#Netflix Financial Strategy

[obaaaa]

A small rant with all the respect and love I have for this show and fandom!

I think many of us don't value AMC enough. I don't want to kiss a big corporation's ass, but here are the facts.

AMC is a small channel that has been experiencing financial difficulties for years.

Their streaming is nothing for the industry.

The channel's audience, with such a heteronormative history, has a clear resistance to iwtv

And yet it's also clear that amc think of iwtv as something long term

I see a lot of people bashing amc and prasing netflix for their work on social media (which it is very likely that amc is paying to have) but I see no difference in what the immortal universe accounts does... the only real difference is that the reach of one is millions of times greater!

I'm going to be very honest here, personally I don't understand some disproportionate complaints about amc's marketing work with the series, I followed everything from the announcement of the Season 2 renewal, to the last episode's release, and considering all the company's problems, I found the work very decent, we need to understand that amc is not hbo or netflix, the series will not become a mainstream success overnight and maybe not at all.

We have to be thankful that they are thinking long term, because this would never happen on Netflix. For me, amc's biggest mistake is not having a more efficient worldwide distribution strategy, in this matter they make a huge mistake and it's a problem!

But this time on Netflix is ​​being good to humble us, the series is not making it into the top 10, and with the cherry on top, Mayfair Witches is! and that reminds me of something else, let's avoid bashing the other Immortal Universe series on the official social media, even if you don't like it or don't care, just don't engage! MW has a appeal with the regular audience, so we have to stop thinking otherwise. The rivalry will do more harm then anything else to The Vampire Chronicles future on television, because for the company the project is the whole universe!

Also amc is that. a company, not a fan club! they need to work on the other products, there is no point in harassing the social media manager because they're probably working on several things at the same time.

Ultimately, the fandom needs to be more strategic, the future of the show is our priority, but for that to happen we have to be realistic and humble.

Anyway closing with this cute jam moment!

[arany-studio]

#SixofCrows trending! Go #Grishaverse nation! Let them know we want it!

Acrions we can take to save Shadow and Bone:

1. Sign this petition from all your e-mails and ask the people around you to sign as well:

2. A financial incentive for Netflix is what can save this show, so don't cancel Netflix, instead stream Shadow and Bone to get it in top 10 again so that new people will see it.

4. Join the hashtag campaigns on Twitter. Use the 3 hastags of the day at coordinated hours for maximum impact. #sixofcrowsspinoff and #saveshadowandbone will be used daily, plus a changing one each day, starting with #jesimeili, then alternating with crow actors and quotes. More than 3 hashtags is considered spam, don't do that.

5. Contribute or share this crowdfund for a bilboard in USA!

6. Send origami crows to Netflix's headquarters at the adress bellow. It would be awesome if they received 1000 crows from all over the world and remember to be respectful in your letters!

7. Join the #saveshadowandbone Discord server if you want to contribute or just be up to date!

8. Reblog this so it reaches as many people as possible!

Stay coordinated, this is a targetted campaign directed at Netflix! If this fails we will consider other streamers, but until then the best chances of succes are by following the above steps, as Netflix doesn't usually selll it's copyrights, but it has been know to reverse it's decisions if there is a financial incentive (show trending again and being seen by new people).

Here is a Google doc with the steps summarised:

[showmey0urfangs]

do you really think loustat will be given much focus in s2? cause the trailers looked more loumand-heavy to me? i know they've favored sam & jacob for the promo interviews, but I assumed that's bc they're currently the show's more recognizable faces, and casual viewers barely know armand yet. guess we'll have to wait and see, but i thought s2 would be loumand-centric with just occasional hints of loustat. that'd make more sense anyways, but idk!

Hi Anon! It's not only the complete absence of Jassad promo content that makes me think that—although it is very telling, it's also the overall way AMC is choosing to market this season.

To give you a quick rundown, you can always learn a lot about a project from its marketing. It tells you what the focus of the story will be, and/or what the network/studio thinks will garner the most viewership and therefore make them the most money. That's what they'll put front and center.

A good hint is to look at the posters and the size that each character takes up on them. This is something actors often negotiate in their contracts, that's how important it is.

On the season 1 poster, Louis is slightly bigger in size, and he's positioned in the foreground, with Lestat behind and half-hidden. This says; here's our main character, and we think Jacob Anderson's very handsome and recognizable face is what will get more people to tune in.

But if you look at the season 2 posters we've gotten so far, Lestat is always the largest one, with the other characters positioned either to the side or underneath him. He's also at eye level and looking directly into camera, meaning that he's the first thing you notice when you look at the posters.

This also aligns with the choice to include Lestat in more of the story than he is in the book. For reminder, in the second half of IWTV he shows up in Paris to testify in the trial, and he's pretty much absent for the rest of it. On the show, he will be appearing as ghoststat in every other scene, and the bit of 'Armand's backstory' also looks like it will focus on him and his early years at the TdV. If you ask me, that's a whole lotta Lestat in a story where he's normally barely present. 😂

So the marketing is not a coinkydink. It's AMC saying, we think this is what will get our target demo to tune in and get us more of those sweet sweet advertising dollars.

That's another thing to keep in mind too, AMC still gets the vast majority of their revenue from their cable service i.e. from advertisers. (you can check out their 2023 financial report if you love numbers like I do). Their streaming service only makes up 13% of their total revenue vs companies like Netflix who rely solely on subscriptions. That heavily impacts the type of content they choose to make and how they market it. (It also explains why they keep pushing garbage like MW as much as they do)

What AMC's overall strategy with season 2 tells us is that either upon further reflection, they've decided that Lestat makes for a better selling point and/or they're already positioning Sam as the next lead and preparing the audience for the proverbial passing of the torch.

So to answer your question; no, I don't think this will be Loumand's season. Heck, I don't even think it will be Louis's tbh. It will be Lestat's season and all the subsequent ones after that too most likely.

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-Fi prompt from @dirigibird:

I've been looking at investment options but I don't want to be messing around too much with the stock market, and a co-worker suggested exchange traded funds. Would love to know your opinions!

LEGALLY NECESSARY DISCLAIMER: I am not a licensed financial advisor, and it is illegal for me to advise anyone on investment in securities like stocks. My commentary here is merely opinion, not financial advice, and I urge you to not make any decisions with regards to securities investments based on my opinions, or without consulting a licensed advisor. I am also going to be talking this all over from an American POV, which means some of these things may not apply elsewhere.

So instead of letting you know what to pick or how to organize your securities, I'm going to go through the definitions of what various investment funds are, how they compare functionally, and maybe rant about how I disagree with the stock market on a fundamental ethical level if I have word count left over.

If you want more information, and are okay with jargon, I'd suggest hitting up investopedia. That is where I will be double-checking most of my information for this one.

I also encourage folks who know more about the stock market specifically to jump in! I like to think I'm good at research and explaining things, but I'm still liable to make mistakes.

Mutual Funds: A mutual fund is a pool of money and resources from multiple individuals (often vast numbers of people, actually) being put together and managed as a group by investment specialists. The primary appeal of these is that the money is professionally managed, but not personally so; it gives smaller investors access to professional money managers that they would not have access to on their own, at cheaper rates than if they tried to hire one for just their own assets. The secondary appeal is that, due to the sheer number of people, and thus capital, that is being invested at once, the money can be invested in a wide variety of industries, and is generally more stable than investing in just one company or industry. Low risk, low reward, but overall at least mostly reliable. Retirement plans are often invested in mutual funds by employer choice, through companies like Fidelity or John Hancock.

Hedge Funds: A hedge fund is a high risk, high reward mutual fund. Investors are generally wealthy, and have the room and safety to lose large amounts of money on an investment that has no promise of success, especially since money cannot be withdrawn at will, but must remain in the fund for a period of time following investment. It gets its name from "hedging your bets," as part of the strategy is to invest in the opposition of the fund's focus in order to ensure that there is a backup plan to salvage at least some money if the main plan backfires. Other strategies are also on the riskier side, often planning to take advantage of ongoing events like buyouts, mergers, incumbent bankruptcy, and shorting stocks (that's the one that caused the gamestop incident).

Private Equity: Private equity is... a nightmare that got its own incredibly good Hasan Minhaj episode of Patriot Act, so if you've got 20 minutes, an interest in comedically-delivered, easily-digestible, Real Information, and an internet connection, take a watch of that one. (If it's not available on YouTube in your country, it's originally from Netflix, or you can probably access it by VPN.) Private equity companies are effectively hedge funds that purchase entire companies, rebuild them in one way or another, and then sell them at (hopefully) a profit. Very often, the companies purchased by private equity are very negatively impacted, especially if the private equity group is a Vulture Fund. Sometimes, it's by taking it apart to sell off; sometimes it's by just bleeding it for cash until there's nothing left. Sometimes, it's taking over a hospital and overcharging the patients while also abusing the staff! (Glaucomflecken has a lot of videos on the topic of private equity in the medical industry, check him out.)

Venture Capital: In contrast to private equity, which purchases more mature companies, venture capital is focused on startups, or small businesses that have growth potential. These are the kinds of hedge funds that are like a whole group that you'd see some random tv character calling an Angel Investor (they're not actually the same thing, but they overlap by a lot). I'd hesitantly call these less ethically dubious than private equity, but I'm still suspicious.

And finally, to answer your question on what ETFs are and how they fit into the above.

Exchange Traded Funds: ETFs are... sort of like a mutual fund. Sort of. You are, to some extent, pooling your money... ish.

An ETF is like a stock that is made out of partial stocks. So instead of paying $100 for stock A, and not getting stocks B/C/D that all cost the same, you buy $100 of the ETF, which is $25 each of stocks A/B/C/D. You are getting a quarter of a unit of stock, which isn't normally an option, but because you are purchasing through an ETF that officially already bought those Whole stocks, you can now purchase the partial stocks through them.

They buy the whole stocks, then they resell you mixes of those stocks. They still officially own the whole stocks themselves, but you now own parts of the stocks. Basically, you own "stock" in a company that owns stock in other companies, and in that process you own partial stocks in those other companies.

I'm going to re-explain this using fruit.

Imagine you can buy apples, oranges, melons, grapes, etc. You can also buy fruit cups. You can only buy the individual fruits in big batches or you can pool your money with a few other people, hand it to a chef. The chef will decide which fruits look like they'll taste the best by lunch time, buy a bunch of those fruit pallets with your combined money, and plan out the best possible fruit salad for you to share with a bunch of people once lunch rolls around.

You could also buy a fruit cup. You don't have a lot of control over what's already in the fruit cup, but there are a few different mixes available--that one has strawberries, but that one over there uses kiwi, and the other one that way has pineapple--and you can pick which mix you want. It's a pretty small fruit cup, and it's predesigned, but you can choose the one you want without having to pool money with everyone else. You just first have to let someone else design the fruit cups you choose from, and you don't know which ones are probably going to survive the best to lunch time unless you ask a chef (which defeats the purpose of buying a fruit cup instead of pooling your money, and asking the chef costs money).

That's the ETF. The ETF is the fruit cup.

The upside is that you can now just track the prices of your fruit cup, instead of tracking the prices of four different fruits, and so if the price of one fruit drops, you can just... let the other three buoy it.

Of course, in the real world, there are more than just four stocks involved in an ETF. This part of the Investopedia article lists a few examples, and they're usually themed and involve anywhere from 30 (DOW Jones) to thousands (Russell) of shares by stock type, or by commodity/industry. So with the ETF, you can invest in an entire industry, like technology, and just keep track of that single "stock" in the industry game.

They do cost less in brokerage/management fees than regular mutual funds, and they have a slightly lower liquidity (slower to cash out). There also exist actively managed ETFs, which are basically mutual funds for ETFs. You are paying the chef to buy you premade fruit cups.

(Prompt me on ko-fi!)

[lol-jackles]

https://twitter.com/CineGeekNews/status/1735028345794855200

Warner Bros Discovery currently has an over 60% Probability of Bankruptcy.

I honestly am not sure if this is good or bad for the SPN revival. On the one hand, WB is NOT going to want to spend money on such a niche IP (that will really mostly only draw ppl who were already fans) if they are in such dire straits financially. On the other hand, they could bring in money by selling the IP to another studio who would obviously then want to actually do something with it since they spent money on it. But that also depends on another studio or streaming service wanting to do something with it which will be tougher. Netflix would make sense since they currently have SPN for streaming, except they will be losing their streaming rights at the end of 2025. A revival wouldn't even be released until then so why would Netflix want to put money into a revival of show that will, at that time, be streaming on a competitor (most likely Max since it will revert back to WB). Amazon is a possibility since both Jensen and Kripke are there (especially if they want to bring Kripke on for it) and Kripke seems to have some sway over there. But again, unless they buy the rights to SPN to stream on their platform, why would they want to make a show that will inadvertently benefit their competitor?

Thoughts?

https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/WBD/Probability-Of-Bankruptcy#google_vignette

[full disclosure, I sent this same ask to someone else as well, I'm not trying to spam people with it, I just wanted both your opinions!]

I went cross eyed reading the article, it looks like it was written by an A.I, which is not out of the realm of possibility given how many "journalists" are fired and Sports Illustrated was busted for using AI to write articles.

It really does not take much to avoid bankruptcy. Usually when a company is going to go under, the signs of it are obvious inaction for a long time and it inevitably dooms the business.   The prime reason why WBD is not going broke is because they took immediate actions after the merger. What happens is the profitable parts of the business stays, while losses are either "turned around" or the business gets eliminated. Sometimes things like streaming subscribers will drop a quarter or two. Maybe a movie or two never gets released. But housecleaning is far more important than anything right now so that money is not wasted. The result is growing cash flow without losing much of the business.

Remember what I've said that cash flow is king? You can run a non-profitable company indefinitely with positive cash flow, but run a profitable company into the ground without cash flow. AT&T generated next to no cash flow. WBD exists for the very purpose of dismantling the legacy Time Warner conglomerate, that was the intention when AT&T sold it to Zaslav. It’s why they removed HBO from the name of Max. His job is to clean up its balance sheets, prepare its parts for sale, and pay himself handsomely in tune of $200 million last year. I begrudgingly admire Zaslav’s sticking with his controversial strategy, which saw other studios eventually following that same strategy.

By 2023, WBD paid off $12 billion in debt.  That was a demonstration of faith by management in the turnaround efforts or else they would have kept the cash "just in case."  The interest on the debt alone is eating $2 to $3 billion in free cash flow. Thats a lot of free growth in their bottom line when debt is paid down. Against all odds, WBD's streaming service HBO Max (and then just Max) is creating most of the cash flow improvement with $5 billion in cash flow. Advertising is growing in this segment at a robust pace. That said, the content decline for third-party licensing will have implications now that the strike is over and WBD has to start spending money on new contents on their prized IPs i.e. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, DC, etc.

For niche IPs like Supernatural, I see 50% chance of WBD still licensing it to Netflix because third-party licensing is the new king. WBD will also offload low-performing shows in the same bundle with higher-performing Supernatural because it will allow WBD to continue their 'creative accounting' to avoid paying residuals to low-tier actors. Then I can see Netflix doing what they did with Gilmore Girls and produce a revival limited series for Supernatural, which will increase viewership for the OG SPN and continue to help retain subscribers.

On the other hand, WBD is rebooting every niche IP under the sun and I'm pretty certain they will make the same attempt with Supernatural. The strike is over and WBD need to make new contents to attract back subscribers they lost over two quarters during the strike. When SPN goes back to Max in 2025, an announcement of a reboot/revival will mean free marketing from devoted fans and ensure continual interest and viewership of the OG SPN.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Anon is right. SEO aside, Meghan is constantly sabotaging herself. She is extremely unlikeable. She is workshy. She is rude. She is never complimentary towards anyone else. She is always whining. She does not deliver on her promises, contracts, commitments. She criticise everyone. She is constantly trying to clapback at any and all online criticism. She brags about the smallest things, embellishes, over reacts, over acts. All her projects are abandoned halfway through, then she badmouths the people that worked on those projects.

And all of this is evident from whatever she says and does publicly. Her interviews, speeches, documentaries have shown all of these facets of her personality time and time again.

So, how much and how far is mere SEO going to take her?

Anna sorokin, Zack Avery etc are very recent examples of griftres who talked a big game, enjoyed very high end lifestyles but eventually got caught (years later, but still they did get caught). Meghan's play seems very similar to these two. Especially, the financial shadiness. Her obsession with good press and high praise will be her downfall.

At this point, she has no real body of work except the Netflix reality show. That was the only thing, according to me at least, that they put some effort in. Everything else has eventually just flopped. (I count spare as Harry project not Meghan's.) All of Meghan's independent projects have been flops. And that's because she spends too much time, money and effort on PR and passive agressive own goals, instead of actually working.

You do realize that SEO is a PR tool, right?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I disagree that it's an effective strategy for her. Just because Meghan can use the data generated by SEO and PR to get deals with WME, Invictus Games, Netflix, Lemonada, etc. doesn't mean that she's going to be successful at it. I never said that and if you think that's what I said, you didn't understand that post.

[exitrowiron]

Investing 101

Part 1 of ?

A Tumblr mutual has asked me to explain brokers and stocks; I'm not an investing expert but I will share what I know (or what I think I know). The investing subreddit is a great source for those who really want to know the details.

What are stocks? When you buy a company's stock you own a small portion of the company. If a company has issued 100 shares and you purchase 1 share, you own 1/100th of the company. Most companies start out as private enterprises (i.e. owned by one of more individuals) and if the company is successful it may want to sell shares (i.e. go public). Going public is a major milestone in the life of a company. The process of issuing shares, quarterly reports, etc. is highly regulated by the SEC and requires audits, the creation of a board of directors and regular financial reporting, all in an effort to protect investors. In light of this expense, it's fair to wonder why an owner would want to go through the hassle of going public and giving up control of some (or all) of their company.

Going public (i.e. selling shares/stock) is a way of generating capital for the company. Perhaps a company needs an infusion of cash to build a new factory or expand to a new market... new stock issuances often include statements from the company about how it intends to use the proceeds. Issuing public shares is also a way to reward owners and key employees by giving them a way to get cash out of the business. Imagine you started a business 20 years ago and always funneled the company's earnings back into the business to help it grow. You may have a valuable business, but you have all your eggs in that basket and don't have cash to invest in other ways, buy a yacht etc. Likewise, you may have promised key employees partial ownership of the business, this is a way for them to cash-in also.

Regardless of the motivation, companies issuing stocks can choose to sell partial or full ownership of the company. Successful entrepreneurs often choose to retain majority ownership in the business - shareholders may collectively only own 40% of the business, for example, and have the right to elect 2 of 5 directors to the board. This kind of strategy allows the founder to have his cake and eat it too (i.e. cash-out some of the value of the business while still retaining control). A company can also sell various types of shares, each with different benefits. For example, a company may sell Preferred Shares, which are guaranteed to receive a dividend before other shares. Or the company may issue voting and non-voting shares (this is another way for a founder to retain control). Most retail investors (individuals like you and me), purchase Common Shares which have voting rights and are eligible for dividends.

What is a dividend? If you own a part of a company, it is reasonable to expect that you receive your proportionate share of the earnings right? The distribution of a company's earnings to shareholders is called a dividend. Companies may distribute dividends quarterly, annually or in the case of start-up or fast growing companies, not at all. Netflix for example, which had $8.19B in revenue and $1.49B in earnings in 2022 HAS NEVER PAID A DIVIDEND. Likewise, TESLA has never paid a dividend.

Why would anyone want to own shares in companies which don't pay dividends? It isn't at all uncommon for early stage and/or high growth companies to not pay dividends. The thinking is that the growth prospects for the company are so attractive, the money is best spent by reinvesting in the business. Of course there's an expectation that at some point in the future the business will mature and begin paying dividends. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple for example. As long as the company continues to show accelerating growth, investors will overlook the lack the dividends, betting that the overall value of the company (and intrinsic value of the shares) will grow as well. Again, Netflix and Tesla are good examples of that.

This leads to the conclusion that there are two ways to make money from stocks - dividends and increases in the share price. I may not be concerned if I own a stock with a share price which has been stuck at $100 for the last 5 years if that company is paying me a $10 dividend every year. I'm still earning a 10% return on that investment. Conversely, I may be equally happy owning a stock which has never paid a dividend but is now worth $150 dollars versus my original purchase price of $100.

Stocks whose value is primarily derived from their reliability for generating dividends are called Value stocks. Stocks whose value is primarily derived from the growth of the stock price are called Growth stocks - Netflix and Tesla are examples of Growth stocks; Microsoft and Ford are examples of Value stocks. Admittedly this can be confusing; I remember our first broker asking if we were Value or Growth investors. It seems like a silly question; can't we have both? In truth, older investors like me tend to be Value investors... we like the reliability (and cash flow) of stable companies that declare dividends every quarter. Growth stocks can be exciting, but the stock prices can be volatile and older investors have little tolerance for volatility. Value stocks tend to be stable companies in stable industries. Growth companies are all about the future; there is an opportunity for much greater rewards, but that comes with more risk. Over a longer investing horizon (>10 years), a broad portfolio Growth stocks will likely outperform an equally broad portfolio of Value stocks. Old people don't have a long investing horizon, but young people do and each group's investment portfolio should be biased accordingly.

Next Post - how to buy stocks.

[dotthings]

Just another reminder about being cautious in relying on sites like Variety or Deadline concerning the strikes.

At this point, Variety and Deadline especially are being used as a controlled faucet for planned AMPTP "leaks." They're literally used as tools of the AMPTP. This isn't the only situation or instance of biases in entertainment news media (or news media in general. News media is biased, it comes with the territory. There's also entire journalism classes on the subject). Or the only instance I know of where entertainment media is used as a "leak" mouthpiece for an agenda. But the strike "reporting" has made it very loud and even more obvious.

For context, let's go back to September 2020. Penske Media, which owns a bunch of stuff, went into a joint venture with MRC, which owns a bunch of stuff. Including Dick Clark Productions, a member of the AMPTP. They make TV shows. PMRC therefore has financial interests in entertainment media sites and a TV production company.

Penske Media Corporation (PMC) has joined forces with MRC to bring together entertainment magazines including Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, as well as create a new partnership for film and television content.

In joint statements released Wednesday, the companies announced they’ll each have stakes in two new joint ventures to manage the suite of influential industry titles. One entity, PMRC, will house publishing outlets of both companies, bringing together Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe, Deadline, IndieWire and WWD along with Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, and be managed by PMC. Another joint venture managed by MRC — producer of film and TV including Netflix drama “Ozark,” Hulu documentary “Fyre Fraud,” Lionsgate feature “Knives Out” and the Golden Globe Awards (via its Dick Clark Productions division) — will be tasked with creating intellectual property from across the publications for new TV, film and live events. Financial terms weren’t disclosed.

When the WGA and AMPTP went back into negotiations, there was supposed to be a media blackout.

Instead, last night, websites like Variety and Deadline ran articles with "leaks" about how the talks were going. The leakers being the AMPTP as a way to try to control the narrative, mislead the public in the PR war, and cause discouragement or division within the WGA, and make the AMPTP look like they're being so amazingly generous when they're still giving the WGA almost nothing.

Some tweets from WGA members:

[Image ID:

@joerussotweets

There was no WGA strike captain meeting yesterday.

5:40 PM · Aug 15, 2023 ]

[Image ID: @jonrog1

Jesus, that Deadline article is more than just wrong, it slid into the hallucinatory. They may as well have added unicorns.

11:15 PM · Aug 15, 2023 ]

[ @Gennefer

I guess the AMPTP’s new PR firm went with the “planned leak during a media blackout to appear magnanimous in their counter offer so the WGA will seem unreasonable if they reject it” strategy.

Quote Variety Aug 14

AMPTP Would Give Showrunners Latitude to Set Size of TV Writing Staff https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/amptp-meet-wga-tv-staff-size-1235696391/

9:30 PM · Aug 14, 2023 ]

Be careful out there when you're linking to entertainment sites owned by giant media conglomerates.

[softavasilva]

i’ve said this before and i’ll keep saying it—the mass-cancellation of wlw IPs right now is the new bury your gays: a pattern that affects wlw disproportionately even to other lgbtq stories and emblematic of the underlying mentality that our stories are not important. that they can just be thrown away.

it’s the same feeling i had in spring of 2016. wary of getting too attached to any wlw characters or storylines because we’d been conditioned over and over again to expect it to end in heartbreak.

i don’t know if warrior nun is the lexa of canceled series but at some point something’s gotta give. i just cancelled my netflix subscription and gave warrior nun as my reason, and i suggest everyone that wants this to change does the same and instead spend that money on a vpn subscription and torrent anything you don’t want to miss out on. same goes for prime.

enough is enough. we deserve to have our stories told in full.

‼️‼️ no bc they saw the result of what bury the gays trope did. it made the whole gay movement in which we just flocked onto another show bc of the sapphic couple. they saw this and they used it to their fucking advantage bc now they know we would watch anything even with the most little screentime of our reps. they saw that we would support and give money/time to that type of media.

in turn they also noted that we would move onto the next show with the same rep after the current one is no longer producing content. so they did what greedy fuckers do and used it as an excuse to make wlw centered media - to then cancelling it - to then making another show with said rep.

they give these series a dollar and a cent for production and no promo and in return they get millions from it. its their best investment yet. bc now they can cancel it with little to no financial lost and start a new one knowing they will get double the money they initially put in.

they never cared about continuity or consistnecy with their shows when it comes to wlw representation. NEVER. the fate of those shows was decided the moment s1 gets released so they can move onto their bigger shows.

i fear we always stood on low chances bc this is just their strategy. to use people seeking for representation and reeling them in only to dispose of that representation so they can start over again.

[maximumwobblerbanditdonut]

The Strike Is Over! SAG-AFTRA & Studios Reach Deal On New Three-Year Contract

Dominic Patten And Anthony D'Alessandro

November 8, 2023 4:39PM PST

After 118 days of the actors guild being out on strike, SAG-AFTRA and the studios have reached a tentative deal on a new contract that could see Hollywood up and running again within weeks.

The strike will be over as of 12:01 am PT November 9, we hear. Culminating a very dramatic day of studio earnings results and deadlines, the actors guild’s 17-member negotiating committee unanimously voted to recommend a tentative agreement to the SAG-AFTRA board.

Coming just less than a month after Writers Guild members overwhelmingly ratified their own agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, SAG-AFTRA’s deal is the culmination of the latest round of renewed negotiations that began October 24. Indicating the seriousness and stakes of the negotiations, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, Disney’s Bob Iger, NBCUniversal’s Donna Langley and Warner Bros Discovery’s David Zaslav frequently directly participated in the talks.

The tentative agreement follows the studios responding on November 3 to the guild’s last comprehensive counter with a self-described “historic” package. That was succeeded less than 24 hours later by an expanded group of studio leaders — including execs from Paramount, Amazon, Apple and more — joining the Gang of Four to brief SAG-AFTRA on the AMPTP’s new offer, which was said to include big gains in wages and bonuses as well as sweeping AI protections.

We didn’t just come toward you, we came all the way to you,” Sarandos told guild leaders Saturday before SAG-AFTRA brass began digging into the fine print. Further talks between the two sides began earlier this week as the guild poured over the studios’ latest set of proposals.

Now, if all goes as planned and the board signs off on the deal, eligible members of the 160,000-strong actors guild will vote soon to ratify the new agreement. Also, with SAG-AFTRA pulling the plug on the strike just after midnight and before the ratification vote is completed, people could be back to work soon and production restarted quickly.

Exposing many of the shifts and divisions in the industry over the past decade, today’s tentative agreement comes at the end of a long road filled with diversions and potholes.

Overall, the six months of Hollywood strikes is estimated to have cost the Southern California economy more than $6.5 billion and 45,000 entertainment industry jobs after production ground to a halt with the WGA hitting the picket lines in early May and SAG-AFTRA following in mid-July. On an individual level, the labor action garnered passionate unity among guild members. At the same time, a fact not lost on the studios and their strategy, many guild members have suffered crippling financial hardship, as have below-the-line workers, going months without work.

After calling the strike July 14, it took the guild and the studio CEOs’ Gang of Four around 80 days before their first official face-to-face talks at SAG-AFTRA headquarters on Wilshire Boulevard. For all the optimism and momentum coming out of the completed WGA deal, those new deliberations between SAG-AFTRA and the studios that began October 2 blew apart on October 11, with the AMPTP leaving negotiations early after the guild tabled an alternative to its contentious revenue-sharing proposal. A few hours later, expecting more scheduled talks the next day, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland received a call saying deliberations were “suspended.”

“Last night, they introduced a levy on subscribers on top of [other] areas,” Sarandos said the next day at an industry conference, calling the proposal a “bridge too far” and blaming the guild for the talks ending. Later, SAG-AFTRA accused the studios of “bully tactics” and using the “same failed strategy they tried to inflict on the WGA.”

On October 18, after Netflix stated in its Q3 earnings report that talks were “ongoing” and Sarandos said the guild “really broke our momentum” towards a deal, Crabtree-Ireland called BS. “The best way to reach a deal and end this strike is for him and the other CEOs to end their walkout from the bargaining table and resume negotiations,” the SAG-AFTRA national director and chief negotiator told Deadline. “We have been and remain ready to continue talks – every day.”

After an appreciated but DOA bid by George Clooney and other A-listers to intervene in getting talks restarted, it looked like the actors strike would pass the 100-day milestone with no end in sight. Then, on October 21 , after Drescher hit out at the “AMPTPs strategy of non-negotiation” and “a blatant propaganda attempt to discredit union leadership and divide our solidarity,” Bob Iger made a call to Crabtree-Ireland and asked to start a new round of talks.

At 3 p.m. PT on the strike’s 100th day, SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP put out a joint statement that they were heading back to the bargaining table on October 24 at the guild’s headquarters. That first day of negotiations between the parties was “not great,” according to a well-positioned source. As the studios put forth a new offer they hoped would end the stalemate over “success-based compensation,” the guild proved unmoved, but also open to further discussion.

Although the parties had agreed to meet on October 25, the guild asked that morning to take the day to go over the studios’ proposal of increased bonuses based on the success of streaming shows and movies and a further rise in minimum rates. “It’s a step in the right direction and the negotiating committee is taking the time to do a deep review,” a guild source told Deadline.

The two sides sat down again face-to-face around noon on October 26 with Crabtree-Ireland telling Deadline he was “cautiously optimistic” about deliberations with the studios. The guild slide across the table a self-described “comprehensive counter” that attempted to move the two sides closer together, sources said. As open letters from both supportive and impatient guild members flew around town, the AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA’s negotiating committee were back in active talks on October 27. With both sides taking October 30 to be “working independently,” virtual deliberations bled into the weekend with the parties trying to bridge their differences.

On Halloween and in the early days of November, the parties met again. As the parties got “closer and closer,” as a guild source told Deadline, on issues, Crabtree-Ireland and Lombardini continued conferring directly, with breakout groups of lawyers and other specialists huddled in search of a deal – successfully we now know. Followed by two days of consultation by the guild, the November 3 delivery of the studios’ response to the guild’s latest counter and SAG-AFTRA’s November 6 counter response saw the two sides find an AI compromise and began moving things into what we now know was the final phase.

It took an unexpected strike by actors guild (who many studios execs thought were bluffing despite an overwhelming strike authorization mandate), a lot of moving pieces, guild solidarity, and some hard negotiating sessions to get there.

The actors union joined the WGA on the picket lines when it went on strike July 14, creating Hollywood’s first joint strike in more than 60 years. There were a lot of hot summer days when the labor battle remained at a stalemate.

But things shifted after Labor Day. The WGA reached a deal with the AMPTP on September 24 after five months on the picket lines and a final five intense days of deliberations that included the CEO Gang of Four for most of those last sessions. The WGA leadership approved the tentative agreement and ended the strike at 12:01 a.m. PT on September 27. WGA members ratified the deal by a wide margin October 9.

As exclusively reported by Deadline on September 26, the studios and SAG-AFTRA intended to ride the wave of the WGA deal to set meetings within a week or so on their own talks. However, as the goodwill of the WGA’s successful negotiations faded into bitter public call-outs from leaders on both sides, many feared, even with a new round of talks, the actors strike could last well into the holidays, ruining any chance at a partial broadcast networks season and hobbling the 2024 movie slate.

That catastrophe seems to have been averted now.

[watchnrant]

Unfinished Stories: How Show Cancellations Are Hurting Streaming and Its Viewers

Why Streaming Platforms Are Breaking Our Hearts (And Their Own Shows)

Stop me if this sounds familiar: You’ve just finished binging a new show, you’re emotionally invested, and you can’t wait for the next season—only to find out it’s been canceled. Just like that, the characters you’ve grown attached to and the storylines you’re desperate to see resolved are gone, with no closure in sight. Sound familiar? It’s becoming an all-too-common experience for fans in the streaming age.

In 2023, a report by Whip Media revealed that Netflix had a 16% higher cancellation rate than other platforms, reflecting an alarming trend of axing shows—sometimes even those with dedicated fanbases and critical acclaim. The reasons behind these decisions often boil down to corporate strategy and financial metrics, but they don’t just hurt the shows—they hurt us, the viewers.

I’ll break down why so many great shows are being canceled, the emotional toll it takes on fans, and how streaming platforms are sabotaging themselves by cutting these stories short. Most importantly, we’ll explore whether anything can be done to stop this cycle of heartbreak.

When Storytelling Meets Corporate Greed: The Heartbreak of Canceled Shows

Let’s keep it real—when a show gets canceled, especially when it’s just hitting its stride, it’s not just disappointing. It’s heartbreaking. It’s more than losing a weekly escape; it’s like having a favorite book ripped out of your hands before you finish the final chapter. But why is this happening so often? The harsh truth is that, for streaming platforms, storytelling usually takes a backseat to corporate greed.

Even if a show builds a loyal fanbase or raises critical praise, it’s not safe if it doesn’t hit those immediate viewership numbers. Just look at Warrior Nun. It pulled in a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Netflix axed it after only two seasons. If even a show with that kind of love from fans and critics can’t survive, it’s clear that what matters to these platforms isn’t storytelling—it’s short-term financial gain.

These cancellations go deeper than just losing another show to binge. Fans pour their hearts into these stories, connect with the characters, and create entire communities around them. When a show is suddenly canceled, it feels like a personal betrayal. We’re not just talking about losing a form of entertainment; we’re talking about losing something we’ve emotionally invested in, which connects us to others who love it just as much.

The worst part? Platforms like HBO Max are particularly ruthless, with a cancellation rate of 26.9%, driven by the corporate chaos after the Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Shows disappear overnight, leaving fans scrambling. These platforms might think they’re cutting losses, but in reality, they’re cutting off their most passionate viewers—the ones who stick around and keep coming back for more.

The Emotional Fallout for Viewers

When a favorite show gets canceled, it’s not just frustrating—it’s a gut punch. You’ve invested time and energy into these characters and stories, only to have them cut off mid-journey. Streaming platforms may treat it like a business decision, but for fans, it’s personal.

We don’t just watch shows—we connect with them. These characters become part of our lives, and when their stories are left unfinished, it feels like a betrayal. In fact, a Morning Consult poll found that 59% of viewers felt betrayed when their favorite show was canceled. That’s how deep the connection runs. It’s not just about losing something to binge—it’s about losing a story you were emotionally invested in.

Then there’s the fan communities. These aren’t casual viewers—they’re the ones creating fan theories, art, and discussions that keep the show's spirit alive. When a series like Warrior Nun gets canceled, fans don’t just move on. They fight back. They raised money for billboards and campaigned hard for a revival because they weren’t ready to let go. That kind of passion doesn’t just happen with every show; when it does, it’s a connection streaming platforms shouldn’t ignore.

By cutting these stories short, platforms are alienating their most engaged fans. And once that trust is broken, it’s tough to get back. Fans are left wondering, “Why should I get invested in another show if this keeps happening?”

Corporate Greed vs. Creative Integrity

Here’s the truth: streaming platforms love to sell themselves as trailblazers for creative storytelling, but when it comes down to it, they’re often more concerned with their bottom line. It’s a battle between corporate greed and the kind of creative integrity that fans crave. And sadly, creativity is losing.

The reality is harsh—if a show doesn’t pull in massive numbers right out of the gate, it’s considered expendable. Netflix, in particular, is notorious for this. They’re not canceling shows because they aren’t good or don’t have a loyal fanbase; they’re cutting them to dodge higher production costs down the road. Remember GLOW? Remember The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance? Both were critically adored and had dedicated followers, but both were canceled because they didn’t meet Netflix’s financial metrics fast enough.

What these platforms don’t seem to get is that storytelling isn’t about instant gratification. Some of the greatest series out there didn’t start with blockbuster ratings. Breaking Bad, Parks and Recreation—those shows were slow-burns. They grew over time, finding their audience and eventually becoming cultural cornerstones. If they were released today, they might not have survived the brutal pace of the current streaming game.

Even worse, there’s a complete disregard for the cultural and emotional impact of these stories. Shows like The Get Down and Sense8 weren’t just entertaining—they mattered. They represented diverse voices and narratives that we rarely see on screen. But in the eyes of these platforms, if the numbers don’t add up fast enough, it’s game over. And with that, we lose shows that aren’t just fun to watch—they’re important.

Streaming platforms are so focused on short-term gains that they’re sacrificing long-term loyalty and, let’s be honest, the essence of why we all fell in love with TV in the first place—great storytelling. If they keep cancelling shows based on a quick profitability formula, they’re going to lose the very fans who make these platforms what they are.

Even worse, there’s a complete disregard for these stories' cultural and emotional impact. Shows like The Get Down and Sense8 weren’t just entertaining—they mattered. They represented diverse voices and narratives that we rarely see on screen. But in the eyes of these platforms, if the numbers don’t add up fast enough, it’s game over. And with that, we lose shows that aren’t just fun to watch—they’re essential.

Streaming platforms are so focused on short-term gains that they’re sacrificing long-term loyalty. Let’s be honest: The essence of why we all fell in love with TV in the first place is great storytelling. If they keep canceling shows based on a quick profitability formula, they will lose the fans who make these platforms what they are.

Diverse and Niche Shows Are Most at Risk

When it comes to shows that push boundaries or highlight underrepresented voices, it’s clear they face an uphill battle. These are the stories we’ve been waiting to see, but they’re often the first to be canceled before they can really hit their stride.

Shows with female leads, LGBTQ+ representation, and minority-driven narratives are disproportionately at risk. Take Warrior Nun, a series with a strong LGBTQ+ fanbase and a perfect 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Despite its critical acclaim, Netflix cut it after just two seasons. The same goes for Sense8 and The Get Down—both celebrated for their diverse storytelling, yet both were scrapped because they didn’t meet fast financial targets.

But it’s bigger than just numbers. These shows are more than just entertainment—they represent communities and voices often sidelined in mainstream media. Canceling them isn’t just a financial decision; it sends the message that these stories don’t matter as much. In a time when diversity should be celebrated, streaming platforms are turning their backs on the very shows that bring something different to the table.

What platforms seem to miss is that the value of these shows extends far beyond immediate viewership. They spark conversations, build passionate fan communities, and offer sorely needed representation. Cutting these series off at the knees isn’t just a loss for viewers—it’s a cultural setback.

If these platforms want to stay relevant and maintain the trust of their viewers, they need to stop treating diverse and niche shows as disposable. These are the stories that matter, and they deserve to be seen, heard, and supported.

Short-Term Success Metrics and the Decline of Quality

Streaming platforms are laser-focused on quick wins, and that obsession with short-term success directly shapes the content we get—and it’s not a good look. Because of this need for instant results, we’re seeing more shows designed for fast consumption, but they often lack the depth and substance that make for great storytelling. Instead of daring narratives that push boundaries, we get cookie-cutter series that play it safe and fail to take real creative risks.

One of the most significant shifts we’ve seen is the move to shorter seasons. Traditional broadcast TV seasons ran 20 to 24 episodes, giving characters time to breathe and story arcs space to develop naturally. However, streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime have reduced that to 8 to 10 episodes per season. Sure, it caters to binge-watchers who want tighter, faster-paced narratives, but it comes at a cost. Shorter seasons pile on the pressure for shows to perform instantly, and if they don’t? They’re gone before they’ve had a chance to grow a loyal fanbase.

This shift isn’t just killing shows before they can take off—it’s impacting the quality of the storytelling. With fewer episodes, creators are forced to cram significant plot points into a smaller space, cutting down on character depth, subplots, and organic world-building that makes a series truly immersive. Think about the traditional broadcast model: longer seasons allow for slow-burn character arcs and rich, layered stories that stick with you. Compare that to today’s streaming shows, which can feel rushed, scrambling to hit narrative highs without the time to let things develop naturally.

What’s even more frustrating is that we’re also seeing this convergence with broadcast TV. Thanks to shifting viewer habits, even those longer seasons are being chopped down to 10 to 13 episodes. But here’s the catch—while traditional TV shows still have more room to breathe, streaming platforms demand immediate results. And if a show doesn’t grab massive viewership numbers right out of the gate, it’s almost guaranteed to get the axe.

But there are exceptions to the rule. Take The Boys, for example. Erik Kripke created a series that balances shorter seasons with bold, unapologetic storytelling that stands out in a sea of formulaic content. Amazon Prime struck gold with The Boys by allowing the show to take creative risks while delivering a tight, focused narrative. The difference? Kripke’s commitment to fleshing out complex characters and tackling taboo subjects head-on proves that shorter seasons don’t have to mean sacrificing quality.

In a world where most streaming shows are playing it safe, The Boys is a reminder that you can still create something boundary-pushing, even within the constraints of shorter formats. It’s not that it’s impossible—it’s just that platforms need to be willing to take those risks more often.

What streaming platforms are missing in their race for instant success is the potential for long-term loyalty. Slow-burn stories might not immediately pull huge numbers, but they can become cult favorites. Breaking Bad wasn’t an overnight sensation, but because it was given time to build, it became one of the greatest series of all time. Streaming services are leaving that kind of magic on the table. Sure, they might win the numbers game in the short run, but they’re sacrificing the creativity and storytelling that makes fans stick around for the long haul.

Misjudging the Power of Word-of-Mouth

Streaming platforms are so focused on grabbing immediate attention with flashy marketing campaigns and big-budget productions that they often miss one of the most powerful drivers of a show’s success: word-of-mouth. Let’s be real—some of the most beloved and iconic shows didn’t start as massive hits. They grew slowly, building momentum because fans couldn’t stop talking about them. But platforms, in their obsession with quick wins, often don’t give shows the time to grow organically.

Here’s the thing: marketing can only do so much. The real magic happens when fans connect deeply with a show and start spreading the word. That’s how Breaking Bad went from under the radar to a cultural juggernaut. Same with Stranger Things—it didn’t become a phenomenon just because Netflix poured money into it. Fans built that buzz, episode by episode, conversation by conversation.

And yet, streaming platforms continue to prioritize big-budget releases over fan-fuelled shows. They bank on high-profile rollouts, hoping for immediate success, but often miss out on the organic, slow-build shows that gain momentum through fan passion. Take The Expanse or The OA, for example—these weren’t instant smashes, but the fan-driven conversations around them were intense. People shared theories, created fan art, and built communities dedicated to these shows. When platforms cancel those shows, they’re not just losing a piece of content—they’re breaking up the community that powered them.

The power of fan communities goes far beyond viewership numbers. These are the people who will fight for a show, even after it’s been canceled. We’ve seen it time and time again. Lucifer? Brought back from the dead by its fans. Manifest? Same story. The fans rallied so hard that the platforms couldn’t ignore them. And let’s not forget Warrior Nun—after it was canceled, fans took to the streets with billboards and petitions, refusing to let their show go quietly into the night. That’s the kind of energy that streaming platforms are seriously underestimating.

What streaming platforms need to understand is that viewership isn’t just about numbers—it’s about engagement. When fans invest emotionally, they spread the word. They get their friends watching. They create the kind of buzz that no marketing budget can buy. Cutting a show too soon means killing that potential for fan-driven growth, which could be the key to turning a sleeper hit into a cultural phenomenon.

At the end of the day, it’s fans who turn shows into something bigger than a streaming number. It’s their conversations, their love for the story, and their commitment to spreading the word that makes a show stick. And if platforms keep ignoring that, they will keep canceling the very shows that had the potential to become the next big thing.

Audience Disengagement and “Serial Churning”

There are only so many times you can get your heart broken by show cancellations before you start to wise up. Fans aren’t just sitting back and taking it anymore—they’re starting to play the game, hopping from platform to platform, subscribing just for one or two shows, then canceling the minute they’re done. It’s called “serial churning,” and it’s happening because fans simply don’t trust streaming platforms to keep their favorite shows alive long enough for them to commit emotionally.

Why would you invest in a new series when there’s a good chance it’ll get canceled before it even gets the time to breathe? We’ve all been burned—whether it was The OA, Warrior Nun, or some underrated gem that had so much potential but never got the chance to finish the story it started. It’s no surprise fans are more cautious now, waiting to see if a show will make it past season one before they even think about getting attached.

This “serial churning” isn’t just a theory—it’s real and growing. A 2023 report from Deloitte found that 38% of streaming subscribers are now jumping between platforms, only signing up for specific shows and canceling once those shows are over. That’s what happens when you lose your audience’s trust. They’ve seen enough shows get axed, and now they’re treating their subscriptions like they treat their favorite series: totally disposable.

Streaming platforms don’t seem to realize they’re creating their own problem. By constantly canceling shows and focusing only on short-term wins, they’re driving away the long-term loyalty that keeps subscribers coming back. Fans are no longer sticking around to browse the library; they’re hopping in, watching what they came for, and leaving just as quickly.

At the heart of this issue is trust. Fans want to know that when they invest their time into a story, they’ll get the whole experience—the closure, the character arcs, the payoff they signed up for. But when platforms cancel shows before those stories can fully unfold, they break that trust. And once that trust is gone, so are the viewers. Platforms need to wake up to the fact that fans aren’t just passive subscribers—they’re part of the story. Keep canceling shows, and you’re not just churning viewers. You’re churning away any hope of building lasting loyalty.

Case Studies of Canceled Shows and Their Fan Communities

When a beloved show gets canceled, it’s more than just the end of a storyline—it’s the collapse of an entire community. Fans don’t just passively watch their favorite series; they invest emotionally, build communities, create art, and engage in endless theories. So, when a show is axed, it’s a gut punch that goes way beyond just missing out on entertainment. Let’s dive into a few examples that show how deeply these fanbases are connected and why streaming platforms often fail to recognize the real power of these passionate communities.

Warrior Nun: A Fanbase That Refused to Go Quietly

Warrior Nun wasn’t just another action-packed supernatural series—it was a lifeline for fans hungry for more authentic LGBTQ+ representation. This show connected with its audience on a personal level, offering characters and storylines that felt both fresh and deeply relatable. So when Netflix canceled it after just two seasons, the backlash was fierce.

But these fans didn’t just mourn—they mobilized. Petitions, billboards, social media campaigns—the Warrior Nun fandom went to war for their show. The #SaveWarriorNun movement wasn’t just about saving a series—it was about saving a story that represented voices that often get sidelined in mainstream media. This community wouldn’t let Netflix’s decision go unchallenged, and their fight is still ongoing.

And this is what platforms miss: Warrior Nun fans weren’t just casual viewers. They were invested. These kinds of fan communities are the backbone of a show’s success and longevity. When you cancel a series like this, you’re not just losing viewers—you’re alienating a dedicated audience that could have stuck around for years.

Shadow and Bone: A Fantasy Fandom Teetering on the Edge

When Netflix adapted Leigh Bardugo’s Shadow and Bone, it quickly became a must-watch for fantasy lovers and die-hard Grishaverse fans. The show’s rich world-building and complex characters struck a chord, and fans didn’t take long to rally behind it. But despite the initial buzz, there’s still a lingering fear that Netflix’s infamous cancellation axe could come down on Shadow and Bone at any moment, thanks to the high production costs.

Here’s the thing—fantasy series like this take time. The Grishaverse fanbase is still growing, but they’re passionate and vocal, ready to support the series in the long run if Netflix allows it to flourish. The problem is that these shows often don’t get that chance. Platforms are too quick to judge based on instant success, missing the bigger picture. A series like Shadow and Bone has all the makings of a slow-burn classic, but it needs time to grow and fully realize its potential. Cutting it off too soon would be yet another missed opportunity.

My Lady Jane: Cancelled Before It Could Even Begin

Then there’s My Lady Jane, an adaptation that never even got the chance to hit the screen. Based on the wildly popular book by Cynthia Hand, Brodi Ashton, and Jodi Meadows, it was set to be a refreshing, comedic take on Tudor-era history—something completely unique. Fans of the book series were eager to see this quirky, genre-bending story brought to life.

But before a single episode could air, My Lady Jane was canceled—a victim of shifting priorities and cost-cutting measures behind the scenes. This kind of decision hurts the most because it wasn’t about the content itself. It was about risk. And in a world where unique, offbeat shows are already few and far between, it’s frustrating to see a potential gem scrapped before it ever had the chance to find its audience.

These case studies highlight a truth that streaming platforms often overlook: fans are more than just numbers. They’re the heart and soul of a show’s success. When a show gets canceled, it’s not just about lost episodes—it’s about lost connections, lost stories, and the collapse of entire communities that fans have built around these worlds. And the thing is, fans won’t go quietly. They fight. They rally. They push back. And in some cases, they win. Platforms would do well to recognize that losing a show means losing something much deeper—audience trust and long-term loyalty.

The True Cost of Cancellations on the Streaming Industry

The damage runs deeper when platforms cancel a show than when losing a series. It’s a hit to the very trust that viewers place in these platforms—and that’s not just an emotional cost; it’s a long-term business problem. Cancellations are starting to shape the entire streaming landscape in ways that could have severe consequences down the line.

Eroding Viewer Trust and Loyalty

Every time a beloved series gets canceled without warning, it feels like a breach of trust. Fans are left wondering, “Why bother getting invested in a new show if it’s just going to be cut short?” That hesitation is real, and it’s growing. Streaming platforms are creating an environment where fans are afraid to commit, knowing full well that their favorite characters and stories might not get the endings they deserve.

This is where the real damage starts. When a platform cancels a show, it’s not just losing a few disappointed viewers—it’s eroding the trust of an entire audience. Fans stop seeing these platforms as reliable. They stop believing their time and emotional investment will pay off. And when that happens, they’re less likely to dive into a new series. The constant cycle of cancellations is pushing fans away, making them reluctant to commit to anything new until they know it’s going to stick around.

A 2023 report by Insider Intelligence even predicts churn rates could top 40% by 2025 as viewers lose faith in platforms’ ability to see a story through. And that’s not just an issue for the fans—it’s a significant threat to streaming services. In such a competitive market, losing long-term loyalty could have substantial financial consequences.

The Decline in Content Quality

It’s not just trust being sacrificed—creativity is taking a hit, too. Platforms are so focused on profitability that they’re playing it safe, pushing out shows designed to grab quick attention but lacking real depth. Instead of bold, slow-burn stories that need time to find their audience, we’re getting formulaic content that’s all about hitting those instant viewership targets.

And let’s be honest—when you’re focused on getting quick wins, you won’t take creative risks. The result? Fewer daring narratives, less character development, and more cookie-cutter shows that feel like they’re made by algorithm rather than passion. The heart and soul of great TV—those slow-burn character arcs and richly layered plots—are being sacrificed in favor of shows that may look good in the short term but don’t have the substance to stick with viewers.

The “Enshittification” of Streaming

Then there’s the ugly side of it all—what some have called the “enshittification” of streaming. This is where platforms get so wrapped up in monetization that they start cutting corners on the very thing that made them successful in the first place: great storytelling. More and more, streaming platforms prioritize profit over quality, cranking out content designed to boost numbers but lacking the creativity and emotional depth that makes people want to keep watching.

This kind of short-sighted thinking doesn’t just hurt the shows—it hurts the platforms. Sure, they might get a temporary bump in viewership, but they’re alienating the fans who would stick around for the long haul. Platforms are so focused on squeezing out quick profits that they’re forgetting what brought people to streaming in the first place: the promise of unique, bold storytelling. And that’s a promise they’re failing to keep.

The actual cost of all these cancellations? It’s not just a few lost episodes or unfinished storylines—it’s a long-term problem for the entire streaming industry. As platforms prioritize short-term gains over building lasting relationships with their audience, they’re eroding trust, stifling creativity, and, ultimately, risking their future.

A Call for Industry Reform

Let’s cut to the chase: the streaming industry desperately needs a reset. Creativity is taking a backseat to corporate greed, and we, the fans, are the ones paying the price. The constant cancellations, the obsession with instant results, and the disregard for long-term storytelling are burning out viewers and driving a wedge between platforms and the people keeping them alive. But here’s the thing—this can change. It has to change.

Ending the Cycle of Corporate Greed

It’s time for streaming platforms to stop treating shows like disposable content. This “cancel-first, think later” approach isn’t just frustrating—it’s killing the stories that make TV worth watching in the first place. Platforms are so focused on what’s hot right now that they’re missing out on cultivating the kind of shows that build dedicated, long-term fanbases. The truth is, some of the best series didn’t become iconic overnight. Breaking Bad took time to hit its stride. Parks and Recreation wasn’t an immediate hit either.

What platforms need is patience. Not everything has to be a blockbuster right out of the gate. Give shows time to grow. Invest in the long haul. Stop looking for the next viral sensation and start backing the stories that have the potential to evolve into something lasting and meaningful. Because the alternative? It’s a graveyard of unfinished stories and frustrated fans who are done investing in shows that don’t get the time they need.

Supporting Storytelling Longevity and Artistic Integrity

Here’s what needs to happen: creators deserve the space to tell their stories from start to finish. Fans deserve to know that the time they invest in a show will pay off. That means committing to complete narratives, not cutting off stories halfway through because they didn’t blow up in the first season. Streaming platforms need to get back to what made them great—pushing boundaries, taking creative risks, and supporting the kind of storytelling that builds emotional connections over time.

We need platforms to prioritize artistic integrity over analytics. Let’s get back to original, thought-provoking, and emotionally charged content—the kind that lingers with you long after you’ve hit “Next Episode.” The audience is there for it. Fans want originality, crave stories that challenge them, and are willing to stick around if the platforms show they’re committed to letting those stories unfold.

Bringing Back Viewer Loyalty

The trust between viewers and streaming platforms is hanging by a thread. Fans hesitate to commit to new series because premature cancellations have burned them too many times. Platforms must rebuild that trust by showing they’re in it for the long run. If a show doesn’t hit massive numbers in its first season, that doesn’t mean it’s a failure. It means it’s just getting started.

By investing in slow-burn hits and giving fanbases room to grow, platforms can bring back the loyalty they’ve lost. Viewers want to commit. They want to feel like their time matters. If platforms start treating shows as more than short-term profit plays, they’ll see fans return—eager and ready to invest in the stories they know will be given the chance to thrive.

The future of streaming isn’t in chasing viral hits or cranking out disposable content. It’s in building lasting relationships with fans through great storytelling. If platforms don’t make that shift, they risk losing the very audience that made them what they are today. It’s time for the industry to wake up and realize that the power lies in the fans, the stories, and the long-term commitment to creativity and connection.

My Final Word: Why Streaming Platforms Need to Rethink Their Strategy

Canceling shows isn’t just about numbers—it’s a betrayal of the fans who pour their time, energy, and emotions into these stories. When a beloved series gets cut short, it’s not just a show ending—it’s trust being broken. After this happens enough times, viewers start asking, “Why should I get attached to another show if it’s just going to vanish?”

The way streaming platforms operate right now is pushing fans away. There’s too much focus on instant success and not enough emphasis on what really builds lasting loyalty: connection. Fans don’t just want another series to pass the time; they want stories that matter, stories that evolve, take risks, and, most importantly, finish. Yet, time and time again shows with real potential are being scrapped before they can fully take off.

This needs to change. Streaming platforms should start thinking long-term. Support the creators—the writers, showrunners, and directors—who have bold stories to tell, even if their shows don’t become instant hits. Let these stories grow, build fanbases, and reach their full potential. Stop playing it safe with formulaic content made for quick numbers and start investing in storytelling that leaves a lasting impact.

Fans aren’t just looking for something to watch—they want stories that remind them why they fell in love with TV and film in the first place. Platforms that focus on cultivating that kind of content are the ones that will keep their audiences engaged. It’s not about quick wins; it’s about creating something that resonates long after the credits roll.

If streaming platforms want to stay relevant, they need to refocus on what really matters: creative integrity and long-term fan loyalty. Otherwise, they risk losing not just a few shows but also the audience's trust, which makes them successful. And once that trust is gone, it won’t be easy to get back.

[seogoogle1]

Netflix Subscription BD: A New Era for Streaming in Bangladesh

In recent years, the global entertainment landscape has undergone a significant transformation, largely driven by the rise of streaming services. Among the various platforms that have captured the world's attention, Netflix stands out as a leader. This article delves into the specifics of Netflix Subscription BD, examining its impact on the Bangladeshi market and highlighting the role of local facilitators like Amader Cart in enhancing the streaming experience.

The Rise of Netflix in Bangladesh

Netflix's global expansion strategy has been remarkably successful, and Bangladesh is no exception. With a growing middle class, increasing internet penetration, and a youthful population keen on digital entertainment, Bangladesh presents a fertile ground for streaming services. Since its launch in Bangladesh, Netflix has attracted a substantial number of subscribers, drawn by its vast library of content, including movies, TV shows, documentaries, and original productions.

Factors Driving Netflix's Popularity in Bangladesh

Content Variety: One of Netflix's biggest draws is its diverse content library. From Hollywood blockbusters and critically acclaimed TV series to niche documentaries and local films, Netflix offers something for everyone. This variety appeals to Bangladeshi audiences with varied tastes and preferences.

Original Productions: Netflix Originals, such as "Stranger Things," "The Crown," and "Money Heist," have garnered a global following. These high-quality productions attract Bangladeshi viewers looking for exclusive content that is not available on other platforms.

User-Friendly Interface: Netflix's intuitive interface, personalized recommendations, and multi-device compatibility make it a preferred choice for users seeking a seamless viewing experience.

Affordable Pricing Plans: Recognizing the price sensitivity of the Bangladeshi market, Netflix offers a range of subscription plans to cater to different budgets. This flexibility makes it easier for a broader audience to access the platform.

Challenges and Solutions in the Bangladeshi Market

Despite its popularity, Netflix faces certain challenges in Bangladesh. These include payment method limitations, competition from local streaming services, and internet connectivity issues. However, innovative solutions have emerged to address these challenges.

Payment Solutions: The Role of Amader Cart

One of the primary obstacles for Bangladeshi consumers has been the limited availability of international payment methods. Many potential subscribers do not possess credit or debit cards that are accepted for Netflix subscriptions. This is where Amader Cart comes into play.

Amader Cart is a local service provider that facilitates the purchase of Netflix subscriptions using local payment methods. By allowing payments through bKash, Rocket, and other popular mobile financial services in Bangladesh, Amader Cart has made it significantly easier for consumers to subscribe to Netflix. This convenience has been a game-changer, expanding access to Netflix for a wider audience.

Amader Cart: Bridging the Gap

Amader Cart has positioned itself as a crucial intermediary, helping to bridge the gap between Netflix and Bangladeshi consumers. By offering a hassle-free payment solution, Amader Cart ensures that users can enjoy uninterrupted streaming without worrying about payment issues. Their service is not limited to Netflix alone; they also facilitate subscriptions to other global streaming services, thereby enriching the digital entertainment ecosystem in Bangladesh.

How Amader Cart Works

Easy Subscription Process: Users visit the Amader Cart website or app, select the desired Netflix subscription plan, and choose their preferred local payment method.

Payment Confirmation: Once the payment is made, Amader Cart processes the transaction and activates the Netflix account.

Customer Support: Amader Cart provides customer support to assist with any issues related to subscriptions, ensuring a smooth user experience.

The Future of Streaming in Bangladesh

As internet infrastructure continues to improve and more people gain access to affordable smartphones and data plans, the demand for streaming services in Bangladesh is expected to grow. Netflix, with its strong brand presence and extensive content library, is well-positioned to capitalize on this growth. However, local competitors and emerging platforms will keep the market dynamic and competitive.

Impact on Local Content Production

The popularity of Netflix in Bangladesh also has implications for the local entertainment industry. The platform’s success has encouraged local filmmakers and producers to create high-quality content that can appeal to both domestic and international audiences. Netflix's interest in acquiring and producing local content can provide a significant boost to the Bangladeshi film and TV industry, fostering creativity and innovation.

Conclusion

Netflix Subscription BD represents more than just access to a streaming service; it signifies a shift in how Bangladeshis consume entertainment. The collaboration between Netflix and local facilitators like Amader Cart has democratized access to high-quality content, making it easier for people across the country to enjoy global and local productions. As the market evolves, Netflix's ability to adapt to local needs and preferences will be crucial in maintaining its leadership position. With the continued support of services like Amader Cart, the future of streaming in Bangladesh looks promising, offering endless possibilities for viewers and content creators alike.

Exploring the Netflix Subscription BD Ecosystem

To understand the full impact of Netflix Subscription BD, it’s essential to explore the broader ecosystem that supports this service in Bangladesh. This includes the role of telecommunications companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and government initiatives aimed at boosting digital infrastructure.

Telecommunications and ISPs

Telecommunications companies and ISPs play a vital role in ensuring that Netflix can reach its audience in Bangladesh. With the advent of 4G and the anticipated rollout of 5G technology, streaming high-definition content is becoming more feasible. Major ISPs in Bangladesh, such as Grameenphone, Robi, and Banglalink, are continuously upgrading their networks to provide faster and more reliable internet services, which are crucial for an optimal streaming experience.

Government Initiatives

The Bangladeshi government has been proactive in enhancing the country’s digital landscape through various initiatives. The "Digital Bangladesh" vision aims to transform Bangladesh into a technologically advanced nation by promoting digital literacy and expanding internet access. These efforts are instrumental in creating an environment where streaming services like Netflix can thrive.

Content Localization and Cultural Relevance

For Netflix to maintain its growth trajectory in Bangladesh, content localization and cultural relevance are key. Understanding the preferences of Bangladeshi viewers and curating content that resonates with them is crucial. This includes not only dubbing and subtitling international content in Bengali but also investing in original local productions.

Netflix Originals in Bangladesh

Netflix has already started exploring the potential of local content in various countries, and Bangladesh is on its radar. By partnering with local filmmakers and producers, Netflix can create original content that reflects the unique cultural and social dynamics of Bangladesh. Such initiatives not only cater to local tastes but also provide a platform for Bangladeshi stories to reach a global audience.

The Competitive Landscape

While Netflix is a dominant player in the global streaming market, it faces competition from both international and local platforms in Bangladesh. Competitors like Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and local services such as Hoichoi and Bioscope offer alternative streaming options.

Hoichoi and Bioscope

Hoichoi, for example, focuses on Bengali content, making it a popular choice among viewers looking for regional entertainment. Bioscope, another local platform, offers a mix of live TV, movies, and original web series, catering to diverse tastes. These platforms often emphasize local content, providing strong competition to Netflix.

The Role of Social Media and Influencers

Social media platforms and influencers have a significant impact on the popularity of streaming services. In Bangladesh, influencers play a crucial role in shaping consumer preferences and driving subscription growth. By leveraging social media marketing and collaborations with local influencers, Netflix can enhance its visibility and appeal to a broader audience.

Effective Social Media Strategies

Engaging Content: Creating engaging content that resonates with local audiences is essential. This includes sharing trailers, behind-the-scenes footage, and interviews with actors and creators.

Influencer Partnerships: Collaborating with popular Bangladeshi influencers and celebrities can help Netflix reach potential subscribers more effectively. Influencers can create buzz around new releases and share personal recommendations, making the service more relatable.

Interactive Campaigns: Running interactive campaigns, such as online contests and live Q&A sessions, can boost engagement and foster a sense of community among subscribers.

Conclusion: A Bright Future for Netflix in Bangladesh

Netflix Subscription BD has opened up a world of entertainment possibilities for Bangladeshi viewers. The combination of diverse content, affordable pricing, and local payment solutions provided by Amader Cart has made Netflix an accessible and attractive option for many. As the streaming landscape continues to evolve, Netflix's ability to adapt to local preferences and collaborate with key players in the ecosystem will be critical to its success.

The future of streaming in Bangladesh looks bright, with Netflix poised to play a central role in shaping the country's digital entertainment landscape. By continuing to innovate and invest in local content, Netflix can not only maintain its leadership position but also contribute to the growth and development of the Bangladeshi entertainment industry. With the support of local facilitators like Amader Cart and the ongoing improvement of digital infrastructure, the journey of Netflix in Bangladesh is set to be an exciting one, promising endless entertainment for viewers across the country.

Website: https://www.amadercart.com.bd/

https://seogoogle99.blogspot.com/2024/05/netflix-subscription-bd.html

[thepastisalreadywritten]

So now we are finally getting down to the brass tacks of what this is really all about.

It took three slick trailers and three hour-long episodes, but at last, we appear to have arrived at the “truth” of Harry and Meghan’s Netflix documentary.

And far from love being the central theme – or even race – like all the most destructive royal tales from Richard I to Edward VIII, sibling rivalry lies at its heart.

There were not-so-subtle clues in Harry & Meghan Vol 1 with Harry’s reference to “a hierarchy of the family” and Meghan’s suggestion that William and Kate’s “formality on the outside carried through on the inside.”

We even had Harry’s thinly disguised jibe about the temptation for Windsor men “to marry someone who would fit the mould as opposed to somebody who you perhaps are destined to be with.”

The implication was clear: he married with his heart and William with his head.

Then there was the seemingly calculated omission of the Prince and Princess of Wales from any of the imagery associated with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding and Harry’s steadfast refusal to so much as acknowledge his big brother’s support in the aftermath of their mother’s death.

Keen to avoid any positive references to William whatsoever, Harry, 38, even went so far as to describe his relationship with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho as “like brothers” while insisting that “second families” in both Africa and the Army brought him up.

Yet in the latest trailer, the kid gloves well and truly come off.

Claiming he and his wife were the victims of “institutional gaslighting,” he accuses the palace and/or the media of lying for his brother but not him.

“They were happy to lie to protect my brother,” he declares. “They were never willing to tell the truth to protect us.”

Who the “they” refers to is open to interpretation, but since Harry now seems to think the palace and the press are one and the same thing, after accusing royal correspondents of being “an extended PR arm” of the Royal family, the trailer doesn’t feel the need to be explicit. 

But then again, Harry and Meghan aren’t big on specifics either, preferring to cast around generalisations in the hope of tarring the entire media with the Twitter troll's brush.

“I wasn't being thrown to the wolves, I was being fed to the wolves,” says the Duchess, in the vein of Montecito’s own Little Red Riding Hood, again neglecting to name her tormentor. 

Could “Goodness Grandma, what big tiaras you’ve got” be one of the stories “they” lied about? Or tears over bridesmaids dresses? Or that tale about Meghan wanting air fresheners inside “musty” St George’s Chapel? Or might it have had something to do with avocados?

Thankfully, we only have to wait until Thursday to find out.

Royal aides will doubtlessly be hoping Harry and Meghan stick with their tried and tested “blame the media” strategy, rather than the declaration of war that would be accusing the palace of briefing against them on William’s behalf.

The latter would certainly appear to be a departure from the heir to the throne issuing a statement in November 2016 in which he said he “absolutely understands the situation concerning privacy and supports the need for Prince Harry to support those closest to him.”

As a source told The Telegraph at the time: “The Duke was as alarmed as anyone about what was happening with Meghan.”

Strangely, the couple do not appear poised to mention this, preferring the narrative that they were purposefully hung out to dry.

“Our security was being pulled, everyone in the world knew where we were,” recalls Meghan, 41, seemingly forgetting that all this happened after she and her husband took their own decision to “step back as 'senior' members of the Royal family and work to become financially independent,” in January 2020.

The comment, like so many in this series, reflects the sense of entitlement of a couple who were not willing to play second fiddle to anyone.

Curtseying to the Queen is mocked. The notion of Meghan having to dress herself, ridiculed.

If it wasn’t bad enough that William and Kate had a superior place in the palace pecking order, they also had to put up with them hogging all the positive publicity.

Christopher Bouzy, a long time cheerleader for the Sussexes who analysed the negative social media comments about Meghan, claims that an orchestrated misinformation campaign was mounted against them.

“They were actively recruiting people to disseminate disinformation,” he says.

Again it is who the “they” is, although one imagines it is unlikely to be Sunshine Sachs, the couple’s former PR firm, which was once accused of employing “bare knuckle” tactics to defend Hollywood’s groper-in-chief Harvey Weinstein on social media.

Filming himself on a plane, Harry laughs with relief as he cheerfully declares: “We are on the freedom flight.”

Towards the end of the trailer, he makes clear how strongly he believed in what they were doing.

“I always felt as though this was a fight worth fighting for," he insists, before adding: “To move to the next chapter, you’ve got to finish the first chapter.”

Yet as anyone who has ever fallen out with a sibling knows, you can never truly close the book on your own family, no matter how much you may have been paid to sell your story.

[occidentaltourist]

What do you feel about shows having less and less episodes in a season?

I'm generally a fan of shorter seasons - and limited series too.

The 22/24-episode seasons that we think of as 'standard' were from the pre-streaming days, with a very small number of very large broadcast networks who sold time for commercials during each episode. So the more episodes and the longer the season, the better for their revenue. But it meant every season had throwaway episodes that were boring and/or filler, and that the actors and production staff were working absurdly long hours for 10 months a year.

I like how the British networks do short seasons of 8/10/12 episodes. (I'm sure there are financial reasons for that too.) And how the formerly prestigious HBO (and others) also did short, high quality seasons of great shows.

I've read social media threads from TV writers arguing that more episodes helps a writers room and gives less experienced writers more chances to get a writing credit or take the lead on certain episodes. So that's the other, unseen side of it for us as viewers.

And I'm not a fan of streamers like Netflix who cancel series willy-nilly after one short season, in the name of some kind of business strategy of always churning out new content for cheaper I guess?

[sathya32]

EXPLANATION OF DATA SCIENCE

Data science

In today's data-driven world, the term "data science" has become quite the buzzword. At its core, data science is all about turning raw data into valuable insights. It's the art of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to make informed decisions. Think of data as the ingredients, and data scientists as the chefs who whip up delicious insights from them.

The Data Science Process

Data Collection: The journey begins with collecting data from various sources. This can include anything from customer surveys and social media posts to temperature readings and financial transactions.

Data Cleaning: Raw data is often messy and filled with errors and inconsistencies. Data scientists clean, preprocess, and organize the data to ensure it's accurate and ready for analysis.

Data Analysis: Here's where the real magic happens. Data scientists use statistical techniques and machine learning algorithms to uncover patterns, trends, and correlations in the data. This step is like searching for hidden gems in a vast treasure chest of information.

Data Visualization: Once the insights are extracted, they need to be presented in a way that's easy to understand. Data scientists create visualizations like charts and graphs to communicate their findings effectively.

Decision Making: The insights obtained from data analysis empower businesses and individuals to make informed decisions. For example, a retailer might use data science to optimize their product inventory based on customer preferences.

Applications of Data Science

Data science has a wide range of applications in various industries.

Business: Companies use data science to improve customer experiences, make marketing strategies more effective, and enhance operational efficiency.

Healthcare: Data science helps in diagnosing diseases, predicting patient outcomes, and even drug discovery.

Finance: In the financial sector, data science plays a crucial role in fraud detection, risk assessment, and stock market predictions.

Transportation: Transportation companies use data science for route optimization, predicting maintenance needs, and even developing autonomous vehicles.

Entertainment: Streaming platforms like Netflix use data science to recommend movies and TV shows based on your preferences.

Why Data Science Matters

Data science matters for several reasons:

Informed Decision-Making: It enables individuals and organizations to make decisions based on evidence rather than guesswork.

Innovation: Data science drives innovation by uncovering new insights and opportunities.

Efficiency: Businesses can streamline their operations and reduce costs through data-driven optimizations.

Personalization: It leads to personalized experiences for consumers, whether in the form of product recommendations or targeted advertisements.

In a nutshell, data science is the process of turning data into actionable insights. It's the backbone of modern decision-making, fueling innovation and efficiency across various industries. So, the next time you hear the term "data science," you'll know that it's not just a buzzword but a powerful tool that helps shape our data-driven world.

Overall, data science is a highly rewarding career that can lead to many opportunities. If you're interested in this field and have the right skills, you should definitely consider it as a career option. If you want to gain knowledge in data science, then you should contact ACTE Technologies. They offer certifications and job placement opportunities. Experienced teachers can help you learn better. You can find these services both online and offline. Take things step by step and consider enrolling in a course if you’re interested.

Thanks for reading.

[anishmary]

Exploring the World of Data Analytics: Opportunities and Beyond

Describe data analytics. Analyzing data to find useful information, patterns, and trends is known as data analytics. Businesses adore it since it aids in their improvement. It’s similar to solving problems with data.

Why is data analysis so crucial? Consider yourself in possession of a treasure map (data) and the desire to locate the treasure (insights). Your compass is data analytics.

Why it matters is as follows: It aids in your understanding of consumer behavior, market trends, and company performance.

Efficiency: You can discover areas in which your company may save both time and money.Smart decisions: When using data, you may base decisions on facts rather than educated guesswork.

Personalization: Have you ever seen how Netflix suggests shows? That is data analysis.

Future Scope of Data Analytics :

High Demand: Many businesses in different industries need data experts because they use data to make smart choices. So, the need for skilled data analysts is growing.

Various Job Fields: Data skills are useful everywhere, not just in one industry. You can work in finance, healthcare, e-commerce, marketing, or technology. This means you have many options for your career.

Tech Keeps Changing: The tools and methods for working with data keep getting better and different. It’s important to keep learning new things, but it also means you can become an expert in a special area.

Helping Decisions: Data people play a big role in helping businesses make important decisions. What you find in data can change how a company plans for the future.

Career Growth: Starting as a data analyst can lead to better and higher-paying jobs like data scientist or machine learning engineer.

Good Pay: Data analysts are paid well. As you get better at your job, you can earn even more.

Job Security: As long as companies use data, they’ll need people who understand it. So, you’ll have a stable job.

Work from Anywhere: You can often do data work from anywhere, giving you flexibility in where you live.

Ethical Data: Data privacy and being fair with data are important. People who can make sure data is used the right way are in demand.

Worldwide Opportunities: Data skills are needed all over the world, so you

can work in different countries if you want.

Careers in Data Analytics:

Data Analyst: The entry point They collect, clean, and analyze data.

Data Scientist: The Experts They use machine learning to solve complex puzzles.

Business Analyst: The bridge between data and business decisions

Big Data Engineer: They manage massive data sets using big data tools.

Healthcare Analyst: They use data to improve healthcare outcomes.

Marketing Analyst: Masters of measuring marketing success

Financial Analyst: They use data for financial strategies.

Sports Analyst: They play with data in the world of sports.

The Future of Data Analytics:

AI and machine learning: Think smarter, not harder. Automation will rule.

IoT Analytics: Connected devices will provide more data than ever.

Ethical Analytics: Data privacy will be a top concern.

Data Visualisation: Making data pretty and easy to understand will be big.

Feel free to get in touch with an ACTE institution if you want to learn more about Data Analytics because they provide certifications and possibilities for job placement. Teachers with experience can improve your learning. These services are available offline and online. Take things slowly and, if you’re interested, think about signing up for a course.

I hope I was able to effectively respond to your query. If it’s not, add it in the comments section. I still think I have a lot to learn.

Consider following me and giving this answer an upvote if you found it to be useful. This will motivate me to post more information on data analytics.

We appreciate you taking the time to read this and voting it up. Enjoy your day.