Of Storytelling & Formulas
A streaming world of data, templates, ingenuity & originality.
The average consumer of streaming/TV shows and films does not think anywhere near as much about it as many of us might do. Yet, even behind a show that touches hearts most fleetingly, there is a much creative love and pain. Much strategising. And data.
More and more, there is data. Who needs to go on gut, when science can tell us what to do? Algorithms ahoy!
As someone who loves being sucked into a show, respects the craft (and strategy) behind it- and yes also works on it- I find the lasting tussle between creativity & economics fascinating. I am constantly curious about how this dynamic shapeshifts.
In today’s dispatch I look at our era of content creation that has been constantly- yet differently- shaped by streaming economics; sharing some perspectives around how this is playing out across the world, with unsurprisingly common themes, yet (fortunately?) no clear path.
In Curated/Cuts you will have the chance to wade through bean bag detritus, party in Abu Dhabi, and be stuck somewhere between Squid Games & The Matrix. Jump ahead if you want some visual entertainment first!
+ Quickies on a slowdown in South Korean production, big money into Youtube golf, AppleTV’s continued punt quality over quantity, Netflix’s new game and the renewal of Mr Beast’s not so new one.
Here we go.
Of Storytelling, Data & Disengagement.
We are frequently told the era of Peak TV is all but over. Premium shows, once the provenance of HBO, then FX, then early Netflix, then everyone in the streaming game, seem to be ceding ground once more to fare that can appeal to wider audiences, provide more volume, more longevity, more… efficiency.
{ If it means no more stunning displays of craft, writing and emotion like what we have just seen from Netflix UK (yes, that show made in four shots), it is our collective loss. }
Yet, the tussle between the creative desire for boldness, experimentation, and originality; and the economic mantras of doing what works, is not a new tussle. I looked at some recent opinions and reports that grapple with this in a era that has been constantly- yet differently- shaped by streaming economics.
“Someone has to die within the first five minutes of a show.”
THR explored some views of those who craft streaming stories in India today. While the tendency to repeat successful tactics is by no means new, the piece argues that its ‘institutionalisation’ is what sets the current climate apart from previous commissioning eras. It posits that data obsession is leading to formulas and templates that culminate in 'the equilibrium of manageable mediocrity.’
For writers and creators, it feels like you are working to serve an algorithm, or indeed, multiple algorithms. It speaks to a long running debate about providing people what they want, or helping them find something they didn’t realise they’d like. “Today, it is harder to sell a story that is not templated, a template arrived at by past successes and rigorous backend data — drop-off rates, drop-off points, completion rates, and so on.”
These touchpoints are by no means exclusive to India. Co-opting creative planning and managing the beats in a series, are themes touched upon across markets, though usually in subdued tones.
Serving audiences with the content they want, or believe they want, is a decisive shift, and a contrast to the European cultural aim of building diversity by giving people what they do not know they want. _from the IJC study. (emphasis mine)
Over in Europe, a recent study from the International Journal of Communication was based on fourteen semi-structured interviews with television and film industry professionals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, and Spain. It looked at how Netflix's increased production of local streaming content is affecting European television production practices, throwing up some worthy discussion points.
There’s a clear pattern of data-informed commissioning strategies, targeting specific audience segments and genres that perform well locally, or fill gaps in their content slate. This is self-evident, of course, but the shaping of content for audiences is a fundamental difference for many in a geography where this has not been de rigeur.
A track record of excessive focus on the first fifteen minutes of a pilot is unsurprising. Many interviewees did stress though, “this was general knowledge- ‘If you don’t grab people from the beginning, they will leave’- (but it is) repackaged as novel data, and fixated on.”
Forget the degradation of art into content. Content has been demoted to concept. And concept has become a banner ad.
Then there is that writer’s creative bane, valid but likely reported disproportionately:
Developing content for a disengaged audience.
As in numerous pieces in the last couple of years across markets, producers and writers in this study touch upon the need for shaping storytelling for distracted audiences.
This is particularly so for shows usually meant for younger audiences, though the practice of ‘second screening’ is certainly not exclusive to generations. Acknowledging that viewers may be engaging with the show on mobile phones or secondary screens, while multitasking, has led to the screenwriting principle, “show, don’t tell” being challenged, even upturned.
As a European producer shared, “They (a streamer) basically said, ‘What you need to know about your audience here is that they will watch the show, perhaps on their mobile phone, or on a second or third screen while doing something else and talking to their friends, so you need to both show and tell, you need to say much more than you would normally say. [. . .] You need your audience to understand what’s going on, even if they’re not looking at the screen.”
Data suggests that over half of the viewers in many national markets^- including in India, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the United States, Britain and Denmark- are periodically checking their phones while watching TV.
Two years ago, actor Justine Bateman notably said in Hollywood, "I’ve heard from showrunners who are given notes from the streamers that 'This isn’t second screen enough.' I heard somebody use this term before: they want a 'visual muzak.'”
Or the thought that, when a viewer’s primary screen is presumed to be the phone, they shouldn’t be so challenged by a show, that they tune out.
Marina Hyde called this ‘depressing’ on her podcast; she is assuredly not the only one who is underwhelmed by the idea of catering to distracted viewers with over-exposition and ‘dumbing down’.
Is it inherently bad to cater to people who may prefer their viewing on the more casual side? Is it snobbery to believe that TV must demand all of our attention all of the time? _Ralph Jones in The Guardian
This is, of course, only part of a content strategy; I doubt even the most cynical would claim this is a pillar of Netflix or any other streamer’s approach. They are usually looking to cater to multiple genres/demos, and this might just be the fit for some of them. In a way, this could be called “catastrophising a niche problem”. Besides, neither the problem of keeping attention, nor the solution of simplifying narratives, is new in itself.
However, for creatives- writers, filmmakers, showrunners, this not an obscure problem. It is at the core of their endeavours; their art, even. These conversations come at a time when we’ve been accustomed to the storytelling intensity of ‘Peak TV’, around the globe. Premium series demand our attention, and many of us love it precisely because it can be complex & all-consuming. In that light, these tactics can seem shallow, distanced from the creative art.
“The question is: Are some shows written like this because the audience is disengaged, or is the audience disengaged because shows are written like this?“
Back in markets like India, there is a growing contention that much of the elevated storytelling we can now see is achieved despite the streamers, not because of them. Though this might come across as a bit of hyperbole given the boom streamers have engendered, critics point to some of the titles held aloft as beacons of artistic integrity, of not following a mould… which have been acquired, not commissioned.
This recently rose to some amount of chat again when, in the global afterglow of one of the finest series in recent times (yes, Adolescence), creatives claimed such shows, such storytelling punts, such audacious experiments, have only a tiny chance of being greenlit in the country.
None of that means people simply cannot pay attention, or that stories should be intentionally crafted for people who have the show on in the background. _James Hamilton, screenwriter.
Property
The other part of this puzzle of familiarity and homogeneity is the term every media exec loves, and many critics love to groan at- IP. A desire to repeat success and milk a good thing is the very basis of what can only be called an obsession with IP in the last decade or so. Seen as the only golden ticket for media and entertainment companies crushed by the attention economy. the pursuit of rich IP is seen- unequivocally- as the single path that must be followed. This has led to an explosion of adaptations, remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels.
This bothers many who believe storytelling needs to strive for originality. It is, after all, another kind of formula, of reverting to type. How much ever it might hurt the creative heart, the economics simply can’t be avoided. Brandon Katz checks the numbers- he posits that the original concepts on screen have lost “in a landslide” over the last 15 years. Glibly, he asks us to not blame those who fixate on searching for adaptation gold:
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Elsewhere, in a related rant/analysis/opinion piece, Namwali Serpell speaks to the ‘The New Literalism’ plaguing today’s biggest movies, the “relentless sign posting of meaning & intent”. It bemoans this trend awash across all film- many of the Oscar laureates display this sense of ‘simplifying’, “The point is not to be lifelike or fact-based but familiar and formulaic—in a word, predictable. Artists and audiences sometimes defend this legibility as democratic, a way to reach everyone. It is, in fact, condescending.“
“Just watch it. You make television so people will complete it because it’s good and they enjoy it and they wanna watch it. What you don’t do is make it so simple that it’s just like chewing gum.” _*Danny Brocklehurst, Producer of multiple Netflix shows.
What I must believe, is that good TV is meaningful, even when fluffy, because it moves us in some shape of form. Making wallpaper cannot be an end. Who wants to only chew gum?
Reading:
· Perfecting Second Screen Shows · The Decline of Originality · The New Literalism · Deliberately dumbing down TV? ·
· IJC study · ^Second screen study ·
Curated/Cuts.
1.
This mildly entertaining, initially smart yet eventually confounding spot is Perplexity’s first real consumer push. The celebrity combo is spot-on, and the quiz device clever, plus hello! matrix corridor! But then it devolves into a me-is-better ad, dunking Google for its (woeful) high profile search missteps. I have used Perplexity, and it is positioned to be much more than merely Google ++ ; the future of search will truly look something like this. Yet, that’s pretty much all the spot looks to do. Good ingredients, a bit gone to waste?
2.
In a spot seemingly set on the home planet of bean bags, Max in Australia prepares for its March 31 launch with a sharp message- All Killer, No Filler, built on the data point that the average Australian spends 42 mins a day (a day!) looking for something to watch.
3.
Yas Island, the entertainment destination in Abu Dhabi, rolled out a campaign targeted at (potential) Indian tourists. It chose to bring back a popular, much-loved film from 2011, and many of the players in it, actors-characters, and writers.
A tale of three friends on a life-changing road trip peppered with ‘challenges’, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara’s urbane story, humour and emotion made the movie both entertaining and moving; but also aspirational; spurring countless plans for trips to Spain and the Tomatina festival. Here, the YAS Island team in Abu Dhabi contrived a reunion of the three friends, with its initial post dangling the possibility of a sequel, which was soon revealed to be a collab.
There’s plenty of tick marks in terms of nostalgia and feel-good, and the trio bring back their personas endearingly. Check out the series of five here.
K-wait
The rumblings around headwinds in South Korea’s entertainment industry have been on for some time. At one point a few years ago, leading in to the pandemic years and all through them, the market was seen as the hallowed ground in Asia for western media companies; while South Korean players were gung-ho about conquering the rest of Asia and, indeed, Hollywood. The soft power of k-pop and ‘hallyu’ has been hailed and content from the country continues to resonate across Asia; and no one is sounding the death-knell. Not by a long shot.
“The industry is expected to release fewer than 60 drama series this year – less than half the total from just a year ago.”
But, times are a-changing. Some might point fingers at Netflix, the very player that ushered in a dramatic upswing; others might feel the domestic studios and networks misjudged their ambitions. Either way, production volumes are down and the way forward is far from clear. Lucas Shaw writes about some of the pathways here- hopes around the return of Chinese demand, moves to increased the volume of cheaper unscripted content JVs between key players and increased co-pros with overseas partners.
Quickies
Good Good Golf, the Youtube channel and golf brand announced it has raised $45m in investment. Besides its 1.76 million subscribers, the brand has many collaborations and has started sponsoring PGA Tour golfers too.
Netflix has announced a new game with ’cozy’ vibes. Spirit Crossing is an MMO game, a first for the streamer.
Beast Games has been renewed for S2. Expected, yet it also comes amidst Jimmy Donaldson’s claims of losing millions of dollars on S1. Inevitably, the $$$ prizes have gone up, and the budget Mr Beast is looking for is a cool $150 million.
Talking of original vision and creative liberties, AppleTV+ has been known to provide just those to directors. All in the pursuit of premium content, which is in line with the company’s mantra of quality over quantity. Said Eddy Cue, Apple’s head of Services, about their approach to streaming content, “We’re betting everything on the shows that we’re doing. The ones that we do, they all need to stick. Otherwise, we have nothing else.”
That’s the Colour Bar- where creativity, content, culture, tech, brands & humanity collide.