More stories

  • in

    Netflix still several steps ahead in strategy for wooing subscribers

    Only Frank Underwood could amass as much power in such a short space of time. Nearly eight years after Netflix used House of Cards as the launch of its global empire, the streaming service announced last week that it now had more than 200 million subscribers. The pandemic has hastened the company’s transformation from a debt-laden digital upstart into an essential part of the TV landscape in homes across the world.In 2013, when Netflix’s first original series made its debut, the company had 30 million (mostly US) subscribers. This was six years after it moved from being a DVD-by-post business to a streaming pioneer. Since then it has added 170 million subscribers in more than 190 countries and its pandemic-fuelled results last week sent Netflix’s market value to an all-time high of $259bn.Last year proved to be the best in the company’s history, even as a new wave of deep-pocketed rivals attempt to deprive it of its streaming crown. Accustomed to operating in battle mode, Netflix added a record 37 million new subscribers as lockdown prompted viewers to alleviate housebound cabin fever with fare including The Crown, Bridgerton and The Queen’s Gambit.Last week it reported that in 2020 the amount it earned from subscribers exceeded what it spent – to the tune of $1.9bnBut Netflix’s pioneering low-price, binge-watching approach to driving growth has come at a cost. Year after year the need to spend billions on ever-increasing numbers of films and TV shows in order to keep and attract subscribers has weighed on its balance sheet, if not its share price. With a Netflix subscription a fraction of the cost of a traditional pay-TV service, average revenue per user is low. This is great for growth but means the company has to keep on topping up its content budget to fulfil its binge-watching promise to fans. A few billion here and there has spiralled to $16bn in long-term debt and a further $19bn in “obligations” – essentially payments for content spread out over a number of years.Analysts have been split over Netflix’s grow-now-pay-for-it-later strategy, but the company finally appears to have proved the naysayers wrong. There was a symbolic announcement in its results last week: it reported that in 2020, free cashflow was positive – which means that the amount it earns from subscribers exceeds what it spends on content, marketing and other costs – to the tune of $1.9bn.Part of the reason for this was that Netflix’s content spend fell – from $14bn to $12bn – as a result of production stoppages caused by lockdowns, but it was a turning point nevertheless. It has taken 23 years since its humble beginnings as a DVD rental company in California for the Netflix machine to reach the point of sustainability.The firm’s decision in 2013 to invest heavily in original productions has proved critical – and prescient. It sensed, correctly, that its success would prompt the suppliers that it was licensing shows from to eventually keep them for their own services. In the past 18 months, HBO Max, Sky-owner Comcast’s Peacock and AppleTV+ have joined longer-term rival Amazon Prime Video in vying for subscribers.Reed Hastings, Netflix’s co-chief executive, acknowledges this second wave in the streaming wars, particularly noting the “super-impressive” performance of Disney+, which has become the third global force in streaming behind Amazon. In just 14 months since its launch, the service, powered by franchises including Star Wars TV spin-off The Mandalorian, Marvel films and Frozen 2, has amassed 87 million subscribers four years sooner than forecast. Last month, Walt Disney+ announced a doubling of its content budget and tripled its forecast of subscriber numbers by 2024.However, new rivals have yet to dent the dominance of Netflix, which reported adding 8.5 million subscribers in the fourth quarter, and revealed that 500 TV titles were in the works and a record 71 films would premiere this year. Some doubters had raised concerns that Netflix’s debt-fuelled growth was a financial house of cards. But its foundations look solid now.Nissan’s ‘edge’ over rivals is no vote for BrexitLeaving the EU without a deal would have been an act of economic self-sabotage nearly unrivalled by a developed economy. Carmakers’ relief that a deal was reached on Christmas Eve was palpable. Nissan’s glee became clear last week, with chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta repeatedly declaring that the Brexit deal had given the Japanese carmaker a “competitive advantage”.Nissan had looked through the complex new rules of origin governing trade between the UK and the EU. Parts and finished cars that cross the Channel will not attract tariffs if a certain proportion of their components are from either the UK or the EU. Nissan’s cars already comply with the rules.Crucially, this applies to high-value batteries, which a partner company builds in Sunderland, in a factory next door to Nissan’s. Other companies are not so well-placed and must rely instead on imports from east Asia. For them the Brexit deal has started a scramble to secure batteries from Europe – if they want to sell into the UK – or hope that untested UK companies can build gigafactories to supply them.However, the Japanese carmaker’s statement should not be mistaken for a “vote of confidence”, as Boris Johnson managed to do. Gupta acknowledged that the UK’s departure from the EU had brought new costs, though these were “peanuts” for a company of Nissan’s scale. They may not be so negligible for exporting entrepreneurs, a breed that will probably become rarer as non-tariff barriers increase for would-be traders with the EU.Furthermore, “competitive advantage” is a double-edged compliment. Nissan will gain on UK and EU rivals which do not source batteries locally. Even if it is less of a burden than those carried by competitors, a handicap – in this case increased trade friction with the UK’s biggest market – is still a handicap.A new president is not a panaceaIt would be a mistake to allow the relief that has accompanied Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential election to become something close to euphoria and, consequently, freight the new US president with expectations that are unachievable.The next decade is looking troubled and fractious even now that Donald Trump’s hand is no longer on the tiller of the world’s largest and most powerful economy. From a global perspective, there is the assessment of climate economist Lord Stern that the next 10 years will be crucial if we are to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.China, for 30 years a convenient supplier of low-cost goods to the global economy, is becoming more authoritarian and looking to use its spheres of influence in Asia and Africa to quell complaints by international bodies about the way it treats Uighur Muslims and Hong Kong protesters. To make matters worse, populations in the west and in China are ageing and struggling to provide a decent standard of living for younger members of society.In the UK, Brexit reintroduces a welter of red tape into the trading arrangements this country has with its biggest commercial partner, the EU, and will depress average household incomes over a long period. So despite the relief in many corners of the globe that greeted Biden’s inauguration, there is reason to worry.But there are grounds for hope too. The pressure to address the climate emergency is growing rapidly and politicians all over the world are at last taking notice. The 26th UN climate change conference in Glasgow, scheduled for November, could mark a seismic shift in action. And Biden showed how inclusive he plans to be with his roster of inauguration acts, from the stalwart Republican country singer Garth Brooks to 22-year-old African American poet Amanda Gorman.It was telling that Biden said he wanted to build bridges. It will be difficult, but on the issue of climate change, if on nothing else, that must include China. More

  • in

    Cynthia Nixon: 'Will Donald Trump leave quietly? I don't know'

    Cynthia Nixon Zooms on to my screen from some decking in Long Island. The blue-grey sky is dramatically ominous, a sea breeze blows her hair into photogenic chaos and she is, of course, pretty damn famous – especially to those of us of the Sex and the City generation. So the overall effect is of watching a film, but one that is talking straight to you. Yet, within what feels like barely five seconds, we are discussing the end of democracy, with only the briefest detour to cover the impact wrought on her New York home by coronavirus.“When you’re in New York City, what it reminds me of is the time right after September 11th. It was, in a way, less terrifying than it looked to people watching from the outside, just as it’s strangely less scary to have cancer than to watch someone you love have cancer.”She packs a lot into a sentence – history, terrorism, love, cancer – and is clearly political to her bones: not at all interested in things that simply happen (pandemics and their attendant disruptions) but instead in systems, choices and worldviews. “In terms of the overall political scene across the country, it’s just terrifying. People keep writing these articles about the end of democracy, and it does feel like a real possibility when you have a president who’s trying to sink the Post Office.”At 54, Nixon is a relatively recent discovery as a prominent advocate of the Democratic party’s furthest left: she stood against Andrew Cuomo in the 2018 election for the governor of New York, a race in which she now considers she was doomed from the start. “I was triply burdened,” she says. “I was a woman. I was a gay woman. I was a person who had been an activist for a long time, but had never held political office, and obviously the governor is a really big place to start. And I am an actress, which is a barely coded word for ‘bimbo’ or ‘ditz’. I don’t, in my personal life, ever call myself an actress – I call myself an actor. But Cuomo tried to use that word as often as he could, in a very derogatory way.” More

  • in

    Netflix should testify before Congress over Cuties? The culture war is out of control | Jessa Crispin

    It’s inspiring to see the left and the right of the US finally unite to create a bipartisan statement: there is a French movie that is bad and we should do something about it. It’s not a second stimulus package or universal healthcare, but in our polarized culture, we take what we can get.Cuties, which is directed by French-Senegalese Maïmouna Doucouré, is set in Paris and follows Amy, the 11-year-old daughter of Senegalese immigrants, who is torn between her traditional Islamic upbringing and her new dance troupe friends who spend their time flirting with boys and twerking and gyrating during rehearsals for a dance competition.Soon after its release on Netflix, “Cancel Netflix” was trending on Twitter over the weekend. Republican Senator Ted Cruz has called for a Department of Justice investigation into whether the film violated child pornography laws. The Republican senator Josh Hawley asked Netflix to “immediately remove” Cuties and informally invited Netflix to testify about the film before Congress on Twitter. The Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard called Cuties “child porn” which she said would “whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade”.The film contains no sex or nudity of the girls themselves, though in one scene in Amy uploads a photo of her genitals on social media (we never see the picture). The dance moves, though sexualized, are no different from the WAP-themed TikToks that teens and pre-teens are posting online by the millions.Still, the backlash has crystallized much of the fear around the sexual vulnerability of children that has been swirling around from the revelations around Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express and the QAnon conspiracies about child trafficking. To critics like Hawley, the film titillates an imagined, enormous audience of insatiable sexual monsters.Doucouré has been making the rounds trying to do damage control, but it’s too late, the posturing is already solidifying. Cuties has a few film critics as defenders, but the culture war has already probably lost this battle, and it will not be surprising if Netflix pulls the film and issues an apology to save its subscriber base soon. (It has already apologized for the promotional material for the film, saying it was not representative of the film.)Cuties is not a good movie, but it’s an artistic failure rather than a moral oneCuties is not a good movie, but it’s an artistic failure rather than a moral one. It strings together a series of coming-of-age cliches and engages in the same over-the-top handwringing that its congressional audience does. In one scene, they are seemingly watching about an X-rated sex scene on their smartphone (again, we don’t see any explicit content – only their reaction to it). In another scene they dare each other to sneak into a boys bathroom to try to film a classmate’s private parts while he is at the urinal. Moments like this almost feel like they come directly from the overheated imagination of Ben Shapiro after watching WAP.The problem is that the film’s underlying message – it is bad to sexualize young girls – kind of gets lost in all of the sexualization of young girls happening on screen. Look, I watched it twice in order to write this, and the scene where the preteen girls are all twerking and the camera goes in for a close up of a young girl’s ass barely covered in short shorts made me come this close to taking the QAnon pledge.It’s happened before, where a work of art creates a public sex panic about the safety of children. There was the various scandals over Sally Mann’s photographs of her nude children, Bill Henson’s portraits of pubescent boys and girls, the Larry Clark film Kids, not to mention the David LaChapelle Rolling Stone cover portrait of a childlike but also sexualized 16-year-old Britney Spears in her underwear, clutching a Tellytubby. Each scandal consisted of the obligatory demonstrations of outrage, a smattering of death threats, and of course performed concern for the poor powerless children, who couldn’t possibly know what they were participating in and must be hopelessly damaged as a result.But no one tried to drag Jann Wenner from Rolling Stone in front of Congress to walk through the cultural relevance of Britney’s Baby One More Time video. And that is because we as a nation had not yet whipped ourselves into a feverish frenzy about trafficking, conspiratorial notion that there is some powerful underground network of predators and pedophiles, whose tentacles span the country and penetrate the “deep state”. This new panic was a long time coming, built on years of Stranger Danger hysteria, mixed with unresolved anxiety from the Catholic church’s abuse scandal, made frothy by thousands of poorly factchecked true crime podcasts and streaming docu-dramas.Cuties is bad, but it’s not bad. If we absolutely have to have the culture wars again over children’s welfare, let us make it about things that actually endanger children: Republicans’ cuts to child social welfare programs, subsidized housing and addiction treatment that only leave the young more vulnerable. More

  • in

    Cheer coach offers advice at Texas polls: ‘We can love each other no matter our backgrounds’

    Navarro College, which became famous after an acclaimed Netflix show, is a polling spot on a critical day in the 2020 election Navarro College, in Corsicana, Texas, became world famous this year after the success of the Netflix documentary Cheer, which followed the college’s champion cheerleading squad as they fought to defend their national title […] More

  • in

    Netflix documentary leads to review of Malcolm X’s murder

    The Manhattan district attorney has announced it will consider reopening the case after a six-part series detailed potential miscarriages of justice The investigation into Malcolm X’s death could be reopened after new information was detailed in a Netflix series. Following the release of the six-part documentary Who Killed Malcolm X? – which launched on the […] More