When Netflix began original programming almost everything they put out was interesting even if I wasn't the target demographic.<p>Their recent programming, beyond a few good shows and documentaries, is mostly lowest common denominator garbage. I think Netflix became data obsessed. The problem with that is good art or even entertainment is rarely made by analyzing a spreadsheet to determine what audiences want.<p>So now they have an app where it is hard to find things, because I guess it is more "sticky," and content that is brain dead, because I guess their data suggests a lot of people will watch it relative to the cost.<p>They should have remained focused on premier television. Big shows people want to talk to their friends about. Not Movies, because they do a terrible job promoting them and not reality TV, because no one is subscribing to a service to watch reality TV (though they will probably watch it once subscribed).<p>I do think that the pandemic disrupted filming so they bought what they could to fill the gap, so hopefully the quality picks back up.
Netflix has gone from costing $9.99 CAD to $20.99 CAD over all these years, with loss of content like Friends etc... For which I'd have to go to another service.<p>As a subscriber, I'm essentially footing the bill for Netflix's "spray and watch" technique which is getting hard to support when the content doesn't appeal to me. So maybe focus is key and perhaps don't cancel so many shows I was into before (Marco Polo, Daredevil, etc...)<p>I'm keeping Netflix around but if they start preventing my family from using a single account which we've had for a decade now, that's the last straw and I'm cancelling the service.
Netflix used to be THE place to watch everything. Now you have to hop between 5+ services to watch all the latest trendy things.<p>Netflix didn't become cable. Netflix went from being a cable alternative to becoming a channel in the cable alternative.
It's amusing to see CNN circle the wagons by shutting down CNN+ in favor of one "big tent" streaming service from the parent company.<p>It's as if a cable channel is not supposed to develop a strong brand. I mean, MTV did, back when it played music videos, but as part of the Viacom stable the then 65 Sumner Redstone decided unilaterally that we wouldn't be able to watch music videos anymore.<p>The ratings went in the toilet but who cares, Viacom is entitled to a certain number of cents per sub whether or not you watch and there is no way to accept or refuse MTV except to subscribe or not subscribe to the whole bundle.<p>People might think you have a brand because you have a logo but there is no benefit for the company in making the consumer believe that you stand for something because the consumer doesn't have a disaggregated choice: once you subscribe it doesn't matter if you watch or not.<p>It drives me nuts that people think GAME PASS from Microsoft is a good idea but I see it as "someday parents are going to be wondering why their kids aren't interested in playing video games anymore"... The answer will be that games wouldn't have been fun for twenty years and the parents just remember what it was like back when video games were fun, back when video game makers made money when they made fun games people want to buy. Once they got paid regardless, there wasn't any reason to make games fun anymore.
Their strategy of becoming HBO before HBO becomes Netflix seems to be failing because they keep putting out complete garbage shows instead of prestige TV.<p>I blame it on their pivot towards reality shows. We watched the Great British Baking Show (it's nice) and now there seems to be 10 different Netflix original baking shows, all bad. It's just spray and pray at this point.