Commentary

TV Tune-In Realities Hit Netflix In The Face

 

Netflix is the most important TV company in the world today. What a journey since that fateful UBS Media Conference sixteen years ago, when then-Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes likened Netflix’ streaming threat to media behemoths like his as nothing more consequential than the “Albanian Army.”

Today, Netflix has more than 325 million paid subscribers in over 190 countries. It reaches one billion total viewers monthly, with over 250 million of them on its ad-supported tier. Its revenues are now more than $45 billion annually, and its market capitalization is more than $300 billion.

But Netflix has a problem, one deeper and more important than the 42% that its stock price is down over the past year’s. It has an audience problem.

As has been widely reported this past week, Netflix has seen massive drop-offs in viewership of a number of its shows between seasons one and two -- some of them its most touted hits, including “Beef,” “Running Point,” “The Four Seasons” and “Avatar: The Last Airbender.”

advertisement

advertisement

This is no surprise to veterans of the television business. Netflix built an extraordinary subscriber base and franchise by focusing its programming, scheduling and marketing exclusively on building its brand and growing subscriber acquisition and retention. All the metrics and efforts focused on those aspects, with little attention to how its audiences actually watched the shows.

In an “it’s only about the subscription” world, it matters little if viewers binge-watch a show versus tune in every week to see it episode by episode. It matters little if those viewers make you a daily or weekly habit. You’re not focused on building long-term habits, you’re mostly focused on satisfying the dopamine of the five-hour binge and making sure that you have another highly attractive bingeable show for them just at the time that they need to renew their subscription.

It’s a good model for retail sales of shows. It's not a great way to build a long-term, sustainable and growing relationship with audiences and their families.

TV companies of old learned these lessons over decades. Programmers let cable companies sell subscriptions, and they focused on driving those subscribers to tune in to their channels and shows, working hard to build dependable regularity and continuity to that tune-in. They focused on building habits among viewers.

Increasing the number of viewers they could get to tune in regularly grew cable companies’ leverage with operators for carriage fees. it directly drove their cash registers through higher ratings and increased ad rates and ad sales. At TV companies, the heads of programming and of sales were kings and queens, but the head of research was King Kong.

In many of the best TV companies, the head of research had to sign off on new programming’s audience numbers to sell in the upfront. Research either signed off or directly controlled a significant portion of the program promotion spend, whether it was on the companies’ “own air,” or was run on competitors’ channels, operators’ inventory, or in media properties like TV Guide.

Conversations in the halls of those companies were fed by data, talking “lead-in” and “lead-out” numbers for shows, talking conversion rates of program promotions (cost per converted viewers), and understanding “share of eyeballs” at the person and cost-per-thousand basis.

TV companies always understood how building repeatable behaviors among viewers could build long-term loyalty. They understood the marketing power when new episodes dropped each week, a lesson well understood by Apple and HBO MAX (“Ted Lasso,” “The Pitt,” etc.).

They knew that long hiatuses between episodes were bad for keeping and growing viewership. They understood that some shows took years to find their viewership (“Mad Men”). They weren’t afraid to alter ad loads and ad pod scheduling to drive more viewers (“Empire”). They knew that driving viewership was a different playbook than driving subscriptions, and that if you did it right, you could be brilliant at both (HBO).

Netflix is now a long way from its Albanian Army toddler days. It has executed the subscription playbook brilliantly. Now, if it wants to sustain and grow its audience and viewership -- essential as advertising-support gains importance to its future -- it needs to build and execute the “tune-in playbook” as well as it did subscriptions. If it doesn’t, it will find that YouTube and Amazon Prime will become Netflix faster than Netflix can become YouTube or Amazon Prime.

What do you think?

7 comments about "TV Tune-In Realities Hit Netflix In The Face".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Jack Wakshlag from Media Strategy, Research & Analytics, July 9, 2026 at 4:22 p.m.

    Programming for subscription revenue is so very different than programming for ad revenue. Setting a balance is now their challenge. Doable, of course. 

  2. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, July 9, 2026 at 5:37 p.m.

    100% Jack, and as you know well from your Turner days, it only starts with programming. If they can't also run a strategic, effective and efficient tune-in promotion and marketing program, they will never be able to predictably build, retain and grow the audiences they need on that programming.

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, July 10, 2026 at 11:43 a.m.

    As I just posted on another forum, the main difference between the old days and what Netflix faces now is the demise of appointment viweing in streaming, at least. In olden times viewers were obliged to make spcific choices hour after hour, day after day between truly warring networks, TV stations and, to a lesser extent, cable channels. You either watched a show or you missed it--period. 

    But now, everything on streamig--or almost everything--is on-demand. FASTs excepted, consumers are no longer forced to make hard and sometimes difficult choices--or go without. This puts a blurry haze over the once vital distinctions in program quality, how the shows were scheduled, the imporatnce of time slots and lead-ins, etc. that organized consumer behavior where "TV" was concerned. The various program content services are no longer warring, face to face with eachother. And consumers are left to their own devices as to content selections, whether to drop or keep a service after seeing some new show it just made available, etc. In other words with the freedon of on-demand, we have lost much of our loyalties to individual shows or channels. We can access them anytimec we want and this leaves Netflix in a quandry--can it really be all things to all segments--or is a sharper focus needed?

  4. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, July 10, 2026 at 12:01 p.m.

    Ed, I wouldn't be so quick to write off "appontment viewing" as a behavior. Yes. Much has changed, but we've had video casette recorders, DVRs and on-demand viewing in the majority of US households for more than 30 years, so the idea of watching something "now or never" hasn't really been a reality since the 1980s. So, dropping new episodes weekly and maintaining shooting schedule during the season has proven very successful for streamers Like Apple TV+ and HBO MAX. And, Netflix has even started to test the concept with a toe in the water with half-season drops. The point is, even in an on-demand world you can drive viewers to develop daily and weekly viewership habits if you are smart, disciplined and long-term focused. It would behoove Neflix to do that or in will soon face a race to the bottom on subscription costs. And, in that world, it will lose to Amazon Prime and Google/YouTube.

  5. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, July 10, 2026 at 2:02 p.m.

    Dave even at their height DVR/R recorder usage never amounted to mare than 15% of all viewing and it was mostly the prime time entertainment shows and specials. 

    I'm not saying that appointment viewing is dead. In fact, it accounts for most of linear TV and some streaming viewing so, that's probably about half of our total TV viewing time. However, the way that Netflix and, for that matter, most other paid streaming services, are organized focuses almost entirely on the on-demand function. As a result--in my humle opinion---while it may look ---based on subscriber tallies and Nielsen viewing "share" data--- as if these services are competing nose to nose with eachother, actually, they aren't. And the practise of allowing subscribers to subscribe or cancel anytime they wish--instead of requiring long term contracts--or cancellation notices--- contributes to the less orderly situation.

  6. Jack Wakshlag from Media Strategy, Research & Analytics replied, July 10, 2026 at 2:28 p.m.

    Ed, each of these services are certainly competing nose to nose. For subscribers first, and then for time. The days of choosing between three simultaneous network fixed offerings are certainly long gone, but every network and service is competing for minutes of time. It's now multidimensional , yes, but Netflix which grew for many reasons including that studios gave it content for pennies on the dollar (Jeff Zucker was right) now has many smart challengers and it has to figure out how to grow ad impressions and not just subscribers.  I remember the articles years ago describing how Netflix data resources and system were so sophisticated they understood viewers better than anyone. Maybe that's no longer so, or maybe it never was?  

  7. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia, July 10, 2026 at 3:33 p.m.

    Jack, I remember those article too. Maybe hype and reality were much further apart than we thought :-)

Next story loading loading..