TV On Demand: An Unsustainable Fragmentation

Huddled around the coffee machine one dull morning in the office, there was a palpable thrum of excitement in the air. Momentarily distracted from the daily pressures of client meetings and looming deliverables, my work colleagues were in uncharacteristically high spirits.

“I can’t believe how much they spent on it! Visually, the production quality is amazing to see.”

“Just saw the first episode last night, I’m not convinced it hits the mark at the moment…”

“Not giving any spoilers, but you have to watch through to episode three, it gets really good, trust me!”

It was autumn 2022, and the first series of The Rings of Power—currently the most expensive television show to ever be produced—had just been released exclusively on Amazon Prime. According to the studio, on the very first day of release, viewership hit upwards of 25 million, breaking all previous records and resulting in an instant hit sensation.

While there are plenty of varied opinions on the series itself, its undeniable success clearly reinforces the already widely accepted idea that the future of television is rooted in streaming services. However, when one colleague turned to me during that particular morning at work and asked for my thoughts on The Rings of Power, I could only smile politely and tell them that I hadn’t yet found the time to watch it. Truth be told, although I found the trailer alluring, I currently have no intention to watch the show.

And the ultimate reason for this is that I cannot afford it.

In addition to my regular monthly expenses of food, rent, bills, travel, and gym membership (to name a few), I also pay the TV licence fee, have a Netflix account, and a NOW TV membership. As much as I love watching quality drama and supporting creative arts, I have found that in many cases I simply don’t have the funds. More than ever (due predominantly to the rising cost of living) the thought of signing up to Amazon Prime, Paramount+, Hulu, Disney+, Apple TV, Sky, and any other of the 200+ global streaming providers available, is as fantastical to me as the events which occur in Middle Earth.

Although statistics for subscription and viewing figures generally paint a rosy picture for the future of on-demand film and television, they often fail to take into account more detailed demographic information.

In May 2022, a YouGov survey of a representative sample highlighted that of all adults in the UK who currently have an on-demand television subscription, 62% have reduced the amount they spend on this, or else stopped their subscriptions entirely due to cost of living cutbacks. Most interestingly, these survey responses are further segregated by gross household income, and detail that those with the lowest yearly incomes (under £20,000) are over a third less likely to sign up to streaming services than high earners. On the other hand, those in the highest pay bracket, earning over £70,000, are the most likely to pay for streaming services and also the least likely to make any cutbacks due to cost of living. This survey confirms the obvious—that the poorer you are, the less likely you will be to splash out on non-essentials.

Audience reception and engagement is core to the measure of success, and is critical to the future renewal of any series. Netflix, for example, is known to be cutthroat in its approach as it claims that “the first 28 days are critical periods” for a show, in order for it to prove it is worthy of an additional season by attracting a mass audience. Given that shows are commissioned to reflect the wants of subscribers, and given that the viewership of on-demand services is increasingly dominated by higher earners, this fragmentation of media and the resulting price hikes is slowly changing the output of content being produced, and further alienating lower income households.

As budgetary expectations and targets for modern television programmes grow ever larger, profit dictates the production of content more than ever. In other words, tried and tested ideas are seen as safe bets to lure in paying viewers, whereas shows with slower pacing or which deviate into experimentation are best avoided as they will potentially not be as successful, especially within the first 28 days of release. When the stakes are so high, producers are unlikely to take on untested formats or stories, predominantly out of necessity. This impacts overall creativity, which can be seen in real terms with shows such as Amazon Prime’s Night Sky and Netflix’s Inside Job, which were brutally axed after just one season, despite positive reviews and loyal fanbases. This points to a wider societal issue, whereby entertainment is driven primarily by the desire for profit, and this becomes a barrier to unique expression.

I understand all too well the frustration of paying for a streaming service to enjoy a series, only to find that the final episode’s cliffhanger will remain forever unresolved, and it is understandably off-putting for viewers to pay for a service not even knowing if it is worth investing time and emotions into a series when the pay-off may never even be seen. When faced with the prospect of paying for multiple subscriptions, which rise year-on-year and tempt the customer to pay even more to avoid annoying adverts, it is no wonder that piracy has become rampant over the last five years and is projected to continue increasing.

The unsustainable fragmented nature of television today warrants little faith in the future of on-demand services. However, there is undoubtedly a tipping point, which I believe we are fast approaching.

There are two possible pathways this fragmentation can take us, before the need for change becomes essential. The first is that the divide between those who can afford the cost of multiple streaming services and those who cannot may continue to widen, to the point where Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming giants develop a reputation for only catering to the highest earners, in a way not dissimilar to historic attitudes towards high-end theatre productions. The second pathway I can envisage is one where people decide on just one streaming platform that appeals to them and therefore wilfully ignore (or pirate) all other services. In other words, we may see a rise of one demographic paying for a particular on-demand service, while another demographic opts for a completely different one. In this reality, the divide between groups of people would continue to widen, and the shared joy of connecting over a television programme regardless of age, race, income or class, would become solely exclusive to terrestrial channels.

However, I remain optimistic that the future of television will continue thriving as a hugely successful modern-day mechanism for storytelling. While the increasing fragmentation is ultimately unsustainable, streaming services will no doubt continue finding ways to attract and engage a diverse range of paying viewers. The current trajectory of on-demand services is reminiscent of wider societal changes, across the entertainment and arts industry as a whole. It is a sad reality that, as the imaginative retelling of stories cannot be equated with the necessity of food, water, shelter and warmth, it is viewed instead as a luxury which can come with a pretty substantial price tag. I would argue that stories (and imagination in general) in fact serve a different essential purpose, that they separate us from the animals and shape what it means to be a human being. I believe that this fundamental desire is what continues to make film and television so popular, and that, no matter the cost, people will always ensure that this art form continues to thrive.

On-demand is still in demand.