Netflix has notoriously few duds (although there's an argument that they're less visible, not being ripped from a primetime broadcast slot), which on the surface of it is a good thing.
Its success with originals does however suggest that it might be painting by numbers a little, in some cases creating TV it knows will be successful rather than surging into new and unique areas - I've certainly noticed a trend in a lot of shows feeling very "Netflix", almost cookie cutter.
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who we spoke to on our podcast recently, had this to say to CNBC this week:
“Our hit ratio is way too high right now. So, we’ve canceled very few shows … I’m always pushing the content team: We have to take more risk; you have to try more crazy things. Because we should have a higher cancel rate overall. [By taking risks] you get some winners that are just unbelievable winners, like 13 Reasons Why. It surprised us. It’s a great show, but we didn’t realize just how it would catch on.”
It's a refreshing notion, that a CEO is driven by a lack of under-performers to demand more daring television: that, or, being the savvy PR machine that Netflix is, this is the sort of thing it says publicly, while crunching the algorithms and making bankable hits privately...
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies