Strike: Should Consumers Boycott Streaming Services?

Columnist Mary McNamara poses the question in the LA Times.

Should we cancel our streaming service subscriptions until the strike is over? Mary McNamara asks in a Los Angeles Times column article. “As the writers’ strike stampedes through its second month and the possibility of an actors’ strike looms, it’s time to ask: When — and how — should consumers get involved?” writes McNamara.

Would it be helpful to cancel subscriptions and send that way a clear message to writers’ and actors’ counterparts?

“Many cord-cutters are already unhappy with what was supposed to be an economical alternative to pricey cable bundles. With complicated multiplatform deals and studios clawing back content for their streamers, keeping track of what series lives where has become a full-time job. And even as originators like Netflix lose popular content, every year brings a price increase.” Netflix seems to be the usual suspect in this battle:

“Streaming platforms are not the only studios represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, but the writers’ work stoppage has become known at the Netflix strike — and for a good reason: Most of the WGA’s demands, and many of SAG-AFTRA’s concerns, involve the business model of original-content streaming platforms, in which shorter seasons and an absence of traditional residuals have left many writers and actors struggling to make a living,” writes the columnist. “Writers are also challenging the streamer-led model of “mini-rooms,” in which a small number of writers are hired to break a series, a larger number are hired to write it, and then almost all but the showrunner is let go before the series is even made. Not only does this eliminate staff positions, forcing many into a perpetual freelance mode, but it also burdens showrunners.” This makes it hard for young or less experienced writers to learn a job in the television field, which would impact future content quality. “This can only lead to a decreasing pool of writers prepared to become showrunners, which makes the system unjust and unsustainable.”

McNamara writes that streaming companies claim they don’t have money to treat writers better. They indeed put themselves in a troublesome position. “It’s difficult to understand how exactly Netflix and its ilk hoped to make money. The only reason television (or most media) exists is because of advertising. There may be subscription fees, but ads pay the bills. Sure, when Netflix began gobbling up shows from network libraries and offering consumers a world of television at their fingertips with no distracting ads, it seemed like the Eighth Wonder of the Modern World. But when House of Cards announced Netflix’s entrance into the business of original scripted television — well, that’s when things got sticky. Streamers want the kind of content that will draw audiences away from those cable bundles, but, as it turns out, they don’t want to pay for it. What seemed like a boom for writers and actors — so many new series! — was soon revealed as a con. There was more television than ever before, but it was being made in a way that made the professional lives of writers and actors — even those on wildly successful series — more precarious, not less. No one, aside from the streamers themselves, knows what makes a successful series on streaming, which is very convenient if you want to avoid paying any residual.”

Should consumers step in and cancel subscriptions as a form of solidarity with strikers? asks McNamara. The WGA has not called for a boycott of streamers. However, “as beneficiaries of the streaming invasion, consumers may want to consider their responsibilities to those who wrote their favorite shows, but also to all the cities now detrimentally affected by the work stoppage,” writes Mary McNamara.

Complete article: Los Angeles Times