Two Strikes and They’re Out

After a short mid-summer hiatus, we’re back with another edition of Buffering. There’s a lot going on in TV land right now: Emmy nominations came out yesterday; Bob Iger announced (to few people’s surprise) that he’ll be staying at Disney until at least the end of 2026, and is now making noises about selling off ABC and bringing in a partner for ESPN; and oh, yeah: there’s now a SAG strike, too. This week’s issue starts off with some thoughts on why Hollywood’s summer of labor pains is already hurting the major conglomerates. We’ve also got (one more) follow-up to our New York Magazine story about the end of the Peak TV era. Hope your July is going well, and thanks for reading. –Joe Adalian

Reach Joe on Twitter @tvmojoe or email [email protected].


Enjoying Buffering? Share this email with your friends, and click here to read previous editions.

Hollywood’s labor nightmare scenario is now reality: Thousands of actors represented by SAG-AFTRA went on strike earlier today, joining the town’s writers in the first joint walk-out in six decades. Filming on most major U.S.-based TV productions shut down weeks ago, but with today’s development, even that meager pipeline has been shut off. And despite chatter in some trade publications about how this is some sort of “necessary” hardship which big studios can easily endure, if there are execs who genuinely believe that, I think they’re gravely mistaken.

I’m not going to wade into the details of the issues separating labor and management; if you care enough to read this, you’ve probably already briefed yourself about what’s going on (though if not, here’s a good place to start). I also am not here to declare one side righteous or the other evil (though I think the same corporate greed and short-term thinking that plagues workers in far less glamorous industries is a big part of why Hollywood has shut down). What I do feel comfortable saying is that we are now at a point where there could be real and maybe even irreversible harm done to some of the businesses overseen by the conglomerates which own the studios.

Yes, Netflix and the biggest streamers have stockpiled enough programming to keep audiences engaged for many more months. But it now seems all but assured that there will be very little new, scripted, American-made shows on the Big Four broadcast networks this fall. That’s going to cost the networks dearly because while they’ll be spending a lot less on programming during the fourth quarter, they’re also going to be bringing in a lot less in ad revenue: Big companies aren’t going to pay top dollar to put their ads on reality and game shows, even if it’s the only game in town. And while the ad market has changed a lot over the years, the fall is still the most critical quarter in TV.

Plus, if things aren’t settled until September or October — as at least one trade story almost gleefully predicted this week (no, I won’t link to it) — odds are we won’t have normal network TV schedules until January or February 2024. Given broadcast shows have almost all been in reruns since mid-May, that would mean the networks could go eight or nine months without their biggest primetime hits. Yes, the NFL will still bring in lots of viewers and ad revenue this fall, but the dwindling-yet-still-sizable mass of viewers who still make network shows a habit will have much less reason to check out the Big Four on a regular basis. Maybe execs think those viewers will come running back once a strike gets settled and shows return, but while many surely will, a not insignificant portion might just … never return. As bad as same-day TV ratings are now, they could look a lot worse after a six- or seven-month strike.

And the damage won’t be limited to the dinosaur broadcast networks. They don’t like to talk about it that much, but a huge amount of viewing on Peacock, Hulu, and Paramount+ comes from audiences watching same-week episodes of broadcast shows. Since all three of those streamers have very healthy ad-supported user bases, the lack of new primetime episodes will have an immediate impact on those platforms’ fourth-quarter revenues.

Again, if you’re Netflix or Amazon, maybe you’re not sweating this. And if Iger really is planning to sell off ABC, maybe he doesn’t care if the Alphabet network bleeds out over the next nine months. But execs at Paramount Global, NBCUniversal and, to a lesser degree, Warner Bros. Discovery (which still makes a lot of money produucing TV shows for various platforms) should actually be getting pretty worried about a long strike. Better yet, they should be doing something to get deals with the WGA and SAG done ASAP.

The impasse between the WGA and the studios is now well into its third month. We got to this place in no small part due to the fact that TV’s current streaming-centric business model has broken down, something my New York colleague Lane Brown and I discussed last month in our story “The Binge Purge.” While I promise every future edition of Buffering is not going to contain some sort of follow-up to that piece, I did want to use this week’s newsletter to share the best reader feedback we got to that article (and our annual streamer rankings) because, well, Vulture readers are pretty smart and y’all said a lot of interesting things. And lest you think I’m just recreating the comments section here, I’ve also included responses to your takes (you’re smart, but I don’t agree with you on everything.)

Having worked in TV for decades, it’s been really difficult and stressful to watch this happen — a slow motion tidal wave. The bottom has fallen out of my career at the worst possible moment, and it was totally avoidable. I ran the numbers on House of Cards when it first dropped and immediately realized that they made no sense. Netflix was in the hole for upwards of $200 million per season, which means over the course of five or six seasons they were topping out at $1 billion … for one show!

The simple fact is this, and it applies across the entire streaming industry: Subscriptions alone don’t pay for content. But it’s also important to note that TV has never existed on viewer support. Be it sponsors, advertisers, cable fees, retransmission and carriage fees, the true cost of the content coming into your home has always carried a hidden subsidy. The idea that a modified delivery system was going to change the fundamental economics of the system is ridiculous. A right-priced subscription to Netflix, meaning a fully self-sustainable revenue model, should be between 50-75% higher than it currently is.

So what does the future hold? Less content, meaning less diversity. Higher subscription fees for less service. Tons and tons of advertisements. Fewer players, because the way it stands now, the only streamers that afford to operate in the current model are those for whom streaming is a loss-leader or part of larger synergistic content play. —Jackie-Jorp-Jomp

➽ It’s hard to disagree with this reader’s diagnosis of the industry’s current problems or what’s likely to happen next. The start-up phase of streaming sold audiences (and Hollywood creators) on the idea that it was possible to funnel as much or even more programming to viewers for less than what they paid for it during the cable years. Depending on how cynical you want to get, that was either a pipe dream or a deliberate fraud, but either way, the last 18 months have shown us that there is such a thing as too much TV and, whether through more ads, higher subscription fees, or a sharp scaling back of production– or perhaps some combination of all three–the business very quickly needs to find a new, more sustainable business model. (It should also be one that pays writers and actors what they’re worth, but that’s a subject for another day.)

The traditional model was also very broken. Putting a show out and as soon as people love it, then cancel it. Everyone has their day of reckoning and it was exceptionally good because traditional TV thought it couldn’t happen to them. I remember my junior year internship, at a major network, and the staff constantly asking our opinions as “the youth” and then immediately deciding that we weren’t a big enough demographic and that all of our opinions were unpopular. Who knew we were just a few years away from upending their whole business model. —Bookles

Jealousy. The old model was crap. Most people stopped watching TV with its colossal mind-crushing adverts every three seconds. Now there are no ads, I can choose what to watch, there are lots of good shows, and I cancel when I want. How can this be worse than cable? —Itsover

Old media companies had no choice but to become streamers. Netflix turned millions of people into cordcutters. In 2010 I realized I could stop paying hundreds of dollars for cable I didn’t really watch a lot for a $10 subscription and get the entertainment I need. Even stacking a hundred dollars’ worth of multiple streaming services is a way better deal than cable because the model is far superior. —Jsecellex

Before this, you paid to watch adverts with your time, and that made it all work. Then they got too greedy, and broke their own cash cow by putting ads every 8 minutes, with product placements in between! The UK never had that issue, but the USA went wild, until Netflix broke the advertising monopoly — that’s the crucial thing this article barely touches on. But without that advert overkill, Netflix never would’ve sold so well. —discreetsecuritsolutions

➽ A few readers and sources emailed me after publication of “The Binge Purge” to note that we glossed over the point Bookles makes so well, namely that TV was broken before streaming arrived. I think it’s a valid critique: Space limitations meant we had to make some tough choices, but in a perfect world we would’ve dug deeper into how the flaws of the linear model made it so easy for Netflix and other streamers to lure audiences into their brave new world. I also would’ve liked to have taken the legacy entertainment companies to task for once again being so slow to adapt to new tech. Back in the 1980s, the big three networks — particularly CBS — were way too slow to realize how big cable was going to be, and they allowed Ted Turner, Sumner Redstone, and other future moguls to grab away market share. Things might have gone a lot differently had networks made bigger, smarter investments in cable sooner. Similarly, TV might feel a lot different now if the legacy companies had refused to license their best content to Netflix and instead decided to go all-in on streaming.

Obviously, businesses need to make a profit. But is all the whining about not making profits or about not making Tesla-style growth profits? Is there actually a problem, or is there just a problem when compared to non-socialist business operations that have been systematically reducing worker pay for decades while increasing owner profits? —Yahoo

It could be a perfectly plausible model, if the CEOs weren’t getting paid outrageous nine-figure sums when they add no value to the portfolios and do stupid things like changing everyone’s credits to “creator.” And maybe they should stop doing things like cancel popular shows after the third season to avoid paying more for a fourth, or take shows completely off the services in order to get a tax credit. Audiences aren’t going to invest time into shows or be loyal to certain streaming platforms if they think they can be wiped off the face of the earth on an executive’s whim. —Chestercopperpot

➽ So look, I don’t disagree with these readers about the many dumb moves streaming execs have made or the evils of modern-day capitalism The WGA (and SAG) are on strike because the studios they work for are owned by corporations which seem interested only in near-terms goals such as maximizing the price of their stock and figuring out how to become even bigger corporations through merging with one another. If long-term thinking ruled the day, a deal — while still difficult — might have been reached weeks ago. All that said, no, the studios are not making up a problem that doesn’t exist. The system of making a whole bunch of very expensive TV shows (and movies) and making them available for a relatively low price is a crap system, and the debt loads these companies have taken on are staggering. It’s a real crisis.

My hope is that the streamers will consolidate and take the time to develop compelling, multifaceted shows that run for 10+ episodes a season, and stop giving us bite-size portions of stuff that is either good but nobody watches it so it gets canceled (I loved Becoming Elizabeth!), or is just pure fluffy nonsense that engages like two neurons in your brain.—TwoOrThreeThings

It seems like there’s too many shows that are underdeveloped, especially those in the fantasy and sci-fi dystopian genres. Most of these shows needed more than 7-8 episodes to be fully developed and wouldn’t exist on linear ad-supported TV. I just want an entertaining show that’s fully developed for TV. Nothing grand or ‘cinematic’ is necessary. —bk88chic

➽ Lots to agree with here, but let me first say this: I think it’s a great thing that there are now TV shows which feel like extended movies because they take an entire (short) season to tell a single story or star folks like Julia Roberts and Kevin Costner. There’s nothing wrong with the best elements of TV and film merging into something else, and it’s not new, either: We used to call them miniseries. That said, as these two readers suggest, it doesn’t make sense for platforms such as Netflix to chase the big audiences network shows such as Friends or Grey’s Anatomy still get via reruns — but not following the formula which helped them become so popular. Give us shows with 16 or 18-episode seasons! Spend half as much money on production values and create a few shows which air weekly, for several months at a time, rather than get grazed over a weekend. In other words, make some TV that feels like … TV.

It’s annoying to have to constantly search where something is. I have cable and six to seven streamers, and I don’t watch half of the stuff, because I forget that I have them. It is easier to have everything in one place or at least a couple of places. Having to constantly jump from one app to the next is a pain in the butt. —ThisBtch717

FAST services are starting to gain a lot of footing [because] I can jump on Pluto at any time and watch some Star Trek. I spent 3 hours the other night watching six episodes of Married…With Children that weren’t in order, and it didn’t matter. If I want good new shows, I stick to Apple+ because there’s only one I’ve watched on there so far that was bad. Otherwise, I use whichever streamer has the TV or movie series I want to watch (or rewatch) and then move onto the next one. —TheJoeGreene75

➽ Once again, no argument from me here: TV shouldn’t be something you have to figure out; it should be something you can turn on and watch. Streamers need to make it easier for audiences to know when shows are “on” (step one: market them!) and how to create the modern equivalent of channels — destinations you can go to when you’re in the mood for a certain kind of programming. Call me a slave to the past, but I’m betting a collection of a dozen Netflix “networks,” complete with a linear schedule and unique branding, would be a hit with members and help reduce subscriber churn.

Zaslav is bringing down the debt load so he can sell it off, pure and simple. He cares about the money, not the industry. —LM85

Most of what Netflix is flogging these days is garbage, and it seems that every year they offer less and less quality catalog content. And they’re still sitting on $14 billion of debt. Advertising might save them but they are ultimately turning into just another TV network. As some of us have been saying for years, there’s just too much TV chasing too few dollars. –Pastries and…

Maybe just go back to three big networks again. All this audience cannibalization and saturation ends up hurting in the long run. —PDX2023

Pretty sure the Ponzi scheme is just end-stage capitalism. —LTJ

Maybe I’m the only one, but I really liked Rings of Power. It’s just become a convenient whipping dog, so everyone piles on. —kulturekritik

➽ Don’t have anything smart to offer about these last five comments, nor will I say how much I agree or disagree with their points — except for the last one: I liked The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, too! Hardly perfect, and probably would’ve been just as good at half the budget. But I enjoyed the journey of season one and look forward to season two sometime in 2030.

Sign up to receive Vulture’s 10x10 crossword every weekday.