Have you heard about this critically acclaimed legal drama starring one of Hollywood’s most beloved stars in one of his most dangerous roles yet?
How about a murder mystery told by an A-list Oscar winner in her first major television role?
Well, maybe you’re familiar with the groundbreaking new limited series that wowed critics and was recently nominated for an astonishing 11 Emmy Awards?
In fact, based on streaming data, you may have heard of and binge-watched the last Little Reindeer .
But you probably heard about it through word of mouth.
RELATED: How Little Reindeer Flips the Script and Makes Evil Characters Believably Human
Based on a one-man show by a Scottish comedian, the show touches on a range of deeply disturbing topics and is not a smash hit.
However, “Baby Reindeer” defied all odds and became one of Netflix’s most-streamed shows.
You might think that despite the show’s huge success, ads for the series would be posted on airwaves and in subway tunnels.
but it is not the truth.
change of strategy
In fact, if you don’t see it on your Netflix home screen or hear about it from a friend or critic, you might be missing out on the hottest new series of the year.
The same goes for “Presumed Innocent” and “Lady in the Lake,” starring Jake Gyllenhall and Natalie Portman in a performance some critics called the best of her career.
While word of mouth played a big role in “Baby Reindeer,” it proved insufficient to promote other shows.
RELATED: ‘Lady in the Lake’ Trailer: Natalie Portman Gets Thrilled in Apple TV+’s Visual Feast!
We’ve previously discussed the decline in star power and the growing focus on proven intellectual property rights.
But surely a new TV show starring some of the most respected actors on the planet deserves at least a modestly sized ad campaign, right?
Granted, the two shows we just mentioned are only available to watch on Apple TV+, and original content is clearly not the company’s main business.
The same goes for Prime Video, which accounts for only a small portion of Amazon’s annual revenue.
But don’t the stars and creators involved in these projects feel like they deserve more?
Why put all that work into a platform that you probably don’t bother to promote?
What about companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Max? No Generate most of your revenue elsewhere and rely entirely on subscription and advertising revenue?
Why not them Investing a lot of money into promoting their new projects, some of which are very expensive to produce?
At X (formerly Twitter) and elsewhere, users have certainly noticed:
“Apple TV+ is so fun, they’re like oh my gosh, yeah, we have a brilliant, Oscar-winning, hot actress in a 1960s murder mystery thriller, but oh my gosh, we Forgot to tell you, my bad,” Ashtyn Butuso, editor of Flagrant magazine, recently wrote on Twitter.
“Apple’s TV service is the complete opposite of how they sell other products,” replied one commenter named Eric.
RELATED: TV Nation: Would America be less divided if we still watched the same shows?
“Now they’re talking about cutting spending on Apple TV+. I wonder why it wasn’t as successful?
Yes, the business model behind Apple TV+ is reminiscent of Ned Flanders’ parents complaining about their disobedient son:
“We didn’t try anything, we had no idea,” Flanders Sr. said.
Apple’s business model is far different from business model
What makes the situation particularly puzzling is that in previous projects Apple has demonstrated marketing and self-promotion techniques unprecedented in any sector of the economy.
The company built unprecedented brand loyalty, selling products that consumers had hitherto never heard of.
However, with reasonable subscription rates and one of the best libraries in the entire streaming space, Apple TV+ remains a perpetual underdog, with its big-budget, star-studded series mostly ignored by the average TV viewer.
The answer has to do with the changing television landscape, where few shows can pull in eight-figure viewers and streamers have realized that, in many cases, they can rely on critics and social media to promote their shows.
This strategy has benefited some shows, but the approach also explains why there’s a show starring Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, and Jon Hamm that’s been nominated for Emmys for three consecutive seasons…
…and yet no one you know watches The Morning Show.
RELATED: The Age of Nostalgia: Why Young Viewers Are Looking for Old TVs
(We’re obviously exaggerating; everyone who watches The Morning Show doesn’t need to rant to us about how wrong we were!)
The point is, without new shows like “I Love Lucy” and a “M*A*S*H” finale to hit the box office, the stakes of spending huge ad budgets are greater than ever.
With social media and Rotten Tomatoes outpacing most 30-second TV spots, executives naturally thought the days of mass marketing might be over.
But the result of all this is that shows that had hit potential have now languished in obscurity for years, or even been canceled after one season.
It’s bad for fans, it’s bad for talent, and it’s bad for the future of the medium we love.
TV fans, what do you think?
Will a streamer fail because they fail to promote their product?
Hit the comments section below to share your thoughts!
