Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Thursday, March 27th, 2025:
THIS ISN'T A CRITICISM, BUT AN OBSERVATION
It's been awhile since I've highlighted something from the Entertainment Strategy Guy because I sort of feel as if I've said all I can say about his work. He's super smart and does a great job of parsing complex data in a way that makes it easy to understand.
But he and I have had some really deep disagreements over several issues. He thinks that giving streaming films a theatrical run is a "settled issue," and I disagree with that on a number of levels. And he has a tendency to proclaim streaming titles are a hit or miss based on primarily US data (because viewing data outside the U.S. is spotty at best). But while he provides the disclaimer he is using U.S. data, he's also deciding which titles are successful based on that window.
I also have made the point more than once that original streaming programming is considered a success or failure based on more than just pure viewing data. As I wrote last year, Netflix takes a "Moneyball" approach to its content spend, and that means original films and TV shows provide value in a number of ways:
So Netflix applies a "Moneyball" approach when it comes to deciding where to spend money and how much. It has less to do with the success or failure of an individual title and more about the mix of decisions that leads to the desired outcome. Which in the case of Netflix is essentially to grow the subscriber base, keep churn as low as possible, and balance the needs of an incredibly diverse global audience with viewing tastes that can vary wildly from territory to territory.
If Netflix has one creative goal, it's to present what seems to be a never-ending stream of new stuff in as wide a spread of genres and budget points as possible. It overspends on original movies starring globally recognizable names because it needs to have some percentage of those titles in the catalog. But then it needs to use its own version of Moneyball to balance those big-budget projects (which help keep Netflix's churn rate well below rivals) with a mix of carefully chosen licensed titles. And if you haven't noticed, Netflix has gotten very good at licensing films that didn't do well at the box office but that also feature known stars. The films can be picked up at a bargain, although Netflix will often overpay the going market rate in order to get exclusive rights for a short period.
But ESG and I also continue to see the value of global TV in very different ways. In a piece that posted today on The Ankler, he highlighted three types of content he sees as overhyped: stand-up specials, South Korean television and sports documentaries. Since the piece is behind a paywall, I include a bit about what he wrote about global television:
There’s a very good strategic argument for why media companies should strive for a global footprint: Your customer base gets much, much bigger.
This is one of Netflix’s biggest innovations, increasing its total available market to the entire globe (minus China). Even better, if a company can make a show in one country and stream it globally, it can have a better return on investment per show.
The problem is this works out better in theory than practice.
Just because a global media company can reach the entire world doesn’t mean that customers want to watch foreign-language content now. (Or, to be specific, non-American foreign content, since many American films and TV shows still play globally.)
Indeed, foreign-language content barely penetrates the U.S. market. Netflix touted that 14 percent of U.S. viewers watched foreign-language content last year . . . and the U.S. population has 14 percent foreign-born residents. As I wrote for The Ankler way back in 2022, even Asian viewers mostly like watching content from other Asian countries.
Still, Netflix has had success with some foreign titles exceeding expectations, most notably South Korea’s Squid Game. After its success, what did U.S. media companies do? Well, they copied Netflix acquisition’s strategy and started producing/acquiring a whole bunch of South Korean TV shows.
Hulu released 16 South Korean TV shows last year.
There is a lot to unpack, but I'll make couple of points. First, while Hulu did release 16 South Korean TV shows last year, 0 percent were produced for the U.S. market. Every title streamed on Disney+ elsewhere in the globe and the titles were a mix of co-productions, original titles and licensed deals. So streaming then in the U.S. had essentially zero impact on the bottom line. Disney produced them because it's both trying to compete in the tough South Korean and Japanese markets, and South Korean titles in general do extremely well across Asia. So the fact they're available in the U.S. is just a bonus for Disney/Hulu.
To be clear, Disney isn't copying Netflix in some irrational way. It's producing South Korean shows for the same reason Netflix is doing it. It's a response to the marketplace. It's why Disney is also spending on original content in Japan, India and Latin America. And why Warner Bros. Discovery continues to invest in original programming in Europe. Local subscribers demand local-ish programming, and producing it yourself allows you to easily share it globally. Sure, the success of Squid Games was impressive. But no streamer - Netflix included - thought that success meant they should produce more South Korean shows for the U.S. market. But it did mean there was a potential global audience for some shows, if you're extremely lucky and focus on content with global themes.
And while it's off most people's radar, every global streamer has also been leaning into licensing global titles for specific territories. For example, licensing a theatrical movie produced in India for the rest of Asia. It's all part of the Moneyball discussion and that complicates effort to argue South Korean programming is a foolish use of money by streamers.
ESG wraps his South Korean section by suggesting streamers pursue Spanish language programming:
Because the data shows that customers prefer to watch TV shows and films in their native language and approximately 500 million people worldwide are native Spanish speakers and 21 countries have Spanish as their official language, this programming is far less likely to create a production bubble.
I'll just note that while it's true the market for Spanish language programming is huge, the culture between Mexico and Spain (for instance) is very different. Programs don't translate nearly as easily as you might think and that's a common challenge in that Spanish-language TV space.
I'll just end by saying that writing this type of piece makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I know what it's like to have dissect something you've written and it can feel like an attack even if it's not meant that way. But The Ankler is a big platform and my fear is that people read this and accept his premise as the conventional wisdom. And I think that would be a mistake.
IS 'THEY ARE JUST NUTS' A GENRE OF TELEVISION?
One of the reality/unscripted genres that Netflix has been pretty successful with has been what can best be described as "they are just nuts" television. From Tiger King to some of the more unbelievable true crime stories, streaming viewers seem to delight in watching documentaries that tell the stories of people who become obsessed to the point of losing everything else in their lives.
The newest entry in the genre premiered today on Netflix and Gold & Greed: The Hunt For Fenn's Treasure has it all: a treasure hunt, betrayals, greed and some truly unsettling and obsessive behavior from otherwise normal (ish) people.
The backstory is simple enough. In 2010, 80 year-old Forrest Fenn hid a treasure worth millions in the mountains north of Santa Fe. He told everyone the key to finding it lay within a cryptic 24-line poem he had written, which led to a decade-long search by hundreds of thousands of people hoping to strike it rich. The documentary initially focuses on the search and some of the people who become obsessed with solving the puzzle. They range from retired scientists to treasure hunters. But the most interesting of the hopeful teams might be The Hursts. They live in an old trailer in Wyoming, the father has been to jail five times and one of the two sons dropped out of high school. Yet within days of learning of the treasure, they fall deep into a rabbit hole and are copying books from the local library and using cyphers in an attempt to discover clues they believe are hidden inside the poem.
Usually these stories don't have an ending. But this treasure hunt does have one. Although that just sparks another round of insane behavior. I don't want to give anything anyway about the resolution. But if you are looking for a fun and perhaps unsettling way to spend three hours, this is a fun way to do it.
TWEET OF THE DAY
WHAT'S NEW TONIGHT AND TOMORROW
THURSDAY, MARCH 27TH:
Accused: Did I Do It? Series Premiere (A&E)
Bosch: Legacy (Prime Video)
Gold & Greed: The Hunt For Fenn's Treasure (Netflix)
Holland (Prime Video)
Paul American Series Premiere (Max)
Southern Charm Season Ten Reunion Special (Bravo)
Survival Of The Thickest Series Premiere (Netflix)
FRIDAY, MARCH 28TH:
Alexander And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Road Trip (Disney+)
Fight For Glory: 2024 World Series (Apple TV+)
Mid Century Modern Series Premiere (Hulu)
Number One On The Call Sheet (Apple TV+)
The Lady's Companion Series Premiere (Netflix)
The Life List (Netflix)
The Rule Of Jenny Pen (Shudder)
SEE YOU ON FRIDAY!