategy, Cisco Chair in Digital Business Transformation, International Institute for Management Development (IMD)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1000412018-07-16T14:26:53Z2018-07-16T14:26:53ZSecret ingredient that made Netflix a world beater could lead to its demise<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227819/original/file-20180716-44094-157a6w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sofa so good. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aachen-germany-october-2017man-holds-remote-729647752?src=TduN4Um9uoJD7xn9IgiKEw-1-36">r.classen</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix’s <a href="https://deadline.com/2018/07/netflix-misses-subscriber-growth-projections-second-quarter-1202427273/">latest</a> half-year results have disappointed the market, sending shares in the TV streaming giant down 13% overnight. When this is the reaction to adding 5m subscribers in three months, taking your total to 130m around the world, it certainly tells you something. </p>
<p>In the last 12 months the stock had <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/chart?p=NFLX">skyrocketed</a> from US$158 to US$396, light years ahead of the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/netflix-downgraded-by-ubs-because-of-high-valuation-analyst-says-good.html">S&P 500 average</a>. This was partly driven by a stellar quarterly <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/netflix-releases-first-quarter-2018-financial-results-300630554.html">earnings report</a> in April, which raised analysts’ and investors’ expectations about whether the company could maintain its incredible growth trajectory. Netflix had set its quarterly target at 1.2m more subscribers from the US and 5m from the rest of the world. Some analysts decided even this was conservative, publishing still higher growth expectations to justify the ambitious company valuation. </p>
<p>Yet the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/netflix-downgraded-by-ubs-because-of-high-valuation-analyst-says-good.html">notes</a> of <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/deutsche-bank-warns-netflix-may-miss-second-quarter-subscriber-expecta.html">caution</a> creeping in shortly before the new results have turned out to be justified. A Macquarie analyst <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/netflix-subscriber-growth-faces-new-test-after-46-billion-rally">had argued</a> that “expectations have gotten ahead of themselves”. Netflix missed both its US and international targets, adding 700,000 and 4.5m subscribers respectively. Cutthroat competition from the likes of Amazon, Hulu and HBO was help up to blame. </p>
<p>Netflix has done a remarkable job of <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episode-647-hard-work-is-irrelevant?t=1531750232006">reinventing itself</a> from its original incarnation as a DVD sales/rental company founded in 1997, to the world’s leading streaming service. It has managed to differentiate itself from the competition largely by becoming a major producer of award-winning content like <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70178217">House of Cards</a>, <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70242311">Orange is the New Black</a> and <a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80057281">Stranger Things</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oTyhk1lgZDg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Netflix’s commissions are based on a deep understanding of its subscribers’ viewing patterns and preferences. This has enabled the company to raise its charges despite the competition, and thus capitalise on the huge subscriber base. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/12997058/netflix-originals-half-catalog-streaming">The aim</a> for the next few years is for half of the entire library to be shows and films made exclusively for Netflix. In 2018 alone, the company is <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/07/08/netflix-original-programming-13-billion/">expected to</a> spend US$12 billion to US$13 billion on new content – <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/16/16486436/netflix-original-content-8-billion-dollars-anime-films">way ahead of</a> the US$8 billion that was previously planned. </p>
<p>This has created a service second only to HBO in terms of worldwide subscriber numbers (and a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/fb6b3db2-6708-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe">large part</a> of HBO’s 142m total base is US customers who buy its package of channels via cable networks). Netflix’s approach to streaming is different to many other players in the market. We can broadly split the rest of the contenders into three categories: bundlers, broadcasters and big content giants:</p>
<h2>1. The bundler</h2>
<p>Amazon’s <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prime-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=3280626031">streaming service</a> is “bundled” into its Amazon Prime offering, which gives Amazon’s retail customers a whole raft of benefits ranging from cheap nappies to faster delivery times. Offering video and music streaming as a complex bundle of products and services has important competitive implications. </p>
<p>It means Amazon is potentially able to run the streaming service at a loss, provided it can create sufficient margins elsewhere in the service. This makes it easier for Amazon to put other streaming providers under pressure with low subscription charges. Amazon Prime is Netflix’s nearest streaming rival <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a70cf344-4350-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fd">with around</a> 100m subscribers worldwide. </p>
<h2>2. The broadcaster</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227824/original/file-20180716-44097-odohpy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most broadcasters offer streaming as an add-on to their existing TV or cable TV offering. Such offerings can be without additional cost to the consumer, such as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer">BBC iPlayer</a>, or part of a subscription model, such as the <a href="https://www.hbo.com/order">HBO Now</a> offering. </p>
<p>Similarly to Netflix, these companies also compete by offering unique content. For free broadcasters, it’s a means of maximising the size of their audience – whether for public service or for the benefit of advertisers. For the likes of HBO, it’s a way of tapping into customer segments they would otherwise not capture with their traditional cable TV service. </p>
<h2>3. The big content giants</h2>
<p>In future, the market for streaming services is set to get even more contested as production giants move in. I’m thinking particularly of Disney, which is on track to launch its <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/02/disneys-streaming-service-launching-in-2019-film-a.html">own streaming service</a> next autumn. </p>
<p>Streaming providers already pay a substantial share of revenue in fees to major producers for the rights to blockbusters like Frozen or the Toy Story franchise, but Disney for one has decided it can do better. It <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/disney-ending-exclusive-netflix-deal-in-2019-launching-rival-streaming-service-2017-8">will end</a> its exclusive supply deal with Netflix once its own service launches. It has not yet said if the Star Wars and Marvel movies will be included, but Disney’s move is clearly a major blow to Netflix. </p>
<h2>The road ahead</h2>
<p>Netflix’s decision to bet on unique rather than licensed content looks like the right decision in this context. Yet it faces a challenging future. Apple is also <a href="https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/03/27/apple-streaming-service-march-2019-launch/">due to</a> launch a streaming service next year and has been spending upwards of US$1 billion on original content in preparation. Spotify and Hulu <a href="http://www.cityam.com/283800/hulu-and-spotify-offer-single-video-and-music-streaming">also recently</a> announced a tie-up to offer a combined video and music streaming service. </p>
<p>From Netflix’s point of view, there is arguably little room for growth in the core US market, with almost one in every two households already signed up. It dwarfs Comcast and DirecTV, the largest respective cable and satellite providers in the market, who have little over 20m US subscribers each. Netflix is already putting <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/27/media/netflix-worldwide-content/index.html">more emphasis</a> on productions in different languages to maximise the international appeal of the business. Commendable on one level, investing in more “regional” content that might not find mass appeal may be a problem for profitability. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227820/original/file-20180716-44097-1mpqzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.statista.com/chart/10311/netflix-subscriptions-usa-international/">Statista</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Netflix is experimenting with additional routes to market to increase its subscriber base in other ways. One is joining the “bundlers” via a collaboration with Comcast, in which Netflix <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/comcast-and-netflix-expand-partnership-following-successful-xfinity-x1-integration">is being offered</a> as an added attraction to Comcast pay-TV subscribers. Netflix <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/01/sky-subscribers-to-get-netflix-for-the-first-time">recently</a> did a similar deal with BSkyB for the UK and Europe. </p>
<p>At the same time, Netflix’s current source of success has created an additional major challenge for the future. It has managed to differentiate itself with superb content in a market that is incredibly fast-moving and constantly looking for innovation. Subscribers expect Netflix to deliver innovative shows that they can binge watch. The company is looking at a potentially vicious circle of high content costs and fast content consumption. If it is going to defend its position, it is going to have to continue to spot great new stories and turn them into essential viewing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100041/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Friesl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In ten years, Netflix has built up a streaming business with a staggering 125m subscribers. Here’s what it needs to do next.Martin Friesl, Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/805702017-07-27T08:31:28Z2017-07-27T08:31:28ZAmazon, Netflix and righting the wrongs of television’s gender problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179780/original/file-20170726-3011-5lcp16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Glow from Netfix.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/68621">Netflix</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix will spend <a href="https://www.rapidtvnews.com/2017060247462/netflix-to-spend-6bn-on-original-content-in-2017.html#axzz4npLXMcRA">$6 billion</a> on original content in 2017. Between them, Amazon, Hulu and Netflix have scored 125 <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/awards/emmys-nominations-2017-netflix-hulu-amazon-1202494881/">Emmy nominations this year</a>. The message is clear: Subscription Video on Demand (SVoD) is no longer the new kid on the block. And it is this blooming platform which is starting to turn the traditionally male-dominated world of television production on its head.</p>
<p>Every year, <a href="http://www.wga.org/the-guild/advocacy/diversity/hollywood-writers-report">reports</a> on industry employment reveal how women are underrepresented on the writers’ credits in television. In the US and the UK, women’s share of television employment has remained at under 30%. <a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/features/diversity-television-white-male-showrunners-stats-fox-nbc-abc-cbs-cw-study-1201789639/">Women showrunners</a> (creators, executive producers and writers) account for only 22% of showrunners in the US. Women of colour make up just 4%. Once the bothersome newcomer in the entertainment market, subscription streaming services are shaking up the system and showing their more traditional rivals how innovation can lead to market dominance.</p>
<p>Two key points separate the production of subscription video on demand original content from the more traditional “linear” television model, where content is programmed to broadcast at one specific time. </p>
<p>First, producers such as Amazon, Netflix and Hulu have flexibility in the programming they commission. For example, without being restricted by commercial breaks and channel scheduling, episodes can run shorter or longer than a conventional drama (usually 45-50 minutes) or comedy (22-28 minutes). Being less accountable to programme sponsors, online original series can also tackle more <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-psychologists-have-got-it-wrong-on-13-reasons-why-79806">controversial subject matter</a>. But most importantly, they can commission content from a more diverse range of people with different voices.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179781/original/file-20170726-11301-1vc0ktp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Orange is the New Black, season five.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/4892">Netlfix</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second key difference between subscription video on demand and linear programming is their commissioning processes. Amazon completely shook up the convention of the “pilot season” (where initial episodes of new content are made then dropped or pushed forward depending on their anticipated success) with its own version of the “pilot” process. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Studios-Invites-TV-Writers-Submit-Comedy-Children-Series-Ideas-42088.html">Amazon’s version</a>, anyone could submit an idea for original content through an online portal. In this break from the “who you know” system of commissioning, Amazon made the pilots viewable by its Prime customers, who can then vote for the content they want to see produced into a full series. </p>
<p>This democratisation of viewing is also influenced by the feature that is at the very core of on-demand viewing – we watch what we want, when we want, for however long we want. We watch on our laptops, on our tablets, on our smart phones and on our home smart televisions. Importantly, all of this has helped increase <a href="https://theconversation.com/orange-is-the-new-black-is-fast-becoming-a-feminist-classic-40353">programming about women</a>, created by women. </p>
<h2>A man’s world</h2>
<p>Television production has traditionally been a man’s world. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443714544868?journalCode=mcsa">Evidence</a> for the media industries shows that people in positions of power over hiring will employ those they feel are most similar to their existing teams. So, for a team of white men, another white man will typically be seen as a “safer” hire than a woman or a person of colour. When the odds are loaded against women like this, it becomes <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/25/women-in-tv-arent-trusted-as-writers-claims-happy-valley-creator">harder</a> for a woman to get her foot in the door. </p>
<p>In addition to these “<a href="http://www.benschneiderphd.com/People_Make_the_Place_PP_1987.pdf">homogenous</a>” hiring practices, the employment of women in creative and cultural industries declines sharply after the age of 35. These industries have not been conducive to motherhood, maternity leave or care-giving. Far more so than men in television, women in television <a href="https://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/articles/10.16995/sim.26/galley/23/download/">report</a> that they were made to feel they could either have successful careers, or be mothers, with no middle ground. </p>
<p>By its very nature, television runs on short-term contracts, long and unsociable hours and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-954X.12240/abstract">informal recruitment</a> practices. For those lacking a family network of childminders or the financial stability to hire flexible child carers, it is near impossible to <a href="https://creativeskillset.org/assets/0000/6250/Balancing_Children_and_Work_in_the_Audio_Visual_Industries_2008.pdf">have it all</a>.</p>
<p>This is where original online content can shine. These series are, for the most part, being made by production companies – but the commissioners can now order content that speaks to women. Previously, an unproduced writer needed the right contacts to have a series picked up. Now she can now pitch directly to Amazon Studios. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179782/original/file-20170726-30108-4c0dat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sense8.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/4907">Netflix</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Original content distributors are responding. A <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/the-25-best-netflix-original-series.html">Paste Magazine</a> piece lists the “top Netflix Original” series, and stories focusing on women are beginning to climb the ranks. <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80017537">Grace and Frankie</a> (2015) studies the lives of two older women whose husbands have left them to begin a relationship with one another.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/sense8-and-sensibility-how-a-tv-series-is-transcending-geographical-and-gender-borders-77377">Sense8</a> (2015) features women in leading roles including LGBTQ women and women of colour. <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80114988">Glow</a> (2017) follows a team of female wrestlers in the 1980s, while <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80025384">Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt</a> (2015) is a comedy exploring a woman getting back on her feet after being imprisoned in a bunker for 15 years. </p>
<p>These series create a discussion about what is hidden on most mainstream television. They are about women – but not about “traditional” romantic entanglements, shoe shopping and mean teenagers.</p>
<p>So the question now is, will we see a knock-on effect in the employment of women writers for scripted series? Or will the industry reproduce its gendered norms and continue the pattern of white, male, middle-class dominance? Time will tell. But for now, original on-demand content has steered the industry to a turning point, bringing women’s voices to our many screens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80570/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Stoddart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Original content made by subscription and on demand platforms such as Netflix and Amazon is taking off – but what does that mean for women screenwriters and producers?Kirsten Stoddart, Postgraduate Researcher in Television, S.V.o.D and Gender, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702482016-12-20T17:49:38Z2016-12-20T17:49:38ZCould Hulu and Google upend the TV industry in 2017?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150577/original/image-20161217-18030-1152oms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">TV networks are trying to win back cord-cutters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-111689699/stock-photo-old-television-falling-down-from-sky-outdoors.html?src=DcN_tOOPx5e_4_a6m99KNg-1-18">'Falling TV' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The transformation of U.S. television that <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/126732/2015-year-changed-tv-forever">began in 2015</a> – with more companies distributing television content over the internet – continued in 2016. Over the past year, however, the pace of change was slower and drew fewer headlines, even as <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/on-demand-demographics-vod-viewing-across-generations.html">more viewers moved away</a> from live, network-scheduled viewing to recorded, on-demand or streaming services.</p>
<p>But several subtler developments point to coming changes in the new year. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/11/1/13490026/hulu-disney-fox-espn-fox-sports-streaming-tv">Hulu</a> and <a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-google-youtube-carriage-deal-1201894255/">Google</a> announced plans to offer bundled channel services, joining those launched by SlingTV, Sony’s Vue and, most recently, AT&T’s DirecTV Now. All offer many popular channels currently available from cable and satellite services like Comcast and Charter. The main difference is that they stream all the content from these channels over the internet. </p>
<p>These new bundled channel packages are meant to compete with cable or satellite, and some have called them “<a href="http://fortune.com/2016/12/14/cord-cutting-slows-skinny-bundle/">skinny bundles</a>” under the assumption that they’ll have fewer channels and be cheaper. But that’s not necessarily the case. </p>
<p>So why would a viewer want to switch to these services? Why are they starting to saturate the market, and what do they mean for the future of television? </p>
<h2>Not necessarily cheaper (or better)</h2>
<p>As they’ve come to market, many of the services aren’t so “skinny” after all: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13788934/directv-now-att-internet-tv-service-questions-pricing-channels">DirecTV Now</a> offers a package with more than 100 channels that currently costs US$35 per month but will eventually cost $60 per month. The cheapest <a href="https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/?ultra">Vue package</a> costs $30 a month for 45 channels. </p>
<p>The average monthly cable bill <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/">surpassed $100</a> this year, once set-top box fees, special channel fees and taxes are figured in. So these new services might look like a significant amount of savings. </p>
<p>But while some customers may pay less by switching, it’s worth noting that someone who signs up for a new bundled service will still need to pay for internet service. And many of the traditional cable companies – Comcast, Charter, Cox – are also internet providers. Although these companies might be <a href="http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-loses-5-50-a-month-when-a-customer-ditches-video-analyst-concludes?utm_medium=nl&utm_source">losing cable subscribers</a>, they’ve been able to retain them as internet customers and charge them more because customers lose discounts offered for combining cable and internet service. </p>
<p>Internet providers have also started charging more for internet access. In the last year, many <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/comcast-internet-data-caps/">established monthly caps</a> on data that require subscribers to pay additional fees if they exceed the cap. Having all of a household’s television delivered by the internet – which would be the case if you started streaming all of your television via a bundled service – exhausts a lot of data.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, though bundled services offer many of the same channels, they have limited on-demand libraries and don’t have DVRs to let viewers record shows. Viewers outside the largest cities won’t have access to local programming or live broadcast shows. And while they allow viewers to watch on internet-connected TVs, computers and mobile devices, some limit how many devices can be used simultaneously. (For example, DirecTV Now only allows two devices to be used at a time.) </p>
<h2>An opportunity to profit</h2>
<p>Ever since high-quality, streaming services emerged in 2010, it was clear that the business of television was in for radical change. </p>
<p>Bundled channel services have an opportunity to be immensely profitable because – since they’re streamed over the internet – anyone in the country can buy them. Cable services, on the other hand, are geographically limited to the houses reached by their wires. </p>
<p>For Hulu and Google, an especially attractive target is the 20 million so-called <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/tvs-looming-threat-cord-nevers-1444151008">“cord-cutters” or “cord-nevers”</a> that don’t pay for cable and watch television only via on-demand, internet-distributed services such as Netflix. </p>
<p>Traditional channels and networks were initially <a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/7/14/12188984/apple-skinny-bundles-web-tv-hollywood-reporter">hesitant about joining</a> internet-distributed services. But now they’ve changed their tune and are eager to make deals to be included. DirecTV Now has all of the broadcast networks except for CBS and The CW, and Hulu’s service is reportedly just as robust. Such advertiser-supported channels find bundled channel services more attractive because they can prevent viewers from fast-forwarding through commercials.</p>
<h2>For viewers, a different flavor of the same thing?</h2>
<p>When customers sign up for these bundled services, they aren’t able to choose from a menu of channels. In fact, these new services are starting to look more and more like the cable and satellite services that give customers <a href="http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/article/channel-bundles-persist%E2%80%94-now%E2%80%94despite-digital-disruption">no choice but to pay for far more channels than they want</a>. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, internet distribution still liberates television from the shackles of scheduled programming. Viewers have a lot more choice in what and when they watch. <a href="https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-upholds-net-neutrality-rules-why-you-should-care-61064">Net neutrality policy has been important</a> because it created rules that ensured internet providers must treat all content the same – that they can’t charge websites to load more quickly or give advantages to sites they own. This encouraged companies to innovate, leading to more competition and more choices. </p>
<p>Notably, the new administration is <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/trump-net-neutrality-fcc/">rumored to be hostile</a> to net neutrality policies. So the future of these internet-distributed bundles is already in question.</p>
<p>While the bundled services are another stepping stone in transforming the business of television, they’re likely little more than that. They do, however, indicate new willingness on the part of networks and channels to embrace a competitive environment that includes broadcasting, cable and internet distribution of television.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Next year Hulu and Google will introduce their own bundled channel services. Will it spark an online TV revolution or simply lead to more of the same?Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/674302016-10-31T02:10:52Z2016-10-31T02:10:52ZAre we streaming into political participation through a personalized, on-demand TV diet?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143550/original/image-20161027-11256-1jxlpu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Couch potato or engaged citizen?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-427193119/">Woman on couch via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Media and scholarly reports have linked the binge-watching of streaming television to personal health problems. The effects of heavy use of platforms such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime have been reported to include <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/ica-fol012615.php">depression</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.023">chronic illness</a>, <a href="http://communicationandhealth.ro/upload/number3/TEMPLE-NORTHUP.pdf">weight gain</a>, <a href="http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/features/power-down-better-sleep#1">sleep disorders</a> and even a <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/bingewatching-tv-shows-is-ruining-your-sex-life-an-expert-has-warned/news-story/348a0e90d3cc3d64da8f39aa2e5cb428">suffering sex life</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, media researchers have specifically suggested that <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-internet-freedom-a-tool-for-democracy-or-authoritarianism-61956">watching Netflix</a> has potentially serious consequences for the <a href="http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/15/0093650216644645.abstract">health of democracy</a>. Their findings indicate that spending more time with online entertainment, such as streaming television, posting selfies, listening to music and playing video games online can entrench authoritarian attitudes and reduce citizens’ interest in politics.</p>
<p>But don’t forego the last several episodes of “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4574334/">Stranger Things</a>” to switch over to the news just yet. In a recently published study, we found that streaming television may actually facilitate important forms of human interaction, like participating in politics.</p>
<p>Our research found that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040065">people who stream television more frequently</a> were more involved in politics, both online and offline, than people who streamed less TV. No matter what they watched, whether comedy or drama or fantasy, streaming-video viewers were more engaged politically than people who watched the news on broadcast or cable TV. This included making campaign contributions, donating to or volunteering for a campaign, subscribing to a political email list, writing letters to the editor or blog posts, or attending organized political activities like public hearings, town hall meetings or rallies.</p>
<h2>Active selection and viewing is key</h2>
<p>In our generally representative nationwide online survey of just over 1,100 American respondents, more frequent streaming of television was not significantly related to any demographics other than age. While we did find that younger people tend to stream more TV than older people, we found active streamers among people of all income and education levels, both genders and varying political party affiliations.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that engaging with streaming platforms, which use algorithms to personalize content options to users, is a substantively different activity from simply seeing “<a href="http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780080542317">what’s on</a>” broadcast or cable television. Rather than simply watching in the more passive model of traditional TV consumption, streaming viewers are using a system that lets them watch whatever they want, whenever and wherever they choose (assuming they have a suitable internet connection). They must, therefore, more actively choose what they watch. They also have more control over their options, unlike traditional TV, where broadcasters decide what to show.</p>
<p>Our study asked respondents not only whether they had binge-watched streaming television, but also what programs they had watched. If they reported bingeing on certain shows, namely “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/">House of Cards</a>,” “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2372162/">Orange Is the New Black</a>” or “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1796960/">Homeland</a>,” we grouped them as streaming “political” content. Likewise, if they indicated watching three or more episodes in a row of “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3339966/">The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt</a>,” “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/">The Walking Dead</a>” or “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/">Game of Thrones</a>,” we grouped them as watchers of “apolitical” content. Of course, if individuals reported bingeing on both types of shows, we added them to a “both” category that comprised the heaviest users of streaming television.</p>
<p>We found that individuals who streamed content – of any type – more frequently also reported higher levels of political participation. Only when people were streaming apolitical content for three or more hours did their online political participation decline, and even then only slightly. This means that those who stream television more frequently are actually more active politically than those who stream television less frequently or not at all.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143702/original/image-20161028-15793-1beqfeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040065">Jacob Groshek</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Entertaining TV can facilitate political action</h2>
<p>Our results align with previous research. Scholars have found that watching reality TV actually <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323110394858">triggers political talk online</a>, for example. Studies on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh092">late-night comedy</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278">political satire</a> have also indicated that entertaining television content can encourage people to be more politically interested and engaged. </p>
<p>This connection between streaming television and political participation, we feel, certainly warrants more attention in our <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-hybrid-media-system-9780199759484?cc=us&lang=en&">hybrid media system</a> where television experiences are increasingly on-demand, nonhierarchical and highly personalized. Users now decide what, when and where to watch television via an array of algorithmically informed and internet-enabled devices.</p>
<p>Online streaming is therefore part of a sea change in the creation and consumption of television. In the last year alone, Netflix reported that its subscribers cumulatively streamed over <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/subscribers-spent-more-time-per-person-watching-netflix-in-2015-2016-1">42.5 billion hours</a> of content. (This does not take into account the millions of subscriptions to Hulu, Amazon Prime and other services.) But even at this level of viewership, media itself is rarely just “good” or “bad” for democratic politics. And with relatively few studies done so far, it is simply too soon to say whether streaming online TV <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-internet-freedom-a-tool-for-democracy-or-authoritarianism-61956">displaces</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1999.9677860">enhances</a> civic and political engagement.</p>
<p>This point is especially important in this election season, when the <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/21/youtube-presidential-debates-were-the-most-watched-political-live-streams-ever/">presidential debates were the most-watched political live streams ever</a> and users are streaming <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-reports/total-audience-report-q1-2016.pdf">more</a> than ever before. Moreover, streaming television itself is also becoming a primary source of original news and political content through apps like <a href="http://www.newsy.com/apps/">Newsy</a> and <a href="https://www.localnow.com/#/">Local Now</a>.</p>
<p>Our evidence thus leads us to believe that how people access and engage television content is as important as what they watch. We do not argue that streaming television is causing political participation to increase: Our data are too limited to prove that at this stage.</p>
<p>But we do argue that streaming television benefits from a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70">social media logic</a> in a media ecosystem where recommendations, popularity and sharing determine user experiences. People who use communication technologies, namely social media, in this way tend to consistently participate <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542">more in civic and political activities</a>. </p>
<p>Therefore, from a political standpoint at least, feel free to binge-watch another episode or series. Odds are that you’ll still participate politically and probably to a greater extent than others who stream less or simply “watch” the news on broadcast or cable television.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67430/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Streaming television may actually facilitate important forms of human interaction, like participating in politics.Jacob Groshek, Assistant Professor, Emerging Media Studies, Boston UniversitySarah Krongard, Ph.D. Student, Emerging Media Studies, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/528572016-01-08T04:26:22Z2016-01-08T04:26:22ZNetflix is everywhere (almost), so what does this mean for local media?<p>In his keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35247309">announced that Netflix</a> will now be available in 130 new countries. This sees Netflix more than triple its global presence. </p>
<p>The world map of Netflix availability on the company’s website is now a <a href="https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14164">sea of red</a>. Among the countries yet to have access to Netflix is China, although the company is exploring this. Crimea, North Korea and Syria are also yet to be included due to <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-is-now-available-around-the-world">United States government restrictions</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5TR-NRpkW9I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix CES 2016 Keynote - Reed Hastings, Ted Sarandos - Highlights.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So what does <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23netflixeverywhere&src=typd">#NetflixEverywhere</a> – as it was dubbed on social media – mean for the new media landscape globally and in Australia?</p>
<h2>Competitors in the VoD market</h2>
<p>While Netflix’s <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/netflix-have-made-a-huge-new-decision-that-will-change-the-lives-of-millions/news-story/f3df3305c7ac5a751d8c4e3db4cdf364">main video on demand (VoD) competitors</a> are seen to be <a href="http://www.hbo.com/">HBO</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/">Amazon</a> and <a href="http://www.hulu.com">Hulu</a>, their current global reach is small scale in comparison.</p>
<p>Hulu is <a href="http://m.hulu.jp/m/faq/en">only available</a> in the US and Japan. <a href="https://order.hbonow.com">HBO Now</a> is <a href="https://order.hbonow.com/providers">available</a> solely in the US and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Instant-Video/b?node=2676882011">Amazon Prime Video</a> is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search_1-1?ie=UTF8&nodeId=201423000&qid=1452156681&sr=1-1">only available</a> to customers located in the US and US territories.</p>
<p>In Australia the main VoD competitors are the locally owned <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/">Presto</a> and <a href="https://www.stan.com.au/">Stan</a>. But the uptake of the locally owned VoD services of only 1%, doesn’t come close to Australia’s uptake of Netflix which by September last year was close to <a href="http://www.adnews.com.au/news/netflix-reaches-2-2m-australians-but-growth-is-slowing-down">10%</a>.</p>
<h2>Netflix original content to be expanded</h2>
<p>Netflix is well known for its original content: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2372162/">Orange is the New Black</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/">House of Cards</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2707408/">Narcos</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431438/">Sense8</a> and Marvel’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3322312/">Daredevil</a> to name a few.</p>
<p>The colossal expansion of Netflix can only provide more opportunity for original content, both globally and within the local market.</p>
<p>In a statement, Hastings <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-is-now-available-around-the-world">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’re looking forward to bringing great stories from all over the world to people all over the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The statement also listed the original content for 2016 to include:</p>
<ul>
<li>31 new and returning original series </li>
<li>24 original feature films and documentaries </li>
<li>a wide range of stand-up comedy specials<br></li>
<li>30 original kids series.</li>
</ul>
<p>It is unclear where this content will be produced, but the Netflix original content will be available at the same time to subscribers everywhere. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvQs89U_tV0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix original content.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately not all content available on Netflix will be released globally. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/netflix-have-made-a-huge-new-decision-that-will-change-the-lives-of-millions/news-story/f3df3305c7ac5a751d8c4e3db4cdf364">licensing contract</a> Netflix has with Walt Disney allows the service the rights to Disney films after a theatrical release, but will be limited to only the US and Canada. This shows a clear disconnect between the distribution business models and distribution potential for streaming services.</p>
<p>This staggered release approach is often cited to be part of the reason for high rates of <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">piracy in Australia</a>, although recently there has been a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-drop-in-illegal-movie-downloads-in-australia-49042">small decline</a>.</p>
<h2>Local impacts</h2>
<p>These limitations on distribution will assist Australian media companies in the rights battle locally, in particular Foxtel. </p>
<p>In the middle of last year, Foxtel’s CEO Richard Freudenstein <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/08/foxtel-ceo-says-netflix-is-like-the-digital-video-store/">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Foxtel is a premium service, which naturally costs a bit more, whereas Netflix and Presto are add-ons either to free to air for people who don’t watch much TV or to subscription TV.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite this claim there has been a large price drop on Foxtel services to compete with the new VoD services.</p>
<p>Netflix is now a global media network with almost full global reach. Last year, prior to the launch in an additional 130 countries, Netflix subscribers <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/netflix-have-made-a-huge-new-decision-that-will-change-the-lives-of-millions/news-story/f3df3305c7ac5a751d8c4e3db4cdf364">watched</a> 42.5 billion hours of content.</p>
<p>It was also revealed that Netflix subscribers are watching on average 13 hours of content on a weekly basis. These hours of viewing are replacing other recreational time, presumably conventional television viewing.</p>
<h2>Viewing habits have already changed</h2>
<p>An analysis of figures from the Australian <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/whatsnew.aspx">multi-screen quarterly reports</a>, which monitor people’s viewing habits, show there has already been a drop in television viewing hours by Australians, of more than 18 hours per month between 2011 to 2015. In the same period online video viewing has increased by ten hours per month.</p>
<p>If specifically analysing the teen and 18-24 year old demographics the statistics are more damaging for traditional television viewing. Teens on average watch less than half that of the overall Australian monthly average, 38 hours and 18-24 year olds watch 40 hours on average per month.</p>
<p>With regard to online video viewing, teens watch more than double the Australian average, 28 hours, with the 18-24 demographic watching 22 hours per month. Both demographics viewed fewer than five hours of online video in 2011. </p>
<p>With the increase in smart television purchases in Australia, this will provide greater access to VoD services such as Netflix. This is in addition to the services being available via mobile and portable devices. Recently Apple TV used Netflix programming as part of its advertising campaign for the new Apple TV, titled The Future of Television.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OON2bZdqVzs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Apple TV Ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The return of live TV</h2>
<p>For Australian television broadcasters we may see a focus on providing content that Netflix won’t, such as live content. This will include more reality and sport programming. It’s interesting to note then, that television is verging back to a live medium, as it started in Australia almost 60 years ago.</p>
<p>It is clear that Australian viewing habits are continuing to change. Netflix is yet to have its first birthday in Australia, but the 10% uptake is impressive. This is compared to <a href="http://www.afr.com/brand/chanticleer/telstras-penn-facing-technology-tsunamai-20150709-gi8upk">Foxtel’s 30% uptake</a>, for a company that started more that 20 years ago. </p>
<p>With Netflix now “everywhere”, there is potential for Australians to benefit from this, including more content and hopefully more Australian content.</p>
<p>The caution for Netflix must be to provide content for the local markets, not just a one-size-fits-all approach across more than 190 countries.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52857/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>Netflix took everyone by surprise when it announced it was tripling its global reach for video on demand. So who are the winners and potential losers in the new deal?Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/524222015-12-23T11:14:13Z2015-12-23T11:14:13ZWhy 2015 was the year that changed TV forever<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106917/original/image-20151222-27851-1n1x5cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will TV's future flicker into focus?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1572798/stock-photo-untuned-picture-on-a-television.html?src=csl_recent_image-2">'Screen' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“The end of television” is a headline that’s been liberally thrown around for the past 15 years.</p>
<p>Indeed, the past year saw audiences becoming more and more amenable to adopting new ways to watch TV shows, with live audiences for broadcast and cable programs <a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/features/broadcast-nets-move-closer-to-developing-ratings-that-consider-auds-delayed-viewing-habits-1201430321/">declining sharply</a>.</p>
<p>Even entities like ESPN – which many thought immune to these changes in audience behavior – acknowledged subscriber losses this year. In response, Wall Street engaged in a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/media/disney-stock-down-espn/">mass sell-off</a> of media stocks. Most rebounded by year’s end, but the volatility is indicative of the uncertainty in a sector that finds its core business model being disrupted.</p>
<p>But viewers are actually watching more TV than ever before. They’re simply shifting to on-demand options from cable operators and broadband services.</p>
<p>Over the last five years, an influx of new broadband-delivered offerings has driven changes in audience behavior that challenge the businesses of traditional broadcast and cable television channels. Likewise, cable providers find themselves scrambling to adapt to new competition from leaner channel packages that offer flexible pricing options.</p>
<p>Contrary to what the headlines often suggest, the internet – or rather, broadband distribution – hasn’t come to kill television. Instead, it’s radically improving it. </p>
<h2>A tenuous peace</h2>
<p>In the 1990s, many assumed the ascendance of what was dubbed “new media” (anything digital or delivered via the internet) would bring about the demise of “old media” including television. </p>
<p>But media don’t die. Rather, their distribution technologies are frequently replaced. So while new media assassins still haven’t killed – or even maimed – television, a revolutionary transition did begin for the medium in 2015.</p>
<p>The most disruptive form of “new media” for television is broadband distribution (what most casually think of as internet streaming). Companies that deliver video over broadband – Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube – use a new (and in many ways, better) technology for delivering traditional television shows.</p>
<p>Since 2010, broadband-delivered video services and “legacy television” (a more generous name for broadcast and cable TV than “old media”) actually enjoyed an unexpected symbiosis. Rather than battle to the death, the two quietly became neighboring options for viewers, and to some extent, partners. </p>
<p>Broadband television distributors (Netflix, in particular) provided a much-needed new revenue stream to traditional networks by paying them high fees to use their shows. In exchange, Netflix was able to disseminate the high-quality television content needed to woo viewers. As a result, Netflix slowly reacculturated expectations of how television should be experienced: that it needn’t be watched at a specific time, with a week between episodes, and interrupted every 10 minutes with commercials. </p>
<p>But this past year, the tenuous détente fell apart when some of the biggest players in the legacy television industry decided to launch their <em>own</em> broadband-distributed services.</p>
<p>The biggest developments were HBO’s launch of HBO Now and CBS’s debut of CBS All Access. Like Netflix, both services require a subscription payment (though All Access has ads too) that allows customers to access a deep library of content they can watch according to their own schedules. </p>
<p>Several other services also launched, including Nickelodeon’s Noggin, which has hundreds of episodes geared toward preschoolers. And NBC and Disney jumped in with the comedy portal SeeSo and DisneyLife, respectively. </p>
<h2>It’s broadcast technology that’s in peril</h2>
<p>Traditional broadcast technologies allowed for the transmission of only a single stream of programming at a time. This gave rise to almost all of the TV conventions that viewers have come to know: a schedule, channels, fixed program lengths and intermittent advertising. </p>
<p>If you think about it, these aren’t conventions specific to the television medium. Rather, they’re responses to broadcasting’s technological limitations. </p>
<p>Sometimes the arrival of new distribution technologies introduces only moderate change, like when the music industry shifted from records to cassettes. Other times, new distribution technologies require a radical reconfiguration of business models and completely change the user experience of a medium. </p>
<p>This is what’s now happening for television.</p>
<p>And just as streaming makes for a very different viewing experience, it is also changing the nature of the shows that are made. Streaming services produce content targeted to <a href="https://theconversation.com/fresh-off-the-boat-and-the-rise-of-niche-tv-37451">narrower niches</a> and sensibilities. They’ve also allowed for much greater experimentation and diversity <a href="http://nyti.ms/1RAm8xb">in the ways stories are told and structured</a>.</p>
<h2>A post-network era</h2>
<p>These recent developments illustrate how profoundly norms of making and watching television will continue to shift in coming years.</p>
<p>When announcing the new version of Apple TV in September, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/personal-technology/2015/09/09/apples-tim-cook-we-believe-the-future-of-tv-is-apps/">Apple CEO Tim Cook said</a> that the “future of TV is apps.” That’s one way to characterize the new services. They also could be thought of as the “channels” of the post-network era of broadband distribution. At their core, they’re portals to content; most require a monthly fee, but many are also ad-free and can be easily viewed on a number of devices, from smartphones to traditional television sets.</p>
<p>As portals have introduced new ways to view content, traditional cable bundles also appear to be at a crossroads. The cable bundle is the package of over 100 channels required in even the “basic” digital package. Since most viewers watch fewer than 20 channels, many feel that they’re overpaying for content. </p>
<p>Dubbed “skinny bundles,” Sling TV, Sony Vue and Verizon’s Fios Custom TV all began offering packages of channels that can be experienced as a typical channel with scheduled programming, in addition to some on-demand content. Like the portals, these skinny bundles are delivered via broadband and add to the competition by providing a cheaper alternative (though also far fewer channel options) for consumers who want to reduce their cable bill.</p>
<p>Despite the added competition, cable providers still find themselves in an enviable position. The portals and the skinny bundles both require high-speed internet service, which most receive from those very same cable companies. And in 2015, <a href="http://recode.net/2015/05/04/this-is-the-quarter-comcast-becomes-an-internet-company/">internet subscribers surpassed cable subscribers</a> at Comcast, the nation’s largest “cable” company. </p>
<p>In response to the growing reliance on high-speed internet, several broadband providers are moving forward with <a href="https://medium.com/backchannel/big-cable-s-sledgehammer-is-coming-down-2c6854e8bea9#.3yn0zhtni">plans to shift to usage-based billing</a>, similar to data-use pricing from mobile phone companies. </p>
<p>History suggests that fewer than half of the portals or broadband distributed bundles announced this year will exist once business models catch up with technology and the experimenting of the past year gives way to consolidation. It’s not clear who will eventually dominate the post-network era of broadband distribution. But based on the scope of new broadband delivered entries, it’s obvious that legacy companies have been preparing to pivot to broadband distribution. The embrace of broadband technology makes clear that television’s future innovation won’t be confined to a linear schedule. </p>
<p>Whether the portals are the chicken or the egg, a vision for the future of television is flickering into focus.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A post-network era looms. What does this mean for the way we watch – and pay for – television shows?Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374422015-03-27T09:50:36Z2015-03-27T09:50:36ZWhy has TV storytelling become so complex?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76143/original/image-20150326-8709-11xvq2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seismic changes in the television industry have transformed the ways stories are told and consumed.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/TV/search.html?page=1&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=193018853">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you watch the season finale of The Walking Dead this Sunday, the story will likely evoke events from previous episodes, while making references to an array of minor and major characters. Such storytelling devices belie the show’s simplistic scenario of zombie survival, but are consistent with a major trend in television narrative.</p>
<p>Prime time television’s storytelling palette is broader than ever before, and today, a serialized show like The Walking Dead is more the norm than the exception. We can see the heavy use of serialization in other dramas (The Good Wife and Fargo) and comedies (Girls and New Girl). And some series have used self-conscious narrative devices like dual time frames (True Detective), voice-over narration (Jane the Virgin) and direct address of the viewer (House of Cards). Meanwhile, shows like Louie blur the line between fantasy and reality. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a5Ha3IWeXOo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The House of Cards’ Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) will often directly address the audience – one of many storytelling devices that have emerged in television in recent years.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many have praised contemporary television using cross-media accolades like “novelistic” or “cinematic.” But I believe we should recognize the medium’s aesthetic accomplishments on its own terms. For this reason, the name I’ve given to this shift in television storytelling is “complex TV.”</p>
<p>There are a wealth of facets to explore about such developments (enough to fill <a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">a book</a>), but there’s one core question that seems to go unasked: “why has American television suddenly embraced complex storytelling in recent years?” </p>
<p>To answer, we need to consider major shifts in the television industry, new forms of television technology, and the growth of active, engaged viewing communities.</p>
<h2>A business model transformed</h2>
<p>We can quibble about the precise chronology, but programs that were exceptionally innovative in their storytelling in the 1990s (Seinfeld, The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) appear more in line with narrative norms of the 2000s. And many of their innovations – season-long narrative arcs or single episodes that feature markedly unusual storytelling devices – seem almost formulaic today. </p>
<p>What changed to allow this rapid shift to happen?</p>
<p>As with all facets of American television, the economic goals of the industry is a primary motivation for all programming decisions. </p>
<p>For most of their existence, television networks sought to reach the broadest possible audiences. Typically, this meant pursuing a strategy of mass appeal featuring what some derisively call “least objectionable programming.” To appeal to as many viewers as possible, these shows avoided controversial content or confusing structures. </p>
<p>But with the advent of cable television channels in the 1980s and 1990s, audiences became more diffuse. Suddenly, it was more feasible to craft a successful program by appealing to a smaller, more demographically uniform subset of viewers – a trend that accelerated into the 2000s. </p>
<p>In one telling example, FOX’s 1996 series Profit, which possessed many of contemporary television’s narrative complexities, was quickly canceled after four episodes for weak ratings (roughly 5.3 million households). These numbers placed it 83rd among 87 prime time series. </p>
<p>Yet today, such ratings would likely rank the show in the top 20 most-watched broadcast programs in a given week.</p>
<p>This era of complex television has benefited not only from more niche audiences, but also from the emergence of channels beyond the traditional broadcast networks. Certainly HBO’s growth into an original programming powerhouse is a crucial catalyst, with landmarks such as The Sopranos and The Wire. </p>
<p>But other cable channels have followed suit, crafting original programming that wouldn’t fly on the traditional “Big Four” networks of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. </p>
<p>A well-made, narratively-complex series can be used to rebrand a channel as a more prestigious, desirable destination. The Shield and It’s Only Sunny in Philadelphia transformed FX into a channel known for nuanced drama and comedy. Mad Men and Breaking Bad similarly bolstered AMC’s reputation. </p>
<p>The success of these networks has led upstart viewing services like Netflix and Amazon to champion complex, original content of their own – while charging a subscription fee.</p>
<p>The effect of this shift has been to make complex television a desirable business strategy. It’s no longer the risky proposition it was for most of the 20th century.</p>
<h2>Miss something? Hit rewind</h2>
<p>Technological changes have also played an important role. </p>
<p>Many new series reduce the internal storytelling redundancy typical of traditional television programs (where dialogue was regularly employed to remind viewers what had previously occurred). </p>
<p>Instead, these series subtly refer to previous episodes, insert more characters without worrying about confusing viewers, and present long-simmering mysteries and enigmas that span multiple seasons. Think of examples such as Lost, Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Such series embrace complexity to an extent that they almost <em>require</em> multiple viewings simply to be understood. </p>
<p>In the 20th century, rewatching a program meant either relying on almost random reruns or being savvy enough to tape the show on your VCR. But viewing technologies such as DVR, on-demand services like HBO GO, and DVD box sets have given producers more leeway to fashion programs that benefit from sequential viewing and planned rewatching. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Serialized novels – like Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood – were commonplace in the 19th century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Drood_serial_cover.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like 19th century serial literature, 21st century serial television releases its episodes in separate installments. Then, at the end of a season or series, it “binds” them together into larger units via physical boxed sets, or makes them viewable in their entirety through virtual, on-demand streaming. Both encourage binge watching. </p>
<p>Giving viewers the technology to easily watch and rewatch a series at their own pace has freed television storytellers to craft complex narratives that are not dependent on being understood by erratic or distracted viewers. Today’s television assumes that viewers can pay close attention because the technology allows them to easily do so.</p>
<h2>Forensic fandom</h2>
<p>Shifts in both technology and industry practices point toward the third major factor leading to the rise in complex television: the growth of online communities of fans. </p>
<p>Today there are a number of robust platforms for television viewers to congregate and discuss their favorite series. This could mean partaking in vibrant discussions on general forums on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/breakingbad/">Reddit</a> or contributing to dedicated, <a href="http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page">program-specific wikis</a>. </p>
<p>As shows craft ongoing mysteries, convoluted chronologies or elaborate webs of references, viewers embrace practices that I’ve termed “forensic fandom.” Working as a virtual team, dedicated fans embrace the complexities of the narrative – where not all answers are explicit – and seek to decode a program’s mysteries, analyze its story arc and make predictions. </p>
<p>The presence of such discussion and documentation allows producers to stretch their storytelling complexity even further. They can assume that confused viewers can always reference the web to bolster their understanding.</p>
<p>Other factors certainly matter. For example, the creative contributions of innovative writer-producers like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams and David Simon have harnessed their unique visions to craft wildly popular shows. But without the contextual shifts that I’ve described, such innovations would have likely been relegated to the trash bin, joining older series like Profit, Freaks and Geeks and My So-Called Life in the “brilliant but canceled” category. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the success of complex television has led to shifts in how the medium conceptualizes characters, embraces melodrama, re-frames authorship and engages with other media. But those are all broader topics for another chapter – or, as television frequently promises, <em><a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">to be continued</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Mittell has received funding from the NEH in the United States, and the DFG in Germany.</span></em></p>Many refer to advances in television storytelling as novelistic or cinematic, but the medium deserves a term of its own: complex TV.Jason Mittell, Professor of Film & Media Culture, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/147552013-05-30T04:47:56Z2013-05-30T04:47:56ZYahoo is on a shopping spree, but should it do the Hulu?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/24667/original/dp9trv2v-1369886441.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yahoo has submitted bid for Hulu, but will the video streaming service be a good buy?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">alexanderwrege</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In less time than it takes for the average teenager to get bored, Yahoo has put its <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cost-of-cool-yahoo-swaps-cash-for-cachet-in-tumblr-deal-14523">acquisition</a> of blogging site Tumblr behind it and moved onto its next potential target, <a>Hulu</a>. A couple of years ago, when it was considering whether to become a listed company, Hulu was valued between US$1-2 billion. Yahoo’s rumoured <a href="http://paidcontent.org/2013/05/29/why-a-sale-to-yahoo-may-just-be-the-best-bet-for-hulu/">bid</a>, which lies somewhere between US$600 million to US$800 million, falls well short of that.</p>
<p>Hulu is not that well-known outside of the US as the content it streams has been locked to that country and its territories. Currently owned by News Corp and Walt Disney Co, it allows the streaming of TV shows, movies and “webisodes”, with much of its content showing its age. The free version is ad-supported with a premium version that makes Hulu available on mobile platforms. Its advertising and three million subscribers to Hulu Plus [brought Hulu](http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/29/technology/hulu-takeover-rumors/index.html?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+(Top+Stories) US$700 million in revenue in 2012, although Hulu has not disclosed its profits — if any.</p>
<p>It is easy to see this potential move by Yahoo as an attempt to cash in on a growing trend away from traditional TV and cable towards internet-based services, which are being increasingly viewed over computer and mobile devices. While the trend may be true, “regular” broadcast and cable TV is still by far the <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/8/7/business-spectator/technology-spectator-why-tv-will-survive-online-video-revolution">dominant</a> way in which most people in the US at least view shows and movies in their homes. There are nearly 115 million households in the US with TV sets and only five million that qualify as not having a traditional TV (either free-to-air or cable). People are mostly supplementing their regular TV viewing with the use of other platforms. This trend is likely to continue for some time.</p>
<p>As part of the video streaming market, Hulu faces possibly insurmountable competition from Google’s YouTube and services from Amazon, Netflix and Apple, among many others. A <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57546405-93/netflix-gobbles-a-third-of-peak-internet-traffic-in-north-america/">recent estimate</a> claimed that 33% of all peak internet traffic in the US is due to people streaming Netflix content; this compares with only 1.4% for Hulu and 1.8% for Amazon.</p>
<p>The other challenge that Yahoo could face if taking over Hulu is whether any content deals that it had negotiated with its current owners would continue, or at least continue under the same terms. Even if Yahoo used Hulu to create more original content, in the same way that Amazon and Netflix [are doing](http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/29/technology/hulu-takeover-rumors/index.html?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+(Top+Stories), they would still need to continue to provide the same volume of content to drive ads for the day-to-day revenue.</p>
<p>Couple these challenges with the need to invest large amounts of money needed to expand Hulu outside of the US and the buying price of even $600 million starts looking less attractive. Indeed, the rumoured bid for Hulu from the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/hulu-seeks-buyers-gets-500-million-bid-from-former-news-corp-president/">Chernin Group</a> was only $500 million. </p>
<p>It is difficult to see the sense in this acquisition from Yahoo’s perspective. They are in the midst of a move to refocusing themselves as a company and have just started on the task of assimilating Tumblr into their new structure. Taking a business that is not exactly effusing potential and trying to turn it around would seem like a forlorn wish at best. The puzzling thing about Yahoo’s interest in Hulu is trying to spot what aspect makes the acquisition a deal worth doing. </p>
<p>Another possibility is that this offer is not serious and isn’t actually intended to be a winning bid. If Yahoo really wanted Hulu, it could have “made an offer they couldn’t refuse”. What Yahoo may be doing is just using the opportunity to learn more about both Hulu and the market in general. It may be more serious for Hulu though, as time may be running out. Their CEO Jason Kilar, is <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/04/technology/hulu-ceo-jason-kilar/index.html?iid=EL">on his way out</a> — and Hulu’s owners may have decided that they too have had enough.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/14755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Glance does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In less time than it takes for the average teenager to get bored, Yahoo has put its acquisition of blogging site Tumblr behind it and moved onto its next potential target, Hulu. A couple of years ago…David Glance, Director, Centre for Software Practice, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.