Throughout the last decade, the growing internet speeds and evolving technological capabilities has shook the entertainment world in a myriad of fashions, from viability of remote work to increasingly ambitious effects. But none are any more drastic and visible than the death of increasingly unattractive cable television in favor of a new, more convenient alternative for businesses and consumers alike: streaming services. But what seemed like a paradise for accessing old favorites and new classics at little cost, revealed itself as a double-edged sword the more the migration progressed. Between the possible oversaturation of players in the market, the many give-and-takes within the productions themselves, and even some problematic elements for a few specific services; it begs the question: is streaming really the desired future we were all hoping for?
In the most basic terms, the shift to streaming is mostly noticeable in regards to the content being made exclusively for it. This all started with a number of Netflix originals, much of the early animated content spawning from a partnership with Dreamworks in the form of movie spinoffs. However, while Netflix wasn't lacking in live-action smash hits like "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black", it wouldn't be until the Tornante Company stepped in with a pitch 3 years in the making that their animation scene would start to become truly prominent. A show known as "Bojack Horseman". Right from the start, the show struck a chord with audiences in a way that adult cartoons prior to that point haven't, and it being on such a medium allowed for such tight, serialized storytelling in ways that simply wouldn't translate as well on cable, with continuity lockout being all but an inevitability.
The fact they were able to easily grab people with their content was quickly noticed by entertainment companies, making them eager to get their own piece of the very viable pie. While Disney and WarnerMedia had their own company-wide services in the works, it was obviously going to take years to get the infrastructure and business model developed, let alone supplying it with enough content to ensure viewership. So they decided to try and make use of their existing cable networks in a similar way by approaching them in a different way than before. While On Demand content attached with cable providers were commonplace for years prior, they figured it would be the most sensible to premiere multiple episodes and even entire shows on there days, sometimes weeks prior to airing. And of course, when these services actually did launch, more streaming exclusive content was appearing by the year. By then, it was clear to most audiences where they ought to go and to producers where content ought to be made.
That said, the way this shift was actually executed left a lot to be desired. Obviously, not quite everyone is going to cut the cord at once, nor will all the new shows suddenly start being made for streaming (and for complicated reasons, simulcasting wasn't an option most of the time). And even when these cable networks did place greater emphasis on their VOD catalogs, the intentions weren't made very clear to the audience. Regardless of how heavily they would be advertised across all channels, it's not always evident when something would release there, as there was a noticeable inconsistency and lack of advance notice for that. And usually, they were not optimally marketed; as stated in this previous editorial of mine, they usually go by purely on social media word-of-mouth, so you can imagine the struggle so much of the content has to get out there.
This has caused a somewhat inevitable but still overly large separation in the potential audience, which has made it all the worse for shows that are more than ever relying on immediate success to have a real future since a large percentage of the crowd would not have proper access to the works in question. People who love serialized shows moved to streaming, spelling doom for many serialized cartoons post-Steven Universe since for the longest time they still mostly stuck to cable, and would only make their way to subscription services after the entire season had wrapped up, which could sometimes take well over a year. Said separation only became much worse with the sheer number of companies that were determined to host their own subscription-based service, from NBC-Universal's Peacock to Sony's Crackle and Viacom's Paramount+. It naturally got quite concerning and caused fears that the streaming boom could collapse from this. Even if by now, many of the lesser services have died and the wide focus settled on a select group, there's still a crapton to focus on.
Now, with all this said, this has without a doubt benefited entertainment in several ways. Most visibly, all content hosted on a given service or package are available whenever desired without being bound to a TV schedule. This even affects new content in a way; even though they generally drop on midnight or 3AM, there isn't really a pressure to watch it as soon as possible. In a similar vein, picking a few streaming services to stick with allow for more flexible monthly fees than cable packages generally do, and people can easily go back and forth between a couple based on what they're in the mood for. In addition, within the content itself, while the budgets aren't necessarily higher than television, there's a sense that these shows are allowed to go much more ambitious with their technicals while also working with a non-fixed runtime. A few shows like "Kid Cosmic" have managed to work in 15-minute stories (not counting credits) to keep the pacing in check, for instance. And finally, because these services tend to target all walks of life unlike cable channels, their shows have an advantage to potentially reach more varied demographics.
But as fantastic as all this sounds, there's no doubt an equal number of downsides. To first cover the personal disadvantages; although the expenses are indeed more flexible, getting full coverage can be more costly than some may desire. That makes getting all streaming services, even if just looking at the major players, feel like a luxury, especially if they're still paying for cable. Essentially, unless you have enough disposable funds, it's impossible to focus on every show or film you'd be interested in. Another point of contention are release schedules, where for the longest time (and is still the case more often than not today), seasons would release in whole at the same time. This popularized the trend of people binge-watching all their content, and while satisfying in the moment, the majority of viewers only get disappointed as the hype dies down almost immediately and thus, the waiting game only gets this much longer. For sure, a debate has arisen over what kind of release strategy is preferable, but that's a discussion for another day.
But when you dig deeper and peer into how things are run on the inside, things get even more messy. On the surface, it looks as though Netflix green-lighting all these various animated projects left and right (and other big services like HBO Max ordering similar quantities) means there are more opportunities for up and coming artists to tell their stories than ever, and while in some ways that is indeed the case, in others it's... somewhat of a falsehood. Among people working within, it's pretty common knowledge this content being greenlit is less about the value of the product itself and more maximizing their content library. Any show to surpass three seasons get off lucky, and whenever a new season happens it tends to be after production is completely finished, unlike television which generally demands multiple seasons be produced concurrently. This philosophy also translates to how frequently they get lost in the shuffle, with social media and an occasional banner ad being the only official marketing most of these get. Meaning what people may want to see and what could be heavily successful is often all but buried.
Of course, there's things to be said about the pluses and minuses of the individual subscriptions as well. Starting with the most obvious one in Netflix, it set the standard for all other streaming services to follow for good reason; it's reliable, it's relatively lightweight, it's full of content for all walks of life, and it's corporate-neutral nature gives it a significant competitive advantage - but it's fairly high in price (which rather infamously raises each year), content gets swapped out on a far more frequent basis, and a lot of its hosted content can feel like shovelware. Hulu seemed to have more quality control in their content, and served as a great second home for Nick and Cartoon Network content for a while, but its overreliance on ads and becoming a subsidiary for Disney's more adult cartoon limited its current appeal.
Disney+ was a very hyped service due to the company's tight grip on family entertainment, and despite a rough start, it proved to have a strong catalog of both archival and present content, and showing how beneficial weekly content based off their existing cinematic universes could truly be, all for a pretty affordable price to boot. But it came at the downside of archival content barely expanding past launch, certain current-run films being locked under a $30 pay-wall (okay for families, horrible for single viewers), and not adding onto itself too frequently beyond the original content. And the final of the big players, HBO Max from AT&T, unfortunate the service with the most obvious shortcomings, which include a less intuitive interface, a needlessly clunky player, and a long delay in getting Roku and Fire TV coverage. However, those who look beyond the surface would see a large catalog of WarnerMedia content, a promising slate of animated content for kids and adults alike, and a more reasonable means of accessing first-run films.
In conclusion, it's safe to say that there's no straightforward answer as to how beneficial streaming actually is to entertainment on the whole. Even going beyond how each service can attract or turn away people through their content or interface or ethics, there's definitely a lot that will be missed, like the feeling of watching a show live with everyone, and only having one large expense to worry about rather than several small ones; to say nothing of how corporate bias and greed are becoming more transparent than ever before. Ultimately, I suppose it depends on what you personally value the most in regards to consumption. No matter how many people cut the cord in the coming years, there's always going to be people who were prefer the cable experience for one reason or another that streaming services are by nature unable to compete with. But perhaps, if more lessons get learned and if evolving technologies are used in the right ways, we could aim for a friendlier future for content providers, production companies, and consumers alike.
Comments