The Age of Netflix Read online

  In many ways, then, the “risk” of spending $100 million to create House of Cards was not a risk at all. Netflix knew that there was an audience that loved the original BBC version as well as director David Fincher and actor Kevin Spacey. As such, there was no gamble; the algorithms demonstrated that an audience existed for this program. How Netflix continues to adapt to audience demands—the simultaneous and yet conflicting desires for both binge-able, all-at-one television releases and a communal television experience—remains to be seen. Nevertheless, many of the recent actions taken by Netflix demonstrate a critical awareness of the conflict by the media giant.

  Netflix does appear to be aware of the relationship between websites that write about television and the viewers that watch and comment on it. When releasing the second season of House of Cards, some reviewers indicated that Netflix required them to adhere to a heavy-handed embargo agreement that prohibited reviews of the first four episodes before the series’ release date.40 According to Pam Brown, the agreement included the vague, yet ominous statement, “I understand and agree that any breach of these conditions will cause irreparable harm for which recovery of money damages alone would be inadequate.”41 Here Netflix expressed concern that the season’s surprises could be spoiled for viewers. In a larger sense, Netflix’s actions continued to dismantle not only the traditional communal television model, but also the entrenched power relationship between the television critic and viewers. It is also worth noting that at least one writer defied Netflix’s wishes and released a review of the first episode early.42 It appears then, at least for now, that those whose careers depend on early access—and the ability to drive public opinion—are most concerned about the way Netflix has altered the familiar communal television model.

  It should be noted that Netflix benefits by disrupting the communal television experience. The company’s programming has been extremely successful, and the publicity garnered by each subsequent release generates continued interest in Netflix original series. Moreover, the aforementioned studies demonstrate that television audiences prefer binge-watching, which, while contrary to the traditional communal television model, is still an example of the media giant understanding and catering to audiences in a way that network and cable television cannot. Despite its existence as an agent of change, Netflix has instituted features that help to create a sense of communal experience. Movies and series on the media platform are sorted by categories including the long-standing “Popular in Your Area” and the more recently tested feature “Trending Now.” As of April 2015, “Trending Now” is still in its beta test, and the feature is not available to all users. According to Netflix’s official statement, the company notes that the feature “allows us to not only personalize this row based on the context like time of day and day of week, but also react to sudden changes in collective interests of members, due to real-world events such as Oscars or Halloween.”43 Though Netflix’s non-live, binge-watch model may appear to be anathema to live events and a larger television community, Netflix seems aware of the audience’s desire for greater connectivity and open to features that accomplish this feat.

  Finally, it is worth noting that Netflix’s influential distribution strategies have now begun to influence film releases as well. In a 2013 speech, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos remarked, “The model that we’re doing for TV should work for movies. Why not premiere movies the same day on Netflix that they are opening in theaters?”44 This development is a monumental shift for how films are distributed, and will therefore surely have a myriad of impacts on the communal experience of movies. Though this change is beyond the scope of this research, it does represent a future area of study for scholars, as both television and movies are enveloped in the larger umbrella of entertainment. Moreover, it demonstrates that the impact of streaming services on the temporal nature of the communal experience of entertainment media is malleable and in constant flux due to rapid technological advances and desire for convenience.

  The evolving temporal nature of the communal television experience represents a space to extend theories of rhetorical vernacular posited by Hauser, McClellan, and Cintron. As evidenced by the interactions on Vulture, The A.V. Club, and Grantland, the continuing interactions of critics, writers, and commenters represent the vanguard of a developing area for rhetorical examination. Furthermore, entertainment publications are still in unsettled territory in terms of negotiating an effective and acceptable communal space audience discussion.

  Through a greater understanding of the audience, Netflix has been able to quickly rival the success of traditional television. Audiences engaging in binge-watching are lured by convenience, yet simultaneously forced to adapt their familiar communal experiences, perpetuated via social media, blogs, and other online mediums, in order to fit this new model. As such, Netflix has had a number of revolutionary impacts on temporality—both in the digital and physical world. Furthermore, the disruption of online communities has created a space for burgeoning rhetorical vernacular, as audience members and bloggers struggle to adapt to a loss of traditional regulation. While many of these changes are still in their early stages, it is clear that Netflix and other streaming media have permanently altered both temporality and the communal television experience.

  NOTES

  1. Andy Greenwald, “Isolated Power,” Grantland, March 6, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/features/netflix-house-cards-gamble/.

  2. Ralph Cintron, “‘Gates Locked’ and the Violence of Fixation,” in Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, ed. Martin Nystrand and John Duffy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 14.

  3. Gerard Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular. A Plea for an Ethnographical Rhetoric,” in The Rhetorical Emergence of Culture, ed. Christian Meyer and Felix Girke (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 164.

  4. Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular,” 169.

  5. Kelly West, “Unsurprising: Netflix Survey Indicates People Like to Binge-Watch TV,” Cinema Blend, 2014, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-Survey-Indicates-People-Like-Binge-Watch-TV-61045.html.

  6. Andrew Romano, “Why You’re Addicted to TV,” Newsweek, May 15, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://www.newsweek.com/2013/05/15/why-youre-addicted-tv-237340.html.

  7. Ibid.

  8. Paul Booth, “Memories, Temporalities, Fictions: Temporal Displacement in Contemporary Television,” Television & New Media 12.4 (2011): 373.

  9. Cintron, “‘Gates Locked’ and the Violence of Fixation,” 5.

  10. Lilly Irani, Robin Jeffries, and Andrea Knight, “Rhythms and Plasticity: Television Temporality at Home,” Personal & Ubiquitous Computing 14.7 (2010): 621.

  11. Booth, “Memories, Temporalities, Fictions,” 375.

  12. Irani, Jeffries, and Knight, “Rhythms and Plasticity,” 631.

  13. Ibid., 630.

  14. Ibid., 622.

  15. Gerard Hauser and Erin Daina McClellan, “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements: Performances and Resistance in the Rhetoric of the Everyday,” in Active Rhetoric: Composing A Rhetoric of Social Movements, ed. Sharon Mackenzie Stevens and Patricia M. Malesh (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 29.

  16. Rembert Browne, “Who Won 2013?” Grantland, December 30, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/features/rembert-browne-year-end-bracket/.

  17. Greenwald, “The Year TV Got Small,” Grantland, December 18, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/features/breaking-bad-black-mirror-year-television/.

  18. Greenwald, “The Great Orange Is the New Black Is Suddenly the Best Netflix Series Yet,” Grantland, July 15, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-great-orange-is-the-new-black-is-suddenly-the-best-netflix-binge-watch-series-yet/.

  19. Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular,” 169.

  20. D. Yvette Wohn and Eun-Kyung Na, “Tweeting about T
V: Sharing Television Viewing Experiences via Social Media Message Streams,” First Monday 16.3–7 (2011), accessed December 9, 2014, http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3368.

  21. Ibid.

  22. Nick Couldry, “Liveness, ‘Reality,’ and the Mediated Habitus from Television to the Mobile Phone,” Communication Review 7 (2004): 355.

  23. Ibid., 355–356.

  24. Graeme Turner, “‘Liveness’ and ‘Sharedness’ Outside the Box,” Flow 13.11 (2011).

  25. Chuck Tryon, On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2013).

  26. Couldry, “Liveness, ‘Reality,’ and the Mediated Habitus,” 360.

  27. Jessica Goldstein, “Television Binge-Watching: If It Sounds so Bad Why Does It Feel so Good?” The Washington Post, June 6, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/television-binge-watching-if-it-sounds-so-bad-why-does-it-feel-so-good/2013/06/06/fd658ec0-c198–11e2-ab60–67bba7be7813_story.html.

  28. Ibid.

  29. Hauser and McClellan, “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements,” 26.

  30. Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular,” 159.

  31. Ana Marie Cox, “Arrested Development Recap: A Slow-Binge on Season 4, Episode 1: ‘Flight of the Phoenix,’” Grantland, May 28, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/arrested-development-recap-a-slow-binge-on-season-4-episode-1-flight-of-the-phoenix/.

  32. Amos Barshad, “Mitch Hurwitz PSA: Talk to Your Kids About Watching Arrested Development in Order, and One at a Time,” Grantland, May 22, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/mitch-hurwitz-psa-talk-to-your-kids-about-watching-arrested-development-in-order-and-one-at-a-time/.

  33. Hauser and McClellan, “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements,” 33.

  34. Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular,” 157.

  35. Hauser and McClellan, “Vernacular Rhetoric and Social Movements,” 29.

  36. Hauser, “Attending the Vernacular,” 169.

  37. “Netflix Has Changed Viewing Habits,” Advanced Television, September 30, 2011, accessed November 3, 2014, http://advanced-television.com/2011/09/30/netflix-has-changed-viewing-habits/.

  38. Ibid.

  39. Andrew Leonard, “How Netflix Is Turning Viewers into Puppets,” Salon, February 1, 2013, accessed November 3, 2014, http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/.

  40. Brian Lowry, “TV Review: ‘House of Cards’—Season Two,” Variety, January 30, 2014, accessed May 28, 2015, http://variety.com/2014/digital/reviews/review-house-of-cards-1201076822/.

  41. Pam Brown, “So Ruthless He Gets It Done,” The West Australian, February 10, 2014, accessed May 28, 2015, https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/21383587/so-ruthless-he-gets-it-done/.

  42. Willa Paskin, “House of Cards’ Second Season Is Even More Ridiculous Than the Last One. Thank Goodness for That,” Slate, February 13, 2014, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2014/02/house_of_cards_season_2_reviewed_netflix_s_prestige_drama_embraces_its_own.html.

  43. Olivia Armstrong, “Netflix Introduces New “Trending Now” Suggestions,” Decider, April 14, 2015, accessed May 28, 2015, http://decider.com/2015/04/14/netflix-trending-now-suggestions/.

  44. Dominic Patten, “Netflix In Talks For Third Season Of ‘House of Cards,’” Deadline, October 26, 2013, accessed May 1, 2015, http://deadline.com/2013/10/netflix–in-talks-for-third-season-of-house-of-cards-620952/.

  Terms of Excess

  Binge-Viewing as Epic-Viewing in the Netflix Era

  DJOYMI BAKER

  The term binge-viewing has been adopted by the television industry, popular press, and scholars to describe watching several consecutive episodes or even seasons of a program in one sitting.1 Currently, 70 percent of U.S. viewers identify themselves as television bingers.2 The term binge has been under-theorized in current scholarship, and its negative associations of excessive consumption warrant closer examination. This essay argues that Netflix’s narrative, promotional, and release strategies are predicated on a spectator endurance that might more fruitfully be conceived of as epic-viewing. Netflix creates its brand profile by encouraging viewers to perceive its products as best experienced as one epic text, from its back catalog of licensed programs across a multitude of genres, to its in-house productions such as House of Cards (2013–), Arrested Development (2003–2006, 2013), or Marco Polo (2014–2016). Netflix positions itself as the bigger, better option, offering it all—and right now. When Netflix launched House of Cards on its streaming service in February 2013, it made the entire first season available at once. At the time, other providers offered new programs in installments, and only their old series could be accessed as complete seasons. Netflix delivered an immediate and continuous epic, creating a new paradigm.

  Binge-Viewing

  In 2014, OxfordDictionaries.com added a separate entry for “binge-watch” (including under this umbrella its close cousin “binge-view”), tracing its use as a verb to the 1990s, but noting in its press release:

  Use of the word binge-watch has shown a steady increase over the past two years, with notable spikes in usage recorded around the Netflix releases of House of Cards, Season Two in February 2014 and Orange Is the New Black, Season Two in June 2014. According to Oxford’s language monitoring programme, the use of binge-watch increased fourfold in February 2014 and tripled in June 2014.3

  While the term in this context has yet to make its way into the Oxford English Dictionary, binge-viewing has become such an essential part of the Netflix branding that the company now harnesses the concept for both its production and marketing.4

  The word binge obviously has a much longer history. Originally referring to the soaking of a vessel, in the nineteenth century it became a slang term meaning to soak oneself in alcohol—that is, through excessive consumption.5 The word gradually became attached to forms of excessive indulgence, firstly eating, and then other activities.6 Drawing on the history of the term and its cultural connotations, binge is associated with excess and overindulgence, such that it carries with it suggestions of suspect and even potentially self-harming behavior. Although the lightness of tone with which binge-viewing is often used in popular and scholarly work suggests these negative connotations may well be undergoing a cultural transformation, we nonetheless need to think through the implications of the term’s use in our current context. As Debra Ramsay notes, we do not refer to “binge-listening” or “binge-reading,” suggesting that the term’s adoption for television viewing “implies a vague distaste for the medium itself.”7 Particularly because most scholarship on television bingeing has not interrogated the implications of adopting the word binge from common usage, it is timely that we question the term’s role in reflecting and informing the way we currently engage with media. If binge-viewing suggests excessive consumption, the question remains, in excess of what?

  Rethinking Television Spectatorship

  Netflix’s association with and promotion of binge-viewing must be placed within the broader history of television, and the shifting dynamics of its relationship with the audience. Although the advent of VCRs, DVD box sets, and now streaming services, offer viewers the ability to concentrate on one program for an extended amount of time, these technologies find their place within the dominant discourse of what John Ellis famously termed the distracted TV glance.8 This shifting relationship between television and its viewers throughout the medium’s history has consistently been framed by reference to older media forms such as radio, cinema, and even the novel. Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin argue that new media validate themselves through comparison to older established media, situating themselves as a refashioned and improved model in a process that the pair has termed “remediation.”9 Television history, from its early years through to Netflix, is indicative of the way we make sense of the new by reference to th
e old, but also the conceptual limitations of this approach as we seek to explain the binge experience of Netflix.

  Television was initially called “visual radio” in its purely conceptual days, thereby aligning it with the dominant domestic medium of the time.10 Indeed, radio broadcasting companies were the main investors in television in the developmental years of the 1920s and 1930s. In the post-war years, television was still financed by radio advertising revenue, but once it became financially self-sufficient in the late 1940s and early 1950s, television was explicitly marketed to emphasize its value as a replacement for radio, cinema, and the theater.11 Lynn Spigel notes how advertisements in the 1950s characterized television in terms of “‘family theater,’ the ‘video theater,’ the ‘chairside theater,’ the ‘living room theater,’ and so forth,” evoking both live theater and the movie theater.12 Television was marketed as being better than theater, because television could give you a perfect view of the action, and provide the intimacy of the close-up.13 You did not need to buy the best seats in the theater; you already had them in your home. Like “visual radio,” this conception of television stressed the benefits of a domestic medium. The theatrical references, however, suggest that the cultural value of television could only be asserted through comparisons with non-domestic media.

  In these early days when television viewing was still seen as a special occasion, John Hartley and Tom O’Regan argue that television spectatorship had a wider social aspect, and what they term a “quasi-cinematic” quality.14 The novelty of the first person in the street to buy a prohibitively expensive television set meant that neighbors would be invited to watch television as a local community.15 Over time, as set ownership became more common, this communal viewing gave way to private, family viewing. It was television’s status as a type of familiar domestic appliance that led John Ellis to characterize broadcast television as “intimate and everyday, a part of home life rather than any kind of special event.”16 Television went from a deluxe item requiring your full attention, to just another appliance. It was partly due to this domestic context that Ellis suggested television was characterized by a distracted glance.17 He writes: