Do you hate Netflix?

Occasionally I’ll hear a negative word, always from a non-subscriber, but very rarely. People are not as passionate about Netflix as they are about Spotify, but USERS feel very positive about both platforms.

As for Hulu and HBO Max and Disney+ and Paramount+ and Peacock…

Not so much. Eh, at best.

I’ve gotten a few e-mails pointing me to fakokta studies about all at once vs week by week strategies, saying statistics say the latter is better.

They’re completely missing the point.

When it comes to streaming, it’s not how many people watch a show, BUT WHETHER THEY RENEW THE SERVICE!

It’s all about the subscription, baby.

Now when it comes to data… At best it’ll tell you where you’ve been, it’s not definitive on where you’re going. Even worse is polls. They come down to the questions asked and the weighting and right now polls are historically inaccurate and everyone is losing faith in them.

Now I could argue statistically about the benefits of dropping all at once vs. week by week, but that is really not the issue. But I’ll give you one example.

The best streaming television show of 2025 was “Adolescence,” on Netflix. There was a bit of hype at the beginning, reviews, as there is with all major Netflix projects, but after that…bupkes. At least until long after the debut, when the phenomenon was apparent if you were looking, then there was some analysis and focus on the performers.

Now at the very same time “Adolescence” played, the second season of “White Lotus” dropped, week by week. And when “White Lotus”‘s run was done, more people had seen “Adolescence,” despite weekly update stories about “White Lotus” in the press, all kinds of hype.

Hype. That’s what entertainment journalism is all about. It’s a game, you’ve got PR on one side and media outlets on the other and they feed each other. The article in advance, the review upon release, then features on the actors if the project gets traction. Assuming you’re studying all this, which most people are not, a lot of projects appear much bigger than they truly are.

This is a prevalent issue today. All this talk about Paramount having control of CNN…

Last week, 584,000 people watched CNN in primetime.

It was a little higher earlier in the month, 624,000 and 667,000, but the bottom line is the outlet almost never ever breaks a million viewers in primetime, in a country of 340 MILLION!

As for influence… If you watch any of the TV news outlets, they all share one thing in common, they lead with “‘The New York Times’ says,” or “‘The Washington Post’ says” or “‘The Wall Street Journal’ says”… These outlets, from Fox to MS Now to CNN do almost no reporting, they’re almost all analysis/opinion. Watch them if you want to, they all have small audiences, with Fox’s the largest, but most people ARE NOT WATCHING THEM!

So where do these people get their news?

Online. Most especially on TikTok. Which the same people worried about Paramount devouring CNN categorically hate and won’t go on. It’s not only opinion on TikTok… “Times” reporters speak to the camera, a lot of journalists have their own channels and they opine, as do the not so famous. This is where ideas and campaigns are cemented.

I won’t go too deep, but I must tell you that being an influencer is oftentimes more lucrative than being a musician, and an actor too. (And don’t complain that music doesn’t pay, these influencers have zillions of views, and that’s what advertisers want, that’s what pays…in addition, they have INFLUENCE! Makeup influencers get all the ink, but there are lot of solid people distributing solid information.)

The puck moves, and when it comes to TV news…it’s a dying world, everything has a lifespan.

But back to the plot.

The record labels were rolling in dough. They cared not a whit that they were selling CDs with one good track for more than ten bucks. Look at those numbers! And then Napster comes along and the public steals with impunity. Because there was pent-up anger, and as soon as there was an alternative…

My inbox is full of people frustrated that they have to wait another week for the final episode of “Furious.” Does it endear them to Hulu? Is anybody passionate about Hulu? I haven’t found them yet.

This is like a band. These duplicitous acts are so worried about their public image that they rant and rave about ticket fees. When the truth is almost all of the face value of the ticket goes to the act, and the promoter and other players can only make a profit as a result of ticket fees. Ticketmaster is paid to be take the heat, and it’s one of, if not the most hated companies in America.

But not Netflix, which started from zero and charges the most.

All you’ve got to know is the 2025 churn rate at Netflix was 2.1%.

The churn rate for its competitors?

HBO Max was 6-6.9%.

Disney was 5.5%.

Hulu was 5.3%.

Paramount+ was 5-6%.

Hulu was 4.3%.

Apple was 6.5-7%.

https://churnkey.co/blog/churn-rates-for-streaming-services

Isn’t it interesting that Netflix has the lowest churn rate?

WHY?

Not because it necessarily has the best product, but it is the most consumer-friendly. It’s got the best interface, even better than Apple’s. It does have a plethora of product too, but that’s part of the overall strategy. Give people SOMETHING to watch, what it is exactly is irrelevant. AND, if you like a show, it’s fully available for you to binge or watch at your leisure, which is what everybody expects in this on demand culture.

People are satisfied with Netflix. As for the other services…they can take them or leave them.

Apple’s got its fanboys, which makes up for its lack of product, then again it’s a laggard when it comes to the number of subscribers.

As for Amazon… TV is baked into Prime, however… Amazon pissed users off by switching them all to an ad-based service, and charging $4.99 more per month to get rid of the commercials.

I watch much less Prime than I used to. Five bucks doesn’t mean that much, but it’s a choice, and I want to see if a show is worth it. And why even start, when the other services are ad-free.

People hate Amazon. They’re just waiting to take advantage, they love to see the company fail. They’d go to a competitor in a heartbeat.

But not Netflix.

So don’t look at the modern world through old metrics. It’d be like looking at the music business via sales as opposed to streams. And as a matter of fact, physical albums are unduly weighted in the charts, ultimately rendering them meaningless except to the labels who manipulate their way to the top. The real charts, the ones everybody truly pays attention to, are the Spotify ones. Because they are raw consumption. Either people are listening or they’re not.

It’s no longer about initial sales. It’s about how long an album stays alive, how long do people want to listen to it prodigiously.

Used to be a brand name act could drop an album and sell a million copies the first week and then the record could disappear. Yet the label had already made their money, despite consumers rejecting the music. That doesn’t happen anymore, because the initial drop is much less significant, it’s a matter of whether you can keep the project alive

But one thing you’ve got to know is Spotify has even a lower churn rate than Netflix. And 70% of those who leave the service come back within 45 days.

Now music is not identical to video, but…

All this negative press about Spotify… USERS LOVE IT!

How often do you experience passion about Spotify’s competitors?

Never about Amazon, Apple…

Spotify is not hobbled by legacy thinking. It started from scratch. Ditto Netflix. They’re both forward-looking and nimble. And their users LIKE THEM!

What a concept.