Why Isn’t 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' on Netflix?
October 24, 2016 5:56 AM   Subscribe

 
If I ever meet a Netflix exec, God give me the strength to corner them and launch into a 20-minute diatribe about Netflix's failure to offer "Living Single."
posted by duffell at 6:13 AM on October 24, 2016 [24 favorites]


I'm kind of amazed that even (presumably) less expensive '90s shows like Hangin' With Mr. Cooper and Sister Sister aren't living a second life on streaming. They weren't nearly as essential as Fresh Prince, but I remember them being enjoyable as light after-school sitcoms in syndication.

(I also notice that there is nary a mention of Roc in the article. Have we already forgotten the greatness of Charles S. Dutton?)
posted by Strange Interlude at 6:36 AM on October 24, 2016 [31 favorites]


No one outside the company knows the details of how Netflix acquires licenses and this article doesn't provide any new information. They don't really answer the question posed in the title.
posted by demiurge at 6:36 AM on October 24, 2016 [27 favorites]


I really need to watch some more of those old shows. I loved A Different World when I was a kid, but it was on at a time where I couldn't watch it too often. It really raised my expectations for college far higher than was reasonable, though.

This all reminds me that I need to watch more TV. In the late eighties/early nineties - formative times! - it seemed so normal to have black-centered TV shows (to this white person). I was a young teen so I didn't even think about it as a thing, because I had been pretty well socialized into the racism-is-a-defeated-force-all-we-need-to-do-is-keep-moving-forward narrative, so I just figured that those shows were proof that things were getting better and better. But actually they weren't!.

But now it seems like there's started to be a lot of cool stuff again and I should be supporting it with my dollars so it will stick around.
posted by Frowner at 6:37 AM on October 24, 2016 [14 favorites]


Lily-white non-Netflix user here:

I read the article, and one thing it doesn't address is whether streaming platforms offer significant African-American-centric original properties. I mean, I know Luke Cage has a black lead, but what's out there past that?

Are we seeing an economic response to a racial digital divide, where high-speed internet is less likely to be available in low-SES homes? I think I read somewhere that African Americans are more likely to get their primary high-speed internet access through their smartphones. If that's true, then they would be less likely to consume bandwidth through services like Netflix.

In any event, just one more reason why I wish internet access was treated more like a utility.
posted by parliboy at 6:40 AM on October 24, 2016 [11 favorites]


But I was thrilled to see A Different World is streaming on Netflix. That's a show I've missed keenly and I'm really looking forward to watching it again, now that I'm much older and have done/am doing the college thing.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 6:45 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Beasts of No Nation was another Netflix original.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:48 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Have we already forgotten the greatness of Charles S. Dutton?

No!
posted by Room 641-A at 6:50 AM on October 24, 2016 [8 favorites]


The fact that Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is available on international Netflix means the reason it's not on US Netflix is the distributors think it is worth more than Netflix does. Hard to tell who is right or they both may be.

Netflix is turning out to be big picture disappointment. The hope used to be that one could subscribe to a service and then get pretty much anything you wanted to watch from the assorted back catalogues. Instead not only are several competing services slicing and dicing what is available; many shows, black and otherwise, aren't available at all (at least in Canada) even if you you are willing to subscribe to all services. Even the article says only 8 of the 20 most popular sitcoms are available streaming. Good luck if you want a semi-obscure TV Show (EG: Remington Steele; Magnum PI; Hardcastle and McCormick; Real American Hero; or dang it can't remember the name but two brother PIs one of whom drives a ridiculous Black and Orange Dodge pickup.)
posted by Mitheral at 6:56 AM on October 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


Roc really was much better than any of the shows mentioned in that article. I may be slightly influenced by having wanted to be a trashman at the time it aired, but the characters seemed more like real people to me than any other sitcom I've seen. It's gotta be dirt cheap to license too compared to stuff like Family Matters.
posted by mattamatic at 6:57 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


Simon & Simon.
posted by valkane at 7:00 AM on October 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know Luke Cage has a black lead, but what's out there past that?

They did The Get Down this year too, which, while not Cage, was a quite watchable fable about the beginnings of rap in a Bronx of the 70s.
posted by bonehead at 7:01 AM on October 24, 2016 [12 favorites]


and it is not ridiculous
posted by Shepherd at 7:04 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


The hope used to be that one could subscribe to a service and then get pretty much anything you wanted to watch from the assorted back catalogues.

Netflix started as a repertory service, but I think they're finding that, like HBO, the draw for their audience is in the new(er) content, either their own or from high-quality producers that don't have easy access to a market, the BBC in the US and Canada, for instance.

CraveTV and Showmi, in Canada, collect many of the old "shovelware" tv collections and movie DVDs. Apparently this isn't really making money for them.
posted by bonehead at 7:08 AM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


I personally loved The Get Down far more than Cage. Hopefully the success of those leads to more.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:10 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


No one outside the company knows the details of how Netflix acquires licenses and this article doesn't provide any new information. They don't really answer the question posed in the title.

Sometimes the point of asking a question isn't to immediately answer it, but to draw people's attention to it, and get them thinking. I didn't watch much TV during the era in question, so I missed a lot of these shows. I'm also white. It never occurred to me to notice that these shows aren't on the streaming services I use, or to ask anyone why that might be, or to let anyone know that I think it would be a good thing if they were available.
posted by Orlop at 7:13 AM on October 24, 2016 [22 favorites]


The fact that Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is available on international Netflix

I don't know who international Netflix is for, but Fresh Prince isn't available on UK Netflix.
posted by biffa at 7:15 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


In the late eighties/early nineties - formative times! - it seemed so normal to have black-centered TV shows (to this white person). I was a young teen so I didn't even think about it as a thing, because I had been pretty well socialized into the racism-is-a-defeated-force-all-we-need-to-do-is-keep-moving-forward narrative, so I just figured that those shows were proof that things were getting better and better.

Yeah, I remember this feeling well. Not only were there black shows on the major networks, but everybody was watching them. Or at least it felt that way. All my peers (none of them black) were watching Fresh Prince and Sister, Sister and In Living Color. It wasn't a big deal, those shows were just what people watched then. But there was definitely a palpable turning point where they started disappearing from the big three networks and moving to UPN instead, and that process was well underway if not complete by the time the 90s were over.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:16 AM on October 24, 2016 [38 favorites]


I agree, the question remains unanswered. It is suggested, and seems reasonable enough conclusion, that Netflix doesn't think it's worth what the owner wants, and the owner is satisfied with the show's cable tv revenue.

Licensing rights is a sometimes baffling mystery. The Twilight Zone season 4 was basically never shown in rerun despite the remaining four seasons being being broadcast virtually uninterrupted for decades over the air. It kind of made sense, in that season 4 episodes occupied a one hour slot vs the usual half hour, which could understandably be an issue for a broadcast station. But for a streaming service like Netflix, that rationale goes out the window. You'd think. The missing 4th season remains a convention, despite it being available via other on demand, generally pay per view, streaming services.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:27 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


But there was definitely a palpable turning point where they started disappearing from the big three networks and moving to UPN instead, and that process was well underway if not complete by the time the 90s were over.

Why do you think this was? "The US just got more conservative again" doesn't seem to explain much of the mechanics.

It really did seem like there was this window during the nineties when things were a kind of ghostly echo of the mainstreaming of liberalism in the late sixties/early seventies.

In the past few years I feel like we've gotten that back a little bit, but with better/more militant politics.
posted by Frowner at 7:28 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


“I don’t think you’d ever seen a wealthy
African-American family on television until Fresh Prince,


The Jeffersons.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:31 AM on October 24, 2016 [21 favorites]


biffa: I don't know who international Netflix is for, but Fresh Prince isn't available on UK Netflix.

The show was pulled off the air in the UK after being deluged with confused callers asking how Will Smith is related to the Queen.
posted by dr_dank at 7:34 AM on October 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


"I don't know who international Netflix is for, but Fresh Prince isn't available on UK Netflix."

Netflix doesn't just have 2 sites. As in it's not a US/International divide. Their catalog is vastly different from country to country and, annoyingly, so is the limited language selection of their subtitles.
posted by I-baLL at 7:47 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


But there was definitely a palpable turning point where they started disappearing from the big three networks and moving to UPN instead, and that process was well underway if not complete by the time the 90s were over.

Why do you think this was? "The US just got more conservative again" doesn't seem to explain much of the mechanics.


The WB and UPN were the leading edge of the explosion of television from basically four outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) that had to appeal to everyone (if only in small bursts here and there) to the modern media landscape where AMC and FX can be successful networks with less than 100 hours of original scripted programming a year. So nowadays the big networks don't see as much of a need to have programming that appeals to any but the largest demographics.
posted by Etrigan at 7:50 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Netflix is turning out to be big picture disappointment.

So I might be misunderstanding what you mean by a 'big picture' disappointment - but I don't think it is at all. Yes, it has it's competitors and challenges - but their library is huge. I refuse to believe that someone can't find anything to watch on Netflix.

I think it's a little much to expect every TV show ever to be on Netflix worldwide. re: shows from the article is disappointing, and there has been more than once I wanted to watch an old movie or tv show that I thought for sure would be on Netflix, but isn't. Still for the price per entertainment hour, Netflix is far from a disappointment. At least in the USA.
posted by INFJ at 7:56 AM on October 24, 2016 [10 favorites]


Why do you think this was? "The US just got more conservative again" doesn't seem to explain much of the mechanics.


I think the article alludes to it. I think there's a tendancy for new TV networks to offer more programming for African American audiences in an effort to carve a niche for themselves as they get started, abetted by the fact that when building out a new network of broadcast affiliates you have to start in big cities. A rural area might only have a handful of high power channels likely already signed on to the big three. In a city you get more channels over the air and can differentiate yourself by capturing a slice of the audience the big three channels aren't serving. Fox was in that position in the late 80s early 90s, and it was the network that aired Martin and In Living Color along with The Simpsons. As you sign on more and more affiliates and get more popular, you're incentivized to switch to a more mainstream audience in order to attract major national advertizers. By the late 90s, the WB and UPN were in that slot. I think early on they both had black sitcoms, but then the WB shifted to teen, while UPN stuck with African Americans --- just google UPN sitcoms. But that wasn't enough to keep them going, and they eventually merged with the WB.

So yeah, I wonder if that wasn't what happenned, basically --- as the number of broadcast networks grew in the 90s, UPN developed into the niche black network. But six broadcast networks was just too many, and since UPN was never as broadly availible as the others and eventually died off, they didn't have as much of an impact on the mainstream American culture. In other words, in 1988 when Fox was the brash newcomer and there were only 4 TV options on air for sticoms, white suburban teens would probably run across its programs. With 6 networks, cable, and the internet, it was a lot less likely that you'd end up watchin a UPN show that wasn't aimed at you.

That's my half-assed theory, anyway.
posted by Diablevert at 7:57 AM on October 24, 2016 [10 favorites]



Why do you think this was? "The US just got more conservative again" doesn't seem to explain much of the mechanics.


I wonder if the demise of the family sitcom in general wasn't a big part of this -- in the 80s there was the success of the Cosby Show, and all the black family sitcoms that followed that, but it seems like when the trend moved towards 'friends/roommates in the city' sitcoms (Seinfeld, Friends) and workplace sitcoms... there wasn't that same model of 'shows with black casts can also be really successful.' (Which is not to excuse it! Now that we've had a decade of workplace sitcoms with at least token nods to diversity, and genuinely diverse ones like Brooklyn 99, it's kind of shocking how white shows like Friends or The Drew Carey Show or Will & Grace feel. Especially considering how many of those shows were set in NYC.)
posted by Jeanne at 8:02 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm not 100% convinced we're looking at this problem from the right height. I'd be interested to see what the demographics are for the executives who work in content acquisitions for Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I suspect the problem is that the problem is that, when it comes to resurrecting older shows, those execs tend to focus on the series they themselves enjoyed. And given that the older shows they're buying are overwhelmingly what GenX white folk would recall fondly, I have a pretty good idea of what the folks at their offices look like.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:12 AM on October 24, 2016 [11 favorites]


CraveTV and Showmi, in Canada, collect many of the old "shovelware" tv collections and movie DVDs. Apparently this isn't really making money for them.

Apparently not - Shomi is shutting down service as of Nov 30. I'm kind of hopeful this means their catalogue becomes available for Netflix to try to acquire the streaming rights.
posted by nubs at 8:13 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Netflix does have season 1 of "The Fresh Prince" on DVDs. Let them know you want more!
posted by Carol Anne at 8:14 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


“I don’t think you’d ever seen a wealthy
African-American family on television until Fresh Prince,

The Jeffersons.


And The Cosby Show (doctor dad and lawyer mom are at least very upper middle class).
posted by darkstar at 8:15 AM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


Do we really need an affluent vs. wealthy derail here? It's pretty clear what the article meant. Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv were the richest black people on tv, unprecedentedly so.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:18 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


The article makes a pretty good case for why these shows aren't on streaming services, but forces the reader to connect the dots a bit.
Lotz speculates that the reason classic black shows don’t land on streaming services is simply because they’re not fondly remembered by enough people. They don’t exist in the “cultural imagination” to the extent of a show like Friends, which inspires an endless cycle of internet content.

So none of them were the sort of moneymaking machine that demands to be on streaming. When you get below that tier the executives are looking for content that's "fondly remembered." And it's the almost universally white executives doing the remembering.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:19 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


Room 641-A: "The Jeffersons."

While the Jeffersons lived in a luxury apartment and owned a string of dry cleaning businesses they weren't wealthy in the way the Banks were.

INFJ: "So I might be misunderstanding what you mean by a 'big picture' disappointment - but I don't think it is at all. Yes, it has it's competitors and challenges - but their library is huge. I refuse to believe that someone can't find anything to watch on Netflix.
"

I was hoping Netflix would be a fair substitute for bit torrent; not even close. Part of the problem seems to be the licensing is setup on a time basis rather than a per-view basis.

INFJ: "Netflix is far from a disappointment. At least in the USA."

The USA catalogue is, I'm guessing, 10X the Canadian catalogue. Before Netflix was forced to crackdown it was pretty common for Canadian subscribers to also subscribe to a service to allow them to watch US Netflix. Said services often cost half as much as the original Netflix service. Which highlights the problem: Netflix and the copyright holders are leaving massive amounts of money on the table protecting their rights and like the article says the window for these properties is closing. Instead of managing to work together to sell that US content to Canadians they shut the door. Don't get me wrong I'm bet this can mostly be laid at the feet of Canadian copyright holders. Be interesting to see what happens now that Showmi is shutting down.

At least part of the reason IMO that some of these shows are so expensive/don't get streamed is that these large vertically integrated media companies don't want to undercut their current productions. You need someone who JDGAF Like Ted Turner and TCM.
posted by Mitheral at 8:20 AM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


DirtyOldTown: "I suspect the problem is that the problem is that, when it comes to resurrecting older shows, those execs tend to focus on the series they themselves enjoyed. And given that the older shows they're buying are overwhelmingly what GenX white folk would recall fondly, I have a pretty good idea of what the folks at their offices look like."

Well sure, there are only so many hours in a day and you have to focus on something. I'd like to think at least some of the people involved are passionate about TV. The lack of diversity at Netflix is the problem not that the people involved are focusing on the show they liked (at least if you aren't a shareholder).
posted by Mitheral at 8:23 AM on October 24, 2016


No mention of Julia? Really?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:24 AM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's one one of the Sky satellite channels here, never mind Netflix. Odd.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 8:28 AM on October 24, 2016


I suspect the problem is that the problem is that, when it comes to resurrecting older shows, those execs tend to focus on the series they themselves enjoyed. And given that the older shows they're buying are overwhelmingly what GenX white folk would recall fondly, I have a pretty good idea of what the folks at their offices look like."

See, this is why it's weird - I am a late-but-not-that-late Gen Xer and my "fondly" is very much the late eighties through the late nineties. I grew up in a very white and very conservative suburb, too. But it's really Fresh Prince, Living Single and A Different World that are haloed by a glow of nostalgia for me, because they were optimistic and new-seeming when I was young.
posted by Frowner at 8:30 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


it seems like when the trend moved towards 'friends/roommates in the city' sitcoms (Seinfeld, Friends) and workplace sitcoms... there wasn't that same model of 'shows with black casts can also be really successful.'

Wasn't Martin pretty much a friends-in-the-city sitcom? And it even beat Friends to the trend by two years.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:36 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe I'm being too delicate and it is making me unclear: I suspect shows with black casts aren't being bought often enough by streaming services because they don't have enough black people doing the buying.

I'm not saying only black people watched black shows and only black execs would acquire them. I am, however, saying the lack of representation is most likely caused by... lack of representation.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:36 AM on October 24, 2016 [17 favorites]


Netflix and the copyright holders are leaving massive amounts of money on the table protecting their rights and like the article says the window for these properties is closing. Instead of managing to work together to sell that US content to Canadians they shut the door.

I've probably complained about this elsewhere on MeFi, but you can't even watch the free Amazon Prime pilots due to "geographical licensing restrictions". It's hard to read this as anything other than "we don't give a shit about Canada" for free content that Amazon (presumably?) owns.
posted by ODiV at 8:36 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've been watching Luke Cage slowly, so I just saw ep 12 last night. Method Man was amazing, and to suggest that any show that would come out and say basically : "sure he's bulltetproof, but he's also black, so when it comes to dealing with the cops, the best choice is still to run", is just a comic is selling it waaaaay short.
I think that both LC and the Get Down are great, and hope that Netflix and others are putting money into making great new content if that's where the money has to go.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:38 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Their catalog is vastly different from country to country and, annoyingly, so is the limited language selection of their subtitles.

And not just limited, but wrong. Anglophone Caribbean countries (like mine) get shoved onto the Latin American site, where there are usually no English subtitles, either on Spanish-language content (which, fine, helps you learn Spanish) or other non-English stuff (which interferes with your learning other languages). Leading to absurd situations such as me flailingly interpreting like 9 hours' worth of Italian/Sicilian scenes from The Godfather Part II for my husband, who knows even less Spanish than I do.

They do have Fresh Prince, though! Maybe I'll rewatch it now that I know what a rare privilege it is to have the opportunity.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:40 AM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


Netflix 2016 isn't even trying to be HBO, as so many have claimed; it wants to be Fox. It wants to be the fifth major network. My question is, who's trying to be Netflix 2012? Because there's a fantastic number of great films that are unavailable for streaming, and I feel confident saying that buying the streaming licenses for those would be at least as wise an investment as making a Stranger Things or a Daredevil -- shows that make a huge immediate splash but will probably be yesterday's news before long. I'm personally not that interested in today's Netflix, but I'd pay a lot for yesterday's.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:07 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I hear what you're saying, kfb. But Netflix abandoned the "broad catalog of streaming movies for a fixed fee" model because it made them less money than their other options. Actually, I am pretty sure they ran at a loss under that model, didn't they? The only way someone would pick up where they left off on that front would if they could find a way to do it differently, either in terms of how much they were able to charge or how much they had to pay to license films. It's hard to see either of those going over right now.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:15 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


If a service that offers existing films/TV for streaming doesn't make a profit, that implies that either the licensing costs are too high or the subscription fees are too low. There's already a $10-ish per month standard for subscriptions that a new player is unlikely to budget, so it seems like the studios need to wise up.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:18 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think the problem with the broad strategy is that they are beholden to lots of different rights holders for their content. When Netflix was small and didn't have a lot of market share, those rights holders were very willing to sell to Netflix at a price that they both liked because the rights holder saw it as additional revenue. Now as people cord cut and as Netflix grows in stature, the rights holder sees Netflix as a threat to cannibalize their revenue in other verticals. That results in licensing deals that aren't as easy for Netflix to swallow and thus they can't buy everything.
posted by mmascolino at 9:20 AM on October 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know Luke Cage has a black lead

Luke Cage also has Cheo Hodari Coker as showrunner and is the sort of show where a scene with four African-American women--a police detective, her boss, a member of the city council, and the mother of a suspect--having a conversation about acceptable police behavior is no big deal.
posted by straight at 9:22 AM on October 24, 2016 [14 favorites]


Netflix 2016 isn't even trying to be HBO, as so many have claimed; it wants to be Fox. It wants to be the fifth major network.

It wants to be something else entirely. One of the major strengths of the major broadcast networks is their ability to cross-promote -- watch a football game on Fox and you'll be saturated with ads not just for Empire and The Simpsons, but also FX and Fox Sports. Netflix only barely does that via pre-show ads and "You Might Also Like...", because their business model isn't "Advertise with us and get seen by X million people".
posted by Etrigan at 9:36 AM on October 24, 2016


Since early 2013, Netflix has been recording a 25% to 30% revenue growth each quarter. House of Cards, arguably their first major self-made hit, came out in 2013. Prior to that, they had a series of wild upswings and crashes. I suspect that their thinking is that original productions are critical to subscriber growth, with the standard big tent-pole content being important too (e.g. the deal with Disney).

Back catalogue stuff, shows from the 80s and 90s---Fresh Prince for sure, but also hits like Family Ties or favourites like Sports Night---are hard to license worldwide, have limited appeal, and, likely, overpriced for what they can return in terms of subscriber growth. How many people would subscribe to Netflix based on they're carrying Sanford and Son? Or even a whole package of old shows with black stars? Or would they be better reaching those folks who might with new shows that Netflix doesn't have to argue for with increasingly hostile U.S. networks?

They seem to have found the solution to that problem in creating hits of their own. Original programming is not where they started from, but I do think that's much more of their future.
posted by bonehead at 9:40 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm only 7 episodes into Luke Cage, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the cast is hella diverse. I think there's two white people with more then 30 seconds of screen-time total? That's with a cast of around 10 reoccurring characters.
posted by INFJ at 9:42 AM on October 24, 2016


No one outside the company knows the details of how Netflix acquires licenses and this article doesn't provide any new information. They don't really answer the question posed in the title.

Yeah, sort of pointless. Netflix Canada (5M subs?) has Fresh Prince, which suggests a rights issue, not a money or viewers issue. There's a greater discussion to be had re: representation/marginalization on new media platforms which the piece touches on, but meh.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:03 AM on October 24, 2016


I used to want the Fat Albert Cartoons and Picture Pages to show up on Netflix. But I doubt it will, especially now with everything going on with Cosby.
posted by grobertson at 10:09 AM on October 24, 2016


Netflix Raising $800 Million More Debt to Fuel Original Content

Some interesting perspectives here: Netflix’s streaming-content obligations at the end of the third quarter of 2016 were $14.4 billion (costs that are amortized over the life of the license terms), up $1 billion sequentially. The company said the increase reflects the addition of both new original and non-original content to its library, as well as expanded rights for new territories.

Additionally, about half of their spending, $6B in 2017, will be used for new programming. The rest presumably will go to licensing.
posted by bonehead at 10:21 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Growing up in the 70s, pretty much the bulk of my tv watching consisted of black-centric shows: Sanford & Son, Good Times, the Jeffersons, What's Happening. And I'm just a white girl from Indiana!

Those are the shows I love, and remember.

Also, I see your "Sister, Sister" and raise you "Moesha" which was SO much better.
posted by gsh at 10:39 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


Why would anyone on earth expect Netflix to do this? Netflix has never seen itself as the place for anthologies of old television shows. That's Hulu's domain, isn't it?
posted by koeselitz at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm not ruling out the idea that (unconscious, mostly passive and systemic) racism plays a part in Netflix's decisions on what to stream. Heck, one of its biggest hits is a women-in-prison show that's applauded for its depictions of people of color but has a white woman at its center. But the article does offer another partial explanation that hasn't been highlighted in this thread.
In 2013, Warners inked a deal to air reruns of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Family Matters, Martin, The Jamie Foxx Show, and The Wayans Bros. on BET. “These deals are negotiated by the distributors,” says John Bowman, a cocreator of Martin. “In my experience, they don’t leave much money on the table … I would guess that the deals are contingent on no streaming. That being said, Hollywood has consistently undervalued ’90s black sitcoms.”
If Fresh Prince is part of a Warner bundle of black-themed TV shows licensed to BET, it seems quite plausible that U.S. streaming is forbidden under the license agreement in order to make BET's rights more valuable. If I were BET, I'd certainly be willing to pay more for stuff that I thought was going to keep my core demographic tuning in to cable TV instead of cutting the cord.

And yes, gsh, I'm about as white as they come (though I grew up among a lot of Mexican-Americans) and I remember that in the 1970s Sanford & Son, Good Times, The Jeffersons and What's Happening were unquestionably the coolest shows on TV no matter what color you were.
posted by Mothlight at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


You still can't even get the full series of Living Single or Waynes Brothers (which I've been watching reruns of on MTV2) on DVD. Such a shame.
posted by littlesq at 11:01 AM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Netflix Canada (5M subs?) has Fresh Prince, which suggests a rights issue, not a money or viewers issue.

Indeed, Fresh Prince has been on for a while on Netflix Canada. With the tone-deafness that only algorithms can generate, Netflix offered to show me Fresh Prince immediately after I had watched Fruitvale Station.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:01 PM on October 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Littlesq, yes that also affects Moesha. A DVD release is the big hurdle that pre-2000 shows need to clear to gain entry into the One True Archive of American Television (aka bittorrent pirate sites). They just don't have the historic importance to motivate people to seek out and digitize old VHS copies.

But most of the series mentioned in this thread do have complete archives available on private pirate sites. It's a shame that copyright holders care enough to force them underground, but not enough to make the shows available themselves.
posted by ryanrs at 12:55 PM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've got Fresh Prince here in Canada, but more importantly, Third Rock From The Sun.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 1:13 PM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Said services often cost half as much as the original Netflix service.

In here it's not even a matter of "services", but basic cable channels dedicated to reruns: Out of the top of my head, on my service I have AXN, AXN White, AXN Black, Fox, Fox Comedy, Fox Life, Fox Crime, AMC (not the premium fancy pants version you have there) and MOV.
Since my STB (and smartphone app) can stream anything from the past 7 days, as well as remotely store up to 100 hours of recordings, with the right timing I can follow a TV show from the start . For instance, for some reason, a few weeks ago I though I should watch all of HIMYM, after seeing a random episode here and there, and noticing the programming block had ended and restarted from season one. It broadcasts two episodes every weekday, and I've started season 4 last Friday.

How many people would subscribe to Netflix based on they're carrying Sanford and Son?
One thing I'm surprised is how neither of these channels broadcasts anything that finished over 10 years - it's mostly ongoing shows (usually syndicated until the last or before completed season) or shows that ended recently. Up until ten years ago there was a short-lived comedy channel that acquired rights to several 70s to 90s sitcoms - Seinfeld, All In The Family, Jeffersons, MASH, Soap!, Raymond, Cheers, Frasier, Alf, Caroline in the City, and even month-old Late Night shows. None of those channels I've mentioned (mostly owned by the Iberian/international branches of Sony, Fox or AMC) has old shows on the regular channels or a dedicated, like BBC Entertainment does it for their own stuff, so if they're not even worth as a basic cable channel to squeeze a few more cents/subscriber and from the few advertisers, I don't think there's much mass-market value in them.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:27 PM on October 24, 2016


The begging of the question here bothers me. I agree with the above comment that none of us really even know what's going on here, and... i don't know, this framing just bugs the shit out of me. Maybe it's because i have experience with watching people i actually know be on the receiving end of this kind of stuff, but yea*.

I'm a bit disappointed that we'll likely never see a response from them on this**, because i bet there's some really boring mundane stuff going on here that they're not even really in a position to effect that much change on. But before i go there, have you ever noticed how you see tons of some items listed on craigslist used for way more than they'll ever sell for, or are even going for on ebay? Apple products are common for this, but there's lots of other items(certain brands of clothing or outdoor gear, some movies on various formats like the "disney black diamond collection", etc).

There's multiple forces that drive this from the personal level up to the corporate. Original investment in the product or project, it's former popularity/profit/individual selling price, perceived leverage(IE: you have all but these few of this thing, to complete the set the price suddenly goes up).

I would imagine netflix has teams bigger than a lot of companies working on both market research and licensing. They just spent considerable money producing Luke Cage and The Get Down. Both of which were immediately wildly successful. Luke cage was so popular that it broke netflix for a little while.

This indicates to me that not only do they care about representation, but that they know there's a large demand that it's profitable... Which leads me to believe the terms that were offered for them to carry this stuff greatly outstripped their market value in to the territory of being completely bullshit.

*The arena i'm thinking of/have some experience in and experienced friends here, and which a lot of callouts have happened in is music booking. And a lot of similar thinkpieces have come out. And honestly it's just not that goddamn simple as "this booker/company is biased and shitty" and although the greater systemic issues have been coming to light locally once that was pushed hard, this narrative sounds... a bit too similar to me. I also just hate that "RLY MAKES U WONDER" well-i'm-not-gonna-say-it framing in general. Who's to say they weren't offered a similar deal other similar properties were getting and turned it down outright, or counteroffered with something ridiculous? What this kind of thing often lacks is proof they didn't try. And the barrier to "we can't prove it, but they so consistently fail at this that they must not be" hasn't been met here when new properties in this same space are rapidly coming out on netflix.

**And the reason for this is that the only time you can do this is if you have the leverage. If netflix said "this company didn't want to play ball" that company will never play ball again likely. It's burning a bridge to air that stuff out.

posted by emptythought at 1:29 PM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe it's because i have experience with watching people i actually know be on the receiving end of this kind of stuff, but yea*.

Oh, god, the unbridled horror of someone writing a thinkpiece. Saints above spare us all from such a dire fate.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:38 PM on October 24, 2016


Netflix really isn't a service where you get to see whatever you want. Back when it was DVD only, it kind of was, but it isn't anymore. When I originally got it, it was because my local independent video stores had all been bought out by national chains, and those national chains didn't have much that I wanted to see. So I got Netflix so I could decide on a movie I wanted to see and be able to rent it that week.

But when the streaming service was launched, the selection was smaller. Then, slowly, as the streaming service matured, it stopped focusing on movies and started accumulating TV shows. Then, the focus started to shift again, and now they're pushing their own content more and more, to the point that the rest of their catalog almost seems like an afterthought.

At this point, having Netflix streaming is pretty much like having cable, just time shifted. They make their own shows, syndicate others, and then have a handful of movies. And you turn on your TV and look around for something to watch, rather than deciding what you want to see first. That's why they keep rolling out 'features' like the ever-expanding autoplays. They're advertising their content just the way TV does.

They don't have Fresh Prince right now probably for the same reasons cable TV might not. There's no doubt systemic racism to blame for the fact that there are so few older shows to choose from featuring black leads, but the reason Netflix isn't syndicating the ones that are available is probably just a numbers thing.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:03 PM on October 24, 2016


My wild ass guess is the reason we don't see WKRP and Northern Exposure. Music licensing.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:57 PM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's worth noting that Netflix is an optional entertainment source, not a public utility.
posted by davebush at 6:19 PM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's true. Public libraries should have streaming services.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:21 PM on October 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is a streaming service for public libraries. It should be far more comprehensive and universal, though. Just a PSA.
posted by ernielundquist at 8:48 PM on October 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


Netflix's non-original content isn't curated in the slightest. I don't know why people keep hoping that will happen. It's all about what they can get a deal on from rights holders. But the greatest video store in the universe still has six seasons of "Fresh Prince" available to rent on DVD!
posted by altersego at 11:10 PM on October 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Given that Netflix actually paid for streaming rights for Fresh Prince in several non-U.S. markets makes me wonder why we'd call out the exclusion from the U.S. as some form of implicit bias. Responses from Mothlight and emptythought seem more reasonable, i.e., because "business" and not necessarily bias. There are also publicized efforts about Netflix giving voice to artists of different backgrounds (e.g., Lisa Nishimura, a Content VP at Netflix, actually reached out to Ava DuVernay about funding a project of her choice [1], which resulted in the creation of 13th), though you can't really say that a docufilm fills the quite the same niche.

922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a: My wild ass guess is the reason we don't see WKRP and Northern Exposure. Music licensing.

I was browsing around for why old shows didn't get licensed, and turned up this related article. Doesn't sound like such a wild ass guess!

ernielundquist: Then, the focus started to shift again, and now they're pushing their own content more and more, to the point that the rest of their catalog almost seems like an afterthought.

We're definitely seeing this from the marketing side at Netflix (both on and off the site), though it's probably a reflection of the unsustainable growth in costs of licensing outside content and also supports their major pivot towards producing (and, thus, owning) their own content. With plans to spend $6B on content in 2017 and half of that still earmarked for licensing external content, that's still more than what they've paid for streaming rights in 2014 and earlier (seems to be on par with 2015) [2]. The public disappointment about the shrinking licensed catalog often seems to blame reduced spending in this area, but it really doesn't seem to be the case so much as the fact that it just costs a lot more to license content these days (thanks, competing services) especially considering the fact that Netflix seems to prefer exclusive, global licenses (at least per their long-term view [3]). Of course there are still U.S.-exclusive deals that are too hard to pass up (e.g., Disney)...

I do wonder what kinds of people-of-color-centered family sitcoms are being pitched to showrunners (including Netflix) these days and whether they'll be able to recapture my favorite TV moments as a child (e.g., Steve Urkel playing basketball (SLYT)!). Shows (and moments like those) were family favorites while growing up in my Asian American household. Urkel's race didn't even factor into my awareness of the show so much as the fact that I could relate to the repressed nerd and enjoyed (vicariously) his rare moments to shine. Maybe sitcoms as a form just aren't going to hold up in the long run. Watching ABC's TGIF block was a weekly childhood event, but nowadays, we've cut the cable and don't watch nearly as much TV with our small kids as I remember watching back then (in lieu of doing things like playing board games).

[1] Ava DuVernay on '13th': How Netflix Jumpstarted the Timeliest Doc of the Year, No Film School
[2] How Does Netflix Pay Studios? What the Streaming Giant Does to Obtain Content, Arts.Mic, with figures originally quoted from this WSJ article
[3] Netflix's View: Internet TV is replacing linear TV, Netflix Investor Relations
posted by drather19 at 11:21 PM on October 24, 2016


It's worth noting that Netflix is an optional entertainment source, not a public utility.

I dunno. This stuff: tv, movies, music, books. It's our culture. Broader access and better archives would be a wonderful thing.

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was not produced because someone was counting on receiving streaming royalties from it in 2016. I don't see any moral argument for why these old shows shouldn't be in the public domain and free to all.
posted by ryanrs at 6:19 AM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Streaming, no. But syndication, they were certainly counting on still making some money after the finale. Just not sure if they believed in the show would last over 20 years in the public conscience.

Up until a few years ago, Seinfeld was not on Netflix, and the show being gold (, Jerry, GOLD) on syndication was likely the reason. Reportedly, Larry David and Jerry as creators of the show were making around $200M each every year from syndication deals just a couple of years ago.

Fresh Prince might not have been the juggernaut that Seinfeld and Friends were, but it likely still turns a decent income from each deal, at least more than Netflix was willing to pay.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:23 AM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know about syndication, but I figured Fresh Prince was no longer being aired. But apparently TBS still shows it.
posted by ryanrs at 7:39 AM on October 25, 2016


Steve Urkel playing basketball

They just should've passed it to Will.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:19 PM on October 25, 2016


But the greatest video store in the universe still has six seasons of "Fresh Prince" available to rent on DVD!

There's only five seasons available from DVD.com, the re-Qwikster-ized DVD rental service from Netflix.

(Disappointingly, Qwikster.com redirects to the main Netflix site, not this one.)
posted by jimw at 10:20 PM on October 25, 2016


« Older Activist Tom Hayden has passed away   |   The Evolution of Lady Gaga Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments