I wonder how much of this is due to Netflix' "algorithm" punishing promising new shows by cancelling them after season 1, or letting shows drag on way past their sell by date (Stranger Things anyone?).
In the old days of network television, a new show might struggle in the ratings trying to gain its audience, but a producer might champion and protect it enough until it gains a footing. For example, Lucille Ball kept this weird little scifi show called Star Trek alive until it became the hit franchise that's still going to this day. The Netflix algorithm would have cancelled Star Trek after a season and it would have been forgotten.
On the other hand, perhaps many shows got cancelled because a dumb producer just didn't get it, or there was behind-the-scenes politics where they fell out with a director or lead actor. But it seems overall that Netflix perhaps needs more of a human taste behind the scenes and less reliance on data-driven decision making.
Netflix' decision-making is much less data-driven than you think, and much more due to the whims of Co-CEO Ted Sarandos. He fired Cindy Holland, the well-regarded head of original programming to replace her with a crony.
To be frank, Netflix went from a leader to the weakest of the streaming services I subscribe to, and I hardly ever watch anything on it any more. If it weren't for my wife and daughterm, I'd have dumped them a long time ago. Amazon Prime and Disnay+ have far more compelling shows.
The Netflix challenge used to be a staple of data-science students, but there's some evidence it had limited predictive power. If so, the massive data the streaming platforms have compared to Hollywood does not give them an edge in finding hits that will keep subscribers from defecting in a recession (contrary to the article, I don't believe breadth and volume of irrelevant content matters, if anything it has negative value because that means more dross I have to scan over to find the rare shows I am actually interested in watching).
The search functionality on these services is abysmal and I believe it is on purpose; the streaming service wants you to watch the things at the top of the list they made for you, and now almost all of which is produced by that streaming service go figure.
Plenty of promising shows got cancelled after Season 1 back in the pre-streaming days too. Firefly is the quintessential example. The opposite can be worse though. Stargate SG-1 did not need 10 seasons. I think Abed had it right: 6 seasons and a movie is the ideal. Of course, once Donald Glover left, that show became a tired repeat too.
I actually really liked the latest season of Stranger Things. Season 3 was the one that I really struggled with. Sure, I get that the kids are teenagers now, but why does that mean that the adults have to have dumb teenage drama too?
In the old days of network television, a new show might struggle in the ratings trying to gain its audience, but a producer might champion and protect it enough until it gains a footing. For example, Lucille Ball kept this weird little scifi show called Star Trek alive until it became the hit franchise that's still going to this day. The Netflix algorithm would have cancelled Star Trek after a season and it would have been forgotten.
On the other hand, perhaps many shows got cancelled because a dumb producer just didn't get it, or there was behind-the-scenes politics where they fell out with a director or lead actor. But it seems overall that Netflix perhaps needs more of a human taste behind the scenes and less reliance on data-driven decision making.