Faculty of Humanities
MA Television and Cross-Media Culture
Master Thesis
Netflix’ perception of originality within a SVOD market;
A research on the licensing, recycling and remaking of content
Esmée Duindam
10750126
Thesis supervisor: dhr. dr. M. W. Stewart
Final Version 29-06-2018
Content
INTRODUCTION...4
Statement of the problem and relevance of the research...5
CHAPTER 1 – ORIGINALITY AND RECYCLING CONTENT; THE IMPORTANCE OF AUTHORSHIP...7
1.1 The repetition of stories... 7
1.2 Types of recycling content... 9
1.3 Creating a signature product... 11
1.4 Benjamin’s reproduction theory... 12
CHAPTER 2 – AUDIENCE AND REMAKES...15
2.1 Audience response towards remakes... 15
2.2 Netflix’s House of Cards... 17
2.3 Recommendations on Netflix... 19
2.4 Facebook... 22
2.5 Instagram... 23
2.6 Twitter... 24
CHAPTER 3 – THE NETFLIX ORIGINAL AND ITS BRANDING STRATEGIES...27
3.1 Distinctions in types of original content...29
3.2 Questioning true originality... 31
CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION...35
4.1 Netflix’ quality... 36
4.2 Competition and linear broadcasting... 37
4.3 Promotion and marketing... 39
4.4 Availability Netflix Original Content... 40
4.5 Original vs licensed content... 41
CONCLUSION...45 REFERENCES...48
Introduction
There is an ongoing debate on what it means to ‘watch television’. Broadcasting television has been losing audience for a couple of years now, while streaming services online have been gaining subscribers. The way people watch television has changed over the years. Streaming platforms have gained popularity and changed the viewing behavior of its audiences. Strangelove wrote about this phenomenon in 2015, where he said: “the ‘post’ in ‘post-TV’ does not indicate the end of television itself, but does refer to the
end of a particular way in which broadcast television structured viewing and the
beginning of new ways of participating in television.” (4) Netflix has played an important part in this changing viewing behavior. Netflix started off as an online DVD rental system in 1998. Its library included movie rentals and later on also television-like series around 2008. With Internet usage growing, the platform quickly adjusted and formed itself into one of the first streaming service platforms. (van Dijck, 2013, 198n24) Nowadays (in 2018), Netflix has grown to be a major player in the distribution of movies and television series, even including its own content. In my thesis, Netflix as a streaming service will be the central focus of my research. The content it has produced over the years has been awarded with many prizes, and the brand ‘Netflix Original’ has received a high status among its users due to its big budget productions. The platform’s library has been expanding exponentially and its subscribers keep rising ever since it started producing its own content. As of right now, it is still growing and changing continuously. When doing some research, not a lot of users seem to be aware of the fact that the tag ‘Netflix Original’ does not mean that Netflix has actually produced the content or had anything to do with the production at all. Most users assume that a Netflix Original is an exclusive to Netflix and has therefore automatically been created by the platform itself. This is not necessarily an uncomplimentary element for Netflix. Of course, this is a type of branding strategy Netflix is using in order to satisfy its users in providing them with certain quality content. This raises multiple questions concerning its branding strategy and its production. Questions arise when discussing remakes, because why would an audience, especially the audience of Netflix, be interested in a reboot of their favorite show instead of watching the original show again? Also, how are these productions made and which parties are funding and profiting from them? These days, Netflix seems to dominate the streaming market and might even take over the traditional television programming. In this research, I would like to find out how Netflix is doing this, while producing or distributing a certain kind of content, and also how it is creating a brand that stands for high quality content
among its users. It has gained a lot of popularity with its true original content, such as series like House of Cards (2013), Orange Is the New Black (2013) and so on. This was actually produced by Netflix as a company, based on information it had gathered by viewers’ watching habits. A lot of ‘original’ content is not that original, meaning for instance that Netflix has only bought the distribution rights. I will compare the true original content to the new ‘original content’, hoping to find a certain strategy in selecting content that matches its ‘brand’. This is also the reason why a research for this is urgent as of right now, because Netflix is continuously changing and its brand is changing as well.
Statement of the problem and relevance of the research
There are two problems I will be focusing on. Firstly, there is the fact that Netflix is branding a certain type of content in a way that confuses the audience about who has actually produced it. Since Netflix has become a distributor and creator of content over the years, there is made a distinction between ‘Netflix Originals’ and other licensed content. The difference is that Originals are exclusively (legally) available on Netflix. By using the term “original” instead of “exclusive” or “selected”, it suggests the idea that Netflix decided on the content of the program or at least had any influence in the creation of it. This is a problem because it confuses its subscribers, meaning Netflix is lacking transparency in this department. Also, there are many types of content that are categorized within the brand ‘Netflix Original’, even though these are coming from different sources or companies and might be available
elsewhere too. This will be explained further in chapter 3.
Secondly, Netflix produces and distributes remakes of television series. Netflix has produced either new seasons of older series that used to be broadcast on linear television, or entire new adaptations of older series. These remakes are produced by Netflix or
commissioned by Netflix in any way, which allows the platform to call it its own content. One connection exists between both of these problems, which is that Netflix is producing certain content as if it is its own, while it has either been co-produced or licensed, or is based on an older series. This means that the term ‘original’ is not very applicable to either concept. The platform lacks transparency within its own brand name, which is confusing and unclear to its audience.
Both these problems are commonly known among critics and Netflix users, even though none of them have defined the different types of content that are available on Netflix. Also, a lot of information can be found on remake television, but these articles and books
were written years ago. It has been written by many critics that Netflix has caused a comeback of the remake within the video content culture, as argued in chapter 2 and 4. If this is in fact true, how did Netflix do this and who is it aiming to? In the contemporary streaming video content culture, there has not been a clear explanation for the way Netflix is expanding its library so rapidly and calling it ‘original content’ at the same time. All of these themes, such as originality, authorship, licensing and recycling content will be united in this thesis and together give a clear vision on Netflix’s branding strategies and the perception of originality of its Original Series among its users. The main question for this thesis is: How is the
perception of an original producing brand created among Netflix’s users and in what way can remakes enforce this brand’s status in an SVOD market?
Chapter 1 – Originality and recycling content; the importance of
authorship
Many theorists have claimed that true original content does not exist anymore, or has never even started into being. (Hutcheon, Klein, Verevis) Recycling content has been a sensitive topic, since a lot of people believe in true original content and authorship. In the past decade or so, authenticity has become a more vital aspect of everyday life in general, (Baym, Hirtle, Turkle) but also in the creation of visual content, like movies and television. The recycling of content has therefore acquired a devalued image, suggesting a lack of imagination or a
scarcity of money within the Hollywood industry. By recreating or using the same formula of a project that has been proven to be successful, viewers might find the outcome to be a rip-off and a safe bet. In this chapter, I will be discussing several questions concerning the re-use of television and film content and the authenticity of the creators. Which ways of recycling television shows and films are there and how are these differences made visible? Also, does a remake obscure the original and if so, how? Assuming that true original content does not exist, in this chapter I will be reviewing the differences between several ways of recycling content in the television industry. The main question I will be answering in this chapter is: Why is authorship different from originality and how does this show in different ways of recycling content?
1.1 The repetition of stories
Contemporary thoughts about the fact that remakes or adaptations have lower quality than the original are false, according to many theorists. Hutcheon (2012), Klein (2016), Benjamin (1935) and many others have written about this, mentioning that the appreciation by the public for remakes, also called multiplicities by Klein, is less than for original content. This raises new questions concerning original content. If original content is valued more highly by consumers, what exactly is original content? One way to theorize these intertwined relations is through the concept of intertextuality. Intertextuality has been a topic for many of those and has proven that a lot of content has intertwined relations with other content. Klein raised this exact question about what actual original content means, by saying that “every genre either lacks (or has somehow lost sight of) an ‘original object’, and that what is repeated through innovation is a pattern whose precise ontology is unclear.” (Klein, 4) This suggests that actual original content has never even existed and that every text or project that is being released at this point has many intertextual relations. The so-called pattern Klein mentions is unclear,
because the intertwined relations cannot be pinpointed to certain genres or time periods. When losing sight of a first version, it is unclear to what exactly an adaptation is referring to. Is it even referring to the original or is it referring to another adaptation? Gutierrez confirmed this thought process, and also mentioned that recycling content is not a new progression: “it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that commercial cinema has always relied on the regurgitation of content”. (49) Benjamin wrote about this in the early 1930s, saying “storytelling is always the art of repeating stories”. This means that visual content, meaning film and television, has always depended on intertextuality and references towards other content.
The only aspect that is different is the way we value ‘familiar’ content. “Our post-Romantic valuing of the originary is, after all, a late addition to a long history of borrowing and stealing – or, more accurately, of sharing – stories.” (Hutcheon, 110) Devaluing or even criticizing content has taken a relatively new turn, since social media has gained a bigger control. People are able to publicize their opinion whenever and wherever they want to nowadays. Also, websites such as IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes express a rating, which is highly valued by the press and viewers. The exposure of all these opinions lead to certain reactions, which can be explained by the social sciences. Zajonc has written abfout this phenomenon back in 1968, when any type of social media was not available yet. He wrote about how people react to overexposure of familiar images within the advertising industry, according to the social sciences. A theory of social psychology suggests that “that people develop a favorable attitude toward things simply because they are familiar with them”. (Kim, Namkee & Seung Park, 101) When seeing an object or text the audience is familiar with, they are more likely to have a positive attitude towards it, even though they are aware of the fact they recognize it. Also, Zajonc warns for the overexposure effect: “At the same time, however, the advertising industry also likes to warn against overexposure, relying, it would appear, on the above law of familiarity.” (Zajonc, 1) When production companies create familiar content, it is met with positive reactions. For example, a movie that includes references to other movies or has similar aspects to a previous one, this would cause the public to familiarize themselves with the movie because they ‘know’ it. Nevertheless, when this happens too often, the public feels overexposed which results into negative reactions. Hutcheon also catches upon the paradox of the recognition of adaptations, since it causes both positive and negative responses. “For us in the audience, part of the very real pleasure of watching adaptations lies in recognition and remembrance. But it is equally true that part of the also very real masochistic fear provoked by adaptations lies in recognition and
remembrance”. (Hutcheon, 111) This is what Zajonc calls ‘going above the law of
familiarity’, meaning people get too acquainted to it, causing them to feel like the content is unoriginal and unauthentic.
1.2 Types of recycling content
There are several ways of recycling content, but they are not concretely different. When searching for different types, many terms pop up such as, reboot, revival, remake, and
adaptation. In the next piece the differences between these will be explained. In order to think about authorship and the way this can be applied to pre-existing material, the several ways need to be clarified and differentiated from each other. This will provide a more distinct overview of the way authorship and originality are translated and secured.
Adaptation - Hutcheon describes an adaptation as follows: “An acknowledged transposition of a recognizable other work or works; A creative and an interpretive act of appropriation/ salvaging; An extended intertextual engagement with the adapted work.” (8) This means that every piece of work that has familiar aspects incorporated in any way whatsoever, including characters, storyline, or even lines of speech can be adapted from another text. It therefore recognizes that there is a pre-existing piece, whether the reference is explicit or not. This does not automatically mean that a second version of a piece of art or text is a secondary version. It stands on its own, next to another version. The originality of the first version has not been devaluated or diminished by producing another perspective on it. What becomes very
important in this second version is authorship, since it should be that which sets it apart from the previous piece that had already been created. Also, reusing content marks a certain kind of change, since a repetition will never be the same as the pre-existing content. It will either show a cultural difference or a modernized change since the prevailing version or versions appeared. Also, an adaptation undergoes a shift in medium most of the time. This means that material from a movie is used in order to make a television series, or the story of a book is used as a narrative for a film.
Remake - A remake can be considered to be an adaptation. “It is unclear what really distinguishes the remake from the adaptation and whether these should even be seen as mutually or contrasting exclusive categories.” (Proctor, William et al, 24) Mostly, in a remake there is no continuation of the older narrative. It might explore the narrative differently, but the fundamental storyline remains the same as the existing version. It does not continue a narrative, but it might for instance modernize it in order to fit a certain audience. “A remake
also uses the original as source material but is typically seen to overwrite the original’s narrative instead of building on it.” (Proctor, Williams et al., 25) This is exactly what makes a remake different from a sequel.
Sequel - A sequel differs from a remake in such a way that it explores more of a narrative or of the characters than the pre-existing material gave the audience. This means that a story might continue where it left off, or that the creators decide to shed light on another perspective than the previous version did. Proctor, William et al. describe a sequel as substantially different than a remake, since a sequel does not “simply repeat a given narrative”. (25)
Revival - A revival defines itself by continuing a certain story, with at least some of the original cast being present and it might also need a part of the original creative team. The previous television series might have ended at some point, but the demand for more by the public makes the creators and actors decide to create more content of the same narrative. “Revivals must address the historical lapse of time and adjust to changes in prevailing televisual aesthetics and norms of representation, which often involve complex negotiations between the nostalgic referent and its revived counterpart.” (Loock 305) When it has taken years to produce a continuation, it must be explained what happened during the time in between the original and the revival. They must be connected in a certain way in order for the audience to understand the continuation.
Reboot - A reboot distinguishes itself from a revival by not reusing the old team. A reboot uses the old name in order to show that it relates to the pre-existing show or film, but uses a brand new cast and creative team in order to suit the now existing audience. Even though it is connected to an older name or text, it is future-oriented and created in order to produce a new media product.
Basically, every type of recycling content is an adaptation. All of them are changed in some way to create new elements, but to contain certain aspects of the previous versions. “In short, following recent work in the field of adaptation studies and a turn from fidelity
criticism towards post structural paradigms of dialogism and intertextuality, remakes are adaptations, and vice versa (as are cover versions, reimagining’s, reboots, recreations, and so forth)”. (Proctor, 6) Whether only the characters are different and the story remains quite the same, or the entire story is ‘new’, it never is truly original in that sense that every story has a beginning background. This means that every story writing session starts with the existing
knowledge and frame of reference. New stories are always based on older stories, even if they are nothing alike. This is where the question about authenticity appears. In what way can a director or writer add his own stamp to a text, in such a way that it stands out from previous versions. Also, how is authorship different from originality and how does this reflect in a text?
1.3 Creating a signature product
As Russel Cobb points out, most judgments concerning the value of content can be explained by money. (6) It is assumed that the only purpose of creating a remake or using older content in any sort of way, is to reduce the costs and make more money out of an old concept. It does not quite matter whether the remake costs more money to create than the previous versions, but the fact that it is building upon an existing idea causes various judgments by the public. The aesthetics are not even taken into consideration at this point, but the fact that someone is making money out of other’s creativity or ideas is causing people to devaluate the text. These judgments are based on film genres and the repetition of images, but not on its pragmatics and the way the repetition is executed. Mostly, the product is judged for its links to other products, and the actual content of the product is being left out of this judgment. Still, there are
examples in which a director is being applauded when a remake has been executed
successfully and in such a way that the direct connections to the original have been wiped out. Verevis mentions the example of Spielberg’s War of the Worlds (2005). Spielberg created his own interpretation on the older version which was made in 1953. Even before that, the story originated from a book. A director with such a big name in the industry created a remake in such a way that he was praised for his work and for leaving his mark on it so clearly. Verevis writes how post-auteurs such as Fincher, Nolan and Soderbergh are known for their serialized output, which is the result of recycling older content and “putting it to use”. (2013; 66) When such big auteurs use and adapt older content in a way that they make it their own, their audiences admire their output for its authenticity and their ‘signature’. In this way, the pre-existing material becomes more of a ‘blueprint for remediation’. (Verevis, 66) The new version overshadows the older material in such a way that it will be encountered as ‘original’ and as a ‘signature product’. (Verevis, 66) This does not mean that the original version will be forgotten or the writer will be forgotten.
1.4 Benjamin’s reproduction theory
Taking all of the information above into account, what can still be seen as original content and how can a director or author still put his signature on recycled material? In 1935, Walter Benjamin wrote an iconic text about the reproduction of the work of art in the mechanical age. Even though digital reproduction did not exist in that time, works of art such as paintings or texts could be reproduced. In contrast to Russel Cobb and his financial argument, in
Benjamins theory aesthetics are the key object. Benjamin believed that technological
developments such as radio, cars and movies, led to qualitative changes in our understanding of time and space. (Leezenberg, 209) Benjamin did not believe in a pure, objective
observation of a work of art and called upon the ‘aura’ of a piece, which concerns the irreproducibility and irreplaceability of it. The circumstances in which a piece is created can never be reproduced and thus the original object captures a certain value that no other can. Also, Benjamin believed that when a piece of art is reproduced, the original piece also loses parts of its aura and thus some value. Benjamin argued in his text that this was not necessarily a bad thing, since an entire different experience of the art piece is created due to the
reproduction process. (Leezenberg, 209) Due to the ways a piece can be reproduced, Benjamin says a piece loses cult value, but gains exhibition value. “With the different
methods of technical reproduction of a work of art, its fitness for exhibition increased to such an extent that the quantitative shift between its two poles turned into a qualitative
transformation of its nature.” (Benjamin, 5) What he means by this is that the cult value of an object decreases as the accessibility options increase. To illustrate this he uses the example of the very famous painting the Mona Lisa, which can be exhibited in Paris. This painting can only be viewed in its true original state in the Louvre Museum, which makes the cult value high. When the painting is being reproduced, people will not have to visit that exact place in order to see the painting. Therefore, the cultural value decreases because the accessibility becomes greater. The painting loses parts of its aura, since the uniqueness of the painting and its surroundings are replaced by other exhibition points.
When using Benjamin’s theory for describing originality and authenticity in the digital age, it could be stated that no actual digital piece contains an aura in the way he describes it. This is because the accessibility options are greater than ever, when thinking of streaming content online. As we do not live in the mechanical age anymore, but in the digital age, we might need to reconsider Benjamin’s ideas about aura and reproduction. As Benjamin has mentioned, he does not look negatively upon the reproduction process of a work of art. He
feels that the “presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” is lost or lacking within the reproduction. (3) When looking at the reproduction or
recycling of content nowadays, I believe this is the opposite of what Benjamin argues. When there are direct references to an old movie or a pre-existing television program, people will recognize the previous version. Therefore, the value of the previous version rises in my opinion, because it is referenced to for a reason and recognized by the audience. By maintaining a natural distance between the object and the viewer, as Benjamin calls it, the aura of the pre-existing object is not devalued even though the aura of the original object may not be found in the new version of the object. The aura of an object is also partially to be found in its creator, since it is a reflection of the here and now which also includes the creator. Barthes agrees with this idea, since he believes the author of a text lives in the text itself. He writes that “every text is eternally written “here and now” (145) and that the author who writes it, is to be found within the text. The relation between a text and an author should be viewed the way a father is related to his child. (145) Therefore, an author eternally lives in his own text, the way a father will always relate to his child. When a text is being recycled or being reused for another purpose, the writer of that text will always be included within that process even though he is not physically present. The writer lives within that text and the so-called here and now that once existed will also stay within the text. The recycling process will not only reproduce the aura of the art piece, but also the aura of the writer itself. Benjamin confirms this thought process, by writing that “the authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced.” (Benjamin, 3) The history a text has experienced will continue to live on in the next text that references it or recycles it. The authenticity of the original writer is not devalued in any sense, nor is the authenticity of the remake producing writer affected. This is because the writer of the remake is also adding his touch or signature to the text. The aura of the original text will not decrease in any way, but it will be
supplemented by the aura of the new writer and the new here and now.
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the different ways to look at originality and authenticity from a theoretical perspective. Since intertextuality plays a major part in the creation of stories nowadays, it is difficult to find true original content. Benjamin’s theory upon originality is difficult to acquire in the digital age, since reproduction is constantly happening even if this is
not directly visible. The starting point of making something ‘new’ is always based on
previous experiences or images. When taking Netflix into account, it has acquired this theory as a strategy. By making something exclusive for Netflix, this increases the value of the show according to Benjamin’s theory. Since Netflix is available to people who pay for a
subscription, there is a certain exclusiveness to the ‘originals’ which increase its value. Only Netflix members can watch this exclusively selected content. The established brand of the ‘Netflix Original’ itself is therefore a guarantee for certain quality, because people are wanting to pay for it. Every ‘Netflix Original’ is very different, which is caused by the different auteurs, or producers, that have made them to exist. In this way, Netflix offers many types of different content which means that there is a genre for everyone. Even though remakes are not original narrative wise, a director or auteur can create a different perspective of a show and allows it to generate a perception of originality to its viewers.
Chapter 2 – Audience and remakes
As discussed in the previous chapter, authenticity is very important when creating a remake of a pre-existing text. Criticism appears from different perspectives in the industry, such as ‘ordinary’ viewers, blogs and websites such as IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Authenticity has appeared to be extremely important, especially when creating something that already exists. The question remains, to whom is it important and why? In this chapter, audience response and demand will be examined. This will not function as a full audience research, since there will be no interviews held. What I will look at is the engagement with social media and the way Netflix uses this in order to fuel its content and library selection. “A major power player in today’s overcrowded TV marketplace, the online streaming service Netflix emerged as the driving force of the revival trend (…)”. (Loock, 105) Netflix has been put in the position of a major player within the television revival trend, for instance by Loock, who wrote in an article: “Netflix’s revival model might be unique in that it repackages and updates past media texts and TV experiences to promote a nostalgic and arguably less challenging mode of viewing (in terms of both form and content) in the present.” (Loock, 105) Netflix modernizes the pre-existing series in order to fit the new target audience and the contemporary ‘problems’ they are going through. It is therefore less challenging to watch for the new audience, because it is more suitable to them and their lives. Also, by making it more modern, it suits their existing viewer behavior and expectations of television in general. Netflix transforms older text into new ones seamlessly, in a way that linear television never could. As Dyche states, Netflix is “mining the nostalgia” (10), because it is gathering successive elements which are based on its algorithmic data information. By collecting this information, Netflix knows exactly what its consumers would like to watch, or binge-watch, and therefore it can produce exactly what its viewers want to see. In this chapter I will be answering the following
question: How is an audience drawn to remake television and what influence does Netflix have?
2.1 Audience response towards remakes
In the previous chapter it was discussed that remakes are often given a lower status than the ‘original’ show. Due to the possible lack of authenticity or creativity, it might get assigned a lower-valued image. Nevertheless, there remains a part of an audience that keeps asking for new content that derives from the pre-existing content. “Going beyond the remake, television
shows that were thought to be long-gone are being revived, in part because fans have never stopped asking for or consuming these products, resulting in feelings of power and possibility that further encourage eternally yearning for mediated pasts.” (Lizardi, 63) When talking about remaking television and the audience response, it feels like discussing a vicious cycle. Producing new content out of older content has shown viewers that there is a possibility their favorite show might come back. Therefore, they keep asking for more content, a remake or a sequel. This results into broadcasters producing the shows the audience is demanding or asking for, for instance on social media. When looking at the revivals Netflix has brought to its users, there is no detectable target audience. For instance, Dynasty (2017) is targeted at a younger audience, while they might not know it is a reboot of an older series. Arrested Development (2013) has made a comeback season on Netflix, of which the target audience includes many ages. Corine Elizabeth Mathis has argued that older ages could enjoy these remakes as well, because they remind them of their favorite teen television show. “If one were to poll American adults in the thirty- to forty-year-old age range, it is likely that they have a favorite teen drama—perhaps one they loved as a teen or young adult, perhaps one they are watching as an adult today. The proof is in the Gilmore pudding; Netflix’s revival of Gilmore Girls drew nearly five million viewers on average in the 18-49 demographic, the genre is doing something right if Gilmore Girls’ viewers are that loyal almost ten years after the series ends.” (Mathis, 275) So, when it comes to the audience and its demand, the creators are giving them what they want. In order to explore what audiences want and how they are asking for it, the following paragraphs will investigate the way Netflix is guiding them towards its original content remakes and the way users engage with social media in order to be heard by the bigger producing companies. As Kathleen Loock is arguing, the way Netflix is reviving older series, it is bringing back old and cherished content and applying it in the contemporary viewing culture.
“The Full House revival, more than twenty years after the show’s cancelation, was not only driven by the possibility of bringing back a beloved sitcom and thus exploiting an existing property with ongoing media and cultural presence but also by Netflix’s strategic efforts to revive the by gone days of ABC’s TGIF programming and reinvent family-friendly viewing in the era of complex television and online streaming platforms.”.
Fuller House (2016) is just one of the examples that Netflix has brought back to its own and newer audiences. This shows that even ‘old content’ can be made suitable for new types of media and new types of media consuming.
A good example of a show that decided not to continue is Friends (1994-2004). It has been speculated a lot and users have created an enormous amount of remake trailers, but the creators have admitted they will not make any form of remake or adaptation. Still, a lot of Netflix users requested the platform to add the ten seasons of the nineties sitcom to its library. Netflix has a special page on its website for users to request series.1 The demand for a show
like Friends (1994-2004) was so high, that Netflix decided to acquire its streaming rights. Netflixed announced this via Twitter with the following tweet:
With this text it referred directly to the show by incorporating the names of the episode titles. Twitter exploded on the first of January with reactions of fans and users of Netflix who thanked the platform for doing this. This single tweet from Netflix got over twelve thousand likes and almost four thousand people responded to it. This shows how Netflix is
communicating with its users and supplying them with their requested content. This keeps its audience subscribed, even though it is not original content. By giving the audience the possibility to request a series and therefore have any influence in what its library consists of, Netflix builds upon the viewers’ trust in the platform. It establishes a certain type of
relationship between the consumers and the platform.
2.2 Netflix’s House of Cards
When searching for House of Cards on Netflix, the first item that pops up is the Netflix Original House of Cards (2013). This is not surprising, in the way that this is the content that Netflix partially created. It wants to exploit this as much as possible. The BBC version, House of Cards trilogy (1990) is shown second. (Figure 1) This is the very first version that was broadcast on linear television during the nineties. Netflix has incorporated this version in its library as well. The reason why Netflix might carry it as of this moment in its library, even 1 https://help.netflix.com/nl/titlerequest
though its own produced content is doing well, is to be transparent about its content. When asking people around me whether they knew House of Cards (2013) was a remake, none of my family or friends knew this was a fact. Nonetheless, it is no secret that Netflix has based its own version on the older version. It might simply be available on the platform in order to avoid confusion between the two versions. It is evident Netflix wants you to watch its own content, even though it does not really matter to the platform or its profits which version you watch. As long as a user pays for a subscription, it does not matter in what way a user actually uses the account.
Another reason for his older version being present on the platform might be to create anticipation among its audience for its new content. Leyda mentions a theory about this, saying that the platform might use the older version in order to create a certain anticipation and nostalgic expectation.
“Such nostalgic binging seemed like a perfect way to cycle through the old episodes and get psyched up for the new revival series, and the original series certainly offers rewards to those repeat viewers in allowing more opportunities to appreciate running gags and more subtle ironies that might have eluded them at first sight.” (Leyda, 354)
Also, a strategy of the series itself might be to incorporate inside jokes or indirect clues within the new series, which refer back to the older series. In order to understand them, a user of the platform should have watched the older version before the new version. This might be a reason for Netflix to have the CBS’s House of Cards (1990). This raises the following questions: Does Netflix make the connection between the old and revived version clear to its users? Does House of Cards link to House of Cards, in any particular sequence? The answer to both is, not quite.
1: Search results for House of Cards
2.3 Recommendations on Netflix
Netflix uses certain strategies in order to attract viewers. By creating its own series, it has accomplished a certain status when it comes to its library. Its ‘own’ content has received great reviews and occupies a high quality position within the industry. When a user has finished a series or certain program on Netflix, the platform recommends you something comparable to watch next in order to keep you connected. These recommendations are personal, so as a user I might get other recommendations than someone else who has watched different series before House of Cards (2013). Since there are two versions available on the platform of which one is produced by Netflix itself, it would be logical if both of them were to refer to each other. What I find remarkable is that none of the recommendations refer to the other version, regardless of which version you finish. For both ending series, the user gets three other recommendations to watch next. All of the recommendations are Netflix Originals, but the new version does not link to the old version or the other way around. My expectation was that, at least the recommendations after watching the old version of 1990 would refer to the Netflix Original House of Cards (2013). In my case, Netflix did not do that. I have taken screenshots of the recommendations Netflix gave me to watch next after watching the trilogy of 1990 and the Netflix Original of 2013. The screenshots of my Netflix interface show both the recommendations after watching the last episode of the last season. What can be noted from these screenshots is that both recommendations are referring to other Netflix Originals
only. It is not referring to any content that is related to the 1990 version from for instance the same time period. Neither is it recommending the new House of Cards (2013). In this case, I would think this is because I have already watched both the versions. Since Netflix ‘knows’ what I have watched already it seems obvious that it is not involving content that I have already seen. I tried searching for the last episode of the last season of House of Cards (1990) on another mobile device and on another account. The exact same recommendation popped up, which was the Bobby Kennedy series, also a Netflix Original. This means that even when watching the older version on another account of a user that has not watched the new version yet, it still does not recommend its own version.
These findings turned out differently than expected, when having Netflix’s algorithm system in mind.
3: Recommendation after House of Cards (1990)
Based on these findings, it could be concluded that Netflix does not really lead an audience a predetermined certain way into connecting remakes to its successors. After all, the platform is relying on a technical algorithm which does not humanly think about these connections. It seems as if, as long as a user is connected to any other content on the platform in any other way, Netflix does not feel the need to connect them to true relatable content but its own exclusive content. Since Netflix cannot ‘read minds’ of its users, it is assigned to the ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ button. In order to get more information on what the users want, they will have to search further than the platform itself by using social media.
Since Netflix does not have a comment section or can read its users minds, it will have to rely on other ways to hear the opinions from its users. On platforms like Instagram, the team behind Netflix Originals can measure what kind of response a series has, since it is a platform that a lot of its users use as well. Instagram and Facebook can be used as a tool in order to find out what kind of content its users are expecting and how they are reacting to different types of episodes as well. By using these platforms as a tool, a lot more details can be given than just the algorithm Netflix uses on its own platform.
2.4 Facebook
Social media reveal a lot about how a series or movie is being received by an audience. People feel free to express their opinions online, because it allows for a certain type of anonymousness. The only way Netflix can get any get any information on its productions, is by statistics from its own platforms and the number of comments, likes and shares on social media. In order to find out what kind of an impact a Netflix Original remake has, I have looked at a small part of the social media statistics. As an example I have looked up the official Facebook pages of Dynasty (1981-1989) and Dynasty (2017-). The original Dynasty (1981-1989) was a very successful soap opera, which lasted for nine seasons on CBS. The show was characterized by women with big hair, glamour, so called cat fights and drama. The very last episode was broadcast almost thirty years ago and since then it has had some returns including a film and a special episode much later. In the last decade the attention for Dynasty has faded more and more. The generation of the millennials that is the major group watching Netflix might not even know about the existence of the original series. The new version of Dynasty (2017-) is produced by the CW in America, of which Netflix has bought the
international streaming rights. The characters and the plot are almost exactly the same as the original and the issues are comparable. It has been modernized in order to fit the
contemporary audience, but this should not have been a challenge since the pre-existing version of the series was quite progressive for its time.
In order to compare them, some aspects have to be taken into account. Firstly, the first version of Dynasty was broadcast over thirty years ago. This means that the audience for this series has aged as well and might not be interested in Facebook the same way the new audience is. Their engagement with social media and their behavior might not correspond with the youth that has grown up with it. This means that the engagement on sites such as Facebook will be different and significantly less than how teens and adolescents are doing now. Secondly, the new series is being broadcast right now, meaning that there is a lot more to talk about on social media. There are new episodes every week and therefore, it keeps the audience hooked. I have searched for both pages on the same date, which was 11 May 2018. In the next chart I have gathered some basic information on both the pages.
Dynasty (1981-1989) Dynasty (2017-)
43.140 people liked the page 137.557 people liked the page Multiple posts by the page itself every
month
Multiple posts by the page itself every week Every post a few hundred likes Never above 2000 likes per post, average
around 1000 likes
Average around 20-30 shares Average abound 100 shares per post
What I find interesting is that the page of the early Dynasty (1981-1989) is still very alive, given the fact that is has not been broadcast for over thirty years. This might be because there is still an enormous fanbase behind this account. This might have resulted into the creation of a remake by the CW, since they noted the fact that the fanbase is still very active and alive. This creation of a remake can also have sparked the older audience to re-watch the older series and therefore revive the enthusiasm for the old version. The recreation might have many effects on the older audience and can create enthusiasm for both versions. It is not that strange that the newer Dynasty (2017-) page is posting more content, such as photos, videos and texts, and it has way more user engagement than the older page. This is because it was broadcast on the CW and released on Netflix recently, which encourages the audience to talk about it online. Nevertheless, it is surprising that the old page has so many likes and that every post is getting noticed by its audience, even when the posts are not that consistent. The
expectations were that the new page would have a lot more engagement, since its target audience is exactly the audience that uses Facebook often. What can be concluded from this table is that since the audience for the old version is very alive, the demand for new content is high. The production of an adaptation in any kind of way was inevitable, since the first Dynasty (1981-1989) was so legendary and still much loved.
2.5 Instagram
It is interesting to look at a platform like Instagram when looking for the pages of Netflix Originals. It almost seems like on Instagram there is made a distinction between different types of Netflix Originals, and this is noticeable between the different pages. When searching for the series which are produced by the CW, Riverdale (2017) and Dynasty (2017), there is an official page for both of them. It is remarkable that Netflix is not included in the name or in the description. The CW, on the other hand, is referred to in the official Instagram names. For instance, the page of Riverdale (2017) is called ‘thecwriverdale’ and Dynasty (2017) is called ‘cw_dynasty’. This reveals that the shows are produced by another company than Netflix. Shows which are actually produced by Netflix or there has been involvement in the
production by the platform have official names with direct links in the description to watch it on Netflix. For instance, House of Cards (2013) is called ‘houseofcards’ on Instagram and 13
Reasons Why (2017) is called ‘13reasonswhy’. What this means is that a critical user of Instagram and Netflix can see the difference between the pages. What is also interesting is a Netflix Original series such as Lilyhammer (2012) has ‘frozen’ its Instagram account,
meaning they will not be posting any content anymore. They have announced its official leave from this platform and redirect its followers to other platforms. The audience can still react to its posts, even though they have shut its activity down on this account. Whether this has anything to do with the fact that Netflix is not involved in the production anymore is unclear. Whoever has the control over this Instagram account is unclear, since there were multiple parties creating this show. The fact that Netflix has announced it is quitting the production of this series in combination with the shutting down of the Instagram feed, will make users assume Netflix has the control over the series as well as the social media attached to it. Therefore, they might believe that only Netflix has the exclusive rights of this series, meaning it is a true Original series. The organization concerning the parties involved within this and other productions will be explained in the following chapter.
2.6 Twitter
A lot of feedback from Netflix users is also given through Twitter. As users of Twitter are tagging the shows in their tweets, the creators of the shows and Netflix itself can keep track of what their opinions are about for instance certain episodes or characters. The following chart includes data from 2015, and shows how many times Netflix Original Series were mentioned on Twitter. A total of 1,7 million tweets included mentions of Netflix Original series, which might even exclude the tweets where no direct link was made between the shows or Netflix. This means, directly tagging it or mentioning it via hashtag or any other way to incorporate the show within the 140 character message.
Interestingly, House of Cards (2013) got mentioned the most while it was not a new show. The third season got released in the beginning of that year, which meant that people got a lot to talk about online. By keeping the conversation alive online, the users of Netflix promote the platform and its shows for free. This is beneficial for Netflix, since this type of marketing does not cost a penny for them but is very effective. Remarkably, House of Cards (2013) is in fact a remake and is scoring the highest on this chart. This shows that Netflix knows exactly what its users want to watch and keep on expanding on this type of content.
Conclusion
Netflix is being seen as a major player in the role of making revivals popular. With its online streaming platform, it has brought back the attention to older sitcoms and drama series. This happened by including these in its library, but also reviving them into new and exclusive shows. Loock addresses the current debate surrounding the meaning of television and new media in our lives nowadays and the reasons for bringing back older television shows. She mentions other writers such as Lizardi and Leyda, who have discussed revivals of television shows as well and have concluded that Netflix has had the role of major engine behind the revival trend. Loocks concludes her own article by saying the following about these
discussions within these articles: “They are a timely intervention into current debates about the role television and new media play in our lives, and the ways in which enduring media texts can shape processes of identity formation and media-generational positioning.” (Loock, 307) It is valuable to look at the textual death of a series, which is being revived within a few years. This means that the previous text still matters in today’s time and it should not be 2 https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-how-netflix-originals-dominate-twitter/
underestimated in what ways it contributes to the debates concerning contemporary issues. Since many audiences are requesting a sequel or revival of their older favorite shows, Netflix contributes to this demand by supporting the creation of these and adding them to its library. By using different ways to search for its audience demands, it gets insights on what will work for its platform and what will not. The reviving trend of older television shows and series might not have worked for linear television due to new ways of viewing video content.
When searching for literature about Netflix’s library from years ago, most articles were written in the years 2014 or 2015. Back then, the originals such as House of Cards (2013) and Orange Is the New Black (2013) were claimed to be actual original content, which is thought to mean that Netflix has selected the actors and produced the shows. The drama and sitcom were made to be shown on Netflix exclusively. Before these shows, Netflix was not that big of a player on the SVOD market. Starting as a DVD rental website, it has evolved into a streaming service that is producing its own content. The chief executive officer of Netflix, Reed Hastings, has given an interview in the Wallstreet Journal in June 2009, where he talked about new strategies that Netflix had to adopt in order to keep competing within the
distribution of the movie industry. Apparently, it has had some trouble with the licensing of content of big Hollywood production studios, such as Sony Pictures. At the time this interview was done, Netflix was not a big distributor of content yet and it was struggling to survive as a company. “One of Mr. Hastings’s biggest hurdles will be persuading Hollywood studios to give Netflix rights to show more and better movies through its Internet service at a time when many studios are protective of its DVD-sales revenues. Late last year, Sony Corp.’s Sony Pictures threw a hitch into Mr. Hastings’s plans when it temporarily blocked access to some of its movies from Netflix’s Internet video service in a dispute over whether Netflix had rights to them.” (Wingfield) At this time, Netflix had been a streaming service for less than two years, and was already struggling with licenses. Users did not like all the content and the status of the platform was not one of high quality. It has been accused of ‘buying’ bundling deals, which meant that it got the successful content in a package deal. This package deal would include bigger movies that would get the audience’s attention, but also some movies to fill the library with content that nobody is actually interested in. It also had to take content that was less wanted or viewed. This was denied by Netflix later on, because “the programmers claim that decisions to license are made based on individual characteristics of what customers like, “rather than being a broad distributor,” dropping titles that are not watched enough.” (Hiller, 69) In March 2011, Netflix announced that it had signed a deal to produce its first original content, which was House of Cards (2013). Netflix had committed to making 26 episodes, without a try-out or a pilot. (Cook,7) This was very unusual, since most starting series on television had to make a pilot first in order to convince the broadcaster it would be successful. The announcement of the production of original content worked in its favor, since it received a lot of attention and therefore gained more subscribers. Within a few years, Netflix has developed itself into an enormous distributor of video content, which is nowadays being streamed online. In a post to the investors of Netflix called “Netflix Long
Term View”, Netflix talked about its future and what they expected the future of television to be. The platform believes Internet TV would replace regular, linear broadcasting and apps would be the next successor of channels. (Netflix, 2013b) The act of watching television would evolve into something entirely different, which is why Netflix chose to quit the DVD rental service and start to offer a streaming platform only instead. “In 2014, there were more people streaming video content online than physical discs were used.” (Hiller, 65) Netflix had made a comeback on the video distributing market, which also showed in its stock
performance. At the end of 2012 its stock price was estimated around eighty dollars, while in the beginning of 2013 the price rose up to one hundred dollars. By the end of that year, its stock price was trading for over three hundred dollars. (Netflix, 2014) This can be linked to the launch of its first original series, which had started that year. It is being said that Netflix was just moving and evolving with the current video content setting, which means that a company cannot just focus on one branch of the industry anymore. “The company also ties in with a discourse in contemporary capitalism where media corporations never appear to be exclusively producer, exhibitor and distributor of content, but additionally seem to be linked in with other markets.” (Jenner, 269) By licensing and therefore distributing content,
producing it by itself and also having a platform where users can watch it, Netflix covers all fields of the video distribution industry. This is partly where the confusion about what parts Netflix content is it owned by Netflix, starts for its users.
By branding its content in a certain way, Netflix has drawn attention to itself as a platform and producer of content. It is interesting to look at the manner Netflix brands its content, and how no distinction is made between different types of content since there are many types of content made available. All of them are combined within the same brand, which is the ‘Netflix Original’. There are many types of content that Netflix states as ‘original’. This term is exactly what might be confusing the audience into thinking that Netflix has produced this content itself. I want to start by defining what is generally meant by the term ‘original’. When searching for the term ‘original’, the Cambridge dictionary defined it as the following: “not the same as anything or anyone else and thereforespecial and
interesting” and also: “existing since the beginning, or being the earliestform of something”. 3
This would mean that programming that has anything incorporated that is not created or produced for the first time by Netflix, is not eligible for the category of ‘original
investment. Therefore, the shows that I would accept as ‘Netflix Original’ would be defined differently. In my definition of original content I would like to exclude content that is
referring to other content in any way, because this happens in television series and movies all the time. That does not mean the show is not original or inventive, but most of the time it is mentioning another program in order for its own content to make sense or raise a certain connotation or connection. In the following segment of this chapter I will use this definition in order to define what is original content and what is not.
3.1 Distinctions in types of original content
Netflix started off its so-called original programming with co-commissioning Lilyhammer (2012) in the first season. It collaborated with a Norwegian broadcaster, but were not the head commissioner of the first season. Still, Netflix branded it as a Netflix Original. “During the production of season 1, Netflix joined up as a co-investor, transforming Lilyhammer from an externally produced NRK series to an international, co-produced NRK/Netflix series, or the ‘first original Netflix series’, as Netflix promptly branded it.” (Sundet, 7) Since Netflix was not broadly known as a big competitor in the distribution of content, this is quite an odd move because it did not have that much meaning yet and Netflix was a co-producer and therefore not the main investor. At this time, a lot of the showrunners had not even heard of Netflix as a company itself. “One year after joining in the production of Lilyhammer, Netflix launched itself in the Norwegian market, using its investment in Lilyhammer as a way to announce itself. As a ‘local’ television drama produced in partnership with a ‘quality’ public service broadcaster and promoted by a well-known US ‘star’, Lilyhammer must have suited Netflix’s strategy perfectly.” (Sundet, 8) Netflix started its growth with this first series, and by the time the third season was produced Netflix was the main investor with the biggest budget. This shifted the power balance between the Norwegian broadcaster NRK and Netflix, and it became the most expensive show to be produced in Norway ever before. This shows that Netflix had grown as a company enormously within and during this production, which created space for more investments in its own content. The question still remains, how come Netflix marketed this show as an original and how come people assume this entire series is Netflix’s property?
The second type of content Netflix refers to as ‘original’ is the content Netflix has actually produced and created with its own budget, which creation is based on its algorithmic information. Since Netflix started off with licensed content, its statistics showed them what
programs, genres, actors etcetera were viewed the most. More so than broadcasters, Netflix’s algorithmic structure allows the owners to look into every successful or failing aspect of a show or film. “(…) the massive amount of data on viewership that Netflix collects, including more than fifty data points about the consumption of every film and television show, give the company substantial capacity to predict what viewers want, far more than traditional Nielsen ratings ever gave broadcasters.” (Havens, 6) Incorporating all these success factors into one show and neglecting the weakening features, Netflix created its own content. This is was the first major step to its international success and expanding of its platform. An example of this type is for instance House of Cards (2013) or Orange Is the New Black (2013). “In the case of Orange Is the New Black, Sarandos reports that Netflix has exerted “a lot of casting
influence” over the property based on what its algorithms suggested would be the most effective choices for actors in terms of attracting audiences and new subscribers.” (Hallinan and Striphas, 128) Even though Havens argues otherwise, House of Cards (2013) has been commissioned by Netflix itself. Since these are not only exclusively available on Netflix (aside van piracy websites) but also completely self-commissioned by the company, they seem to be true originals. Nevertheless, the storyline of these shows is not unique or created by Netflix completely. This will be further discussed at the end of this chapter.
Thirdly, there is ‘original’ content that Netflix has not originally started from the beginning, but has commissioned extra seasons or an additional movie chapter of. This means that there is already an existing season of a series, or a movie has come out that Netflix is making a sequel of. This type or original content is also exclusively available on Netflix. For instance, Netflix has made it possible to continue the series Arrested Development (2013) that had aired on television for three seasons, starting in 2003. Ten years later, Netflix had picked up on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that there was a demand for a fourth season. Netflix commissioned this and made sure a fourth season was produced. This fourth season was branded as a Netflix Original, even though the first three seasons are not. Netflix has licensed the first three seasons to be shown on Netflix, but they are not branded the same type of way as the fourth season.
The fourth type of ‘original’ content is its licensed content. These include movies and television series that the platform has bought the exclusive rights for. Exclusive has multiple meanings in this sense as well. It includes content that has already aired on television for instance in America, and then is distributed internationally by Netflix exclusively the day after. Examples of this are Riverdale (2017) and Dynasty (2017). Also, it means series that
are not produced by Netflix, but it has paid for the rights to have it being available on Netflix only. For both these examples the same facts apply. Both series were broadcast first on the CW, which is a broadcasting channel aimed at teenagers and adolescents. The CW has produced both series and owns all the rights to the content, even though Netflix brands it as a Netflix Original. The producer of Dynasty talked about this deal with Netflix, saying: “We own 100 percent of the show, and we’ve already licensed it to Netflix in 188 countries. … So this means ‘Dynasty’ is profitable before it even hits the air.”4 This means that it is
a great deal for broadcasters such as the CW to produce content, because they are sure it is worth its investments and will become profitable. Netflix has to make careful decisions in order to keep its brand identity stable. This means that Netflix has selected these shows not based on its ratings, since they have not been aired yet, but on certain expectations.
The distinction between these types of ‘originals’ is made by the way Netflix pays for it. It is either completely self-commissioned, co-produced and co-commissioned or licensed in such a way that it is exclusively available on Netflix after it has been broadcast on regular television. In both cases, Netflix has payed a certain amount of money in order to make it available and exclusive.
3.2 Questioning true originality
Now that the distinctions between the different types of ‘original content’ have been explained, the actual originality of the shows has to be discussed. Netflix has continuously been talking about the originality of content, even though this is not the correct term. Terms such as ‘exclusive’ or ‘unique’ would describe the content better in that way, since most of the content is not original in any way apart from the distribution forms. ‘Netflix selected’ or ‘Netflix approved’ would match the programs better and also be less confusing to the viewers. I would argue that none of the content is truly original, since all of the ‘originals’ include a factor that is not produced or provided by Netflix. By using the examples that have been used before, I will reflect on these factors. Concerning Lilyhammer (2012), there are a lot of factors which imply that it is not an Netflix Original show. Given the fact that Netflix was a co-producer and had not come up with the story or the characters, I would argue it is not. It is not an original production, nor is it an exclusive production, since it was available on Norwegian 4 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/renewcancel/cancel-bear-vs-the-cw-week-3-dynastys-slow-start-wont-matter/ (viewed 9-1-2018)
television first. Also, the rights for broadcasting have been bought by multiple broadcasters such as SBS Australia, BBC Four in the United Kingdom and many others. Also, it is a peculiar fact that Netflix announced the ending of the show, even though it is not the main producer and does not own the rights of the show. It will not distribute a fourth season on its platform. Nevertheless, the NRK broadcaster can decide to produce a fourth season if they would feel like it could be profitable. Therefore, marketing Lilyhammer (2012) as a Netflix Original is misleading and incorrect, based on the definition of originality.
House of Cards(2013) for instance, is the first ever ‘true Netflix original’, but is based on a mini-series which was broadcast in the 1990s, which was based on a book written by Michael Dobbs. This older version of the series is also available on Netflix as of right now, which includes the same kind of storyline, characters and even the exact same name. Oddly, when asking people who have watched House of Cards (2013), they had no knowledge of the first eponymous version even though when searching for the name both the versions appear next to each other. This tells something about the way Netflix works as an program as well. It could mean that most users will not search for the series that it is known for, but it is
presented and offered to them by Netflix itself. Therefore, those who do not know about the first original version, they will believe Netflix came up with the story itself. I would rather argue that Netflix made a remake version of the previous House of Cards (1990), including some of the same characters and storylines. Netflix has expanded the story enormously and has rewritten a lot of the storylines and character developments, but the starting point remains the same. Orange Is the New Black (2013) has a similar origin. It is based on a prison memoir written by Piper Kerman, who tells a story about how her drugs dealing past catches up with her and makes her serve fifteen months in prison. It is true that Netflix has commissioned and produced both these shows itself, but the ideas concerning the story are not that original after all. They have done work concerning the casting of the actors, rewriting the script, filming and producing the ‘new’ show, but this does not mean it has owned the content from the start. Going back to my definition of originality, I would not consider both these shows as true originals. The remake of Dynasty (1981) is also called a Netflix Original, even though Netflix has had nothing to do with the production, nor the storyline. Netflix has bought the rights for distribution internationally and that is all it did in order to call it an original series. The content has been recycled and produced by another company. Therefore, none of it is original to Netflix itself.
Has Netflix actually produced any true originals, according to my definition of originality? A great example for a true original is Stranger Things (2016). Even though not the first true original, it is the biggest and most hyped up production Netflix has created within several years. In 2016, Stranger Things (2016) appeared on the home screen of Netflix and went viral among its viewers. It almost became a cultural phenomenon and received many awards for its originality and high quality. Since Netflix does not publish elaborate ratings or how many times a show is being watched, it is hard to pose any conclusions on this.
Nevertheless, it has published the figures for American ratings. “Stranger Things is among Netflix’s most successful original productions to date. It took just 35 days for it to be viewed by an estimated 14.07 million U.S. domiciled 19-49-year-olds and Stranger Things was the third most watched Netflix original to debut in 2016.” (Dunleavy) Stranger Things has not been broadcast on television or anywhere else than Netflix and is fully paid for by Netflix as well. The reason for it not being broadcast on regular television, is partly because it got rejected by many stations. They figured the financial risks were too high and the story had to be rewritten in order to be suitable for television. The writers, Matt and Ross Duffer,
continued searching for a producer to elaborate and amplify their twenty page pitch which was the start of Stranger Things (2016). “Indicative of the risk that Netflix seemed more than willing to take in ‘greenlighting’ their idea, the very feature that most distinguishes Stranger Things within high-end drama – the narrative predominance of pre-teen rather than adult characters – was the primary deterrent for the many cable networks (reputedly 15-20) which ‘passed’ on the Duffers’ pitch.” (Dunleavy) If the pitch of Stranger Things (2016) had been accepted by a broadcaster, it could have turned out to be a completely different show. Netflix has emphasized that it needed the Duffer Brothers to be the head of the writing team, in order to give them the complete liberty to make their own show in collaboration with them. Even though it has been pointed out by many critics that the series include a lot of references to the eighties’ movies, there are no direct similarities between the different types of content. There are many videos to be found where several scenes are compared next to one another, in which similarities are to be found. It might be true that the producers have used several movie scenarios as inspiration of this show, but that does not mean the show itself lacks originality in storyline or production. Therefore, Stranger Things (2016) is one excellent example of a true Netflix Original.
Another example of a ‘true’ Netflix Original Series according to my conclusions is 13 Reasons Why (2017). Even though it is based on a best-selling novel, written by Jay Asher, it
