Original Article

Critical Studies in Television:

The International Journal of
Exploring Netflix myths: Television Studies
2024, Vol. 0(0) 1–16
Towards more media industry © The Author(s) 2024

studies and empirical research Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
in studying video-on-demand DOI: 10.1177/17496020241297618
journals.sagepub.com/home/cst

Karin van Es 
Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Abstract
Using Netflix as a lens, this article identifies and unpacks three central interrelated
myths – binge-watching, on-demand, and big data – surrounding global video-on-demand
services. These myths are problematic because they make certain ideas about these
services seem natural and self-evident, restricting our understanding of their role in
culture and society. Moreover, these services provide little transparency and data access
to evaluate their claims leading to a call for more media industry studies and empirical
research. This article points to valuable avenues of inquiry, emerging from recent studies,
that can serve as a source of inspiration for future research in this field.

Keywords
Netflix, myths, video-on-demand, innovative methods, media industries, empirical
research

During the past decade, video-on-demand (VoD) services have been positioning and
repositioning themselves discursively against other media, while making claims as to their
revolutionary character. Most often they do so in contrast to the broadcasting logics of
television, emphasizing elements such as their data-driven decision making and the
predictive power of their recommender system (Burroughs, 2018; Van Es, 2023; Wayne,
2022). As such, they have been understood as disruptive to established industry practices.
Meanwhile, a shroud of secrecy envelops the operations of their data-driven systems and

Corresponding author:
Karin van Es, Utrecht University, Muntstraat 2a, Utrecht 3512 EV, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]
2 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

the evolving practices associated with them. This environment has proven fertile soil for
the construction, perpetuation, and propagation of narratives about global VoDs. It allows
them to define the terms under which they are understood. More specifically, these
narratives centre on binge watching (Turner, 2021), on-demand (Van Es, 2023) and big
data (Frey, 2021; Van Es, 2023; Wayne, 2022) and are presented as statements of fact that
do not require further scrutiny. They constitute myths in the Barthesian sense and have,
too often, been uncritically reproduced by media and academics. They are problematic as
they tend to oversimplify how we think about these media. As such, they limit our
understanding of how culture is produced, circulated, and consumed on VoDs, and Netflix
in specific.
To facilitate critical engagement with VoDs, it is crucial that these myths are evaluated.
To do so, this paper argues, requires the field amps up research from a media industry
studies perspective and conducts more empirical studies. Confronting these myths is not
to deny that ‘streaming logics’ (Burroughs, 2018) are reshaping broadcasting logics (and
vice versa). However, as transformations unfold, their actual newness is proven far more
complex, gradual, and non-linear. In other words, complexity and contradictions in these
transformations are overlooked. While acknowledging that Netflix is a ‘zebra amongst
horses’ (Lotz, 2021: 195), following Burroughs (2018), the VoD is used as a lens in this
article due to its central role in producing and circulating discourses about the video
streaming industry at large.
This article first examines the discursive positioning of Netflix and the confusion and
ambiguity it has generated over the nature of the service. Academics, for instance, have
struggled with the question of whether or not Netflix is still television (Jenner, 2018;
Lobato, 2017, 2019; Lotz, 2022). It then explores three interrelated myths central to
Netflix’s identity that have been produced and perpetuated in this process of positioning:
binge-watching, on-demand, and big data. Subsequently, it advocates for more media
industry studies and empirical research as important ‘checks and balances’ to examine
these myths and ensure that Netflix cannot solely define the terms under which we
understand its role in culture and society. This then leads to a discussion of the challenges
posed by opacity and restricted access, exacerbated by the processes of datafication and
algorithmisation. Subsequently, the article highlights various recent studies offering
research directions that could be built and expanded on to get a better understanding of
VoDs, also detailing steps that have been taken in my own research. The article also
considers recent shifts in the field, noting how Netflix is increasingly resorting to more
established industry practices revealing the limitations of these myths. The conclusion
then advocates for connecting and elaborating on innovative methods to probe these
myths. This article highlights the crucial role of innovative and collaborative research
approaches in making these services more transparent and knowable. It aims to encourage
constructive scrutiny of the myths surrounding VoDs and by presenting initial efforts
made towards this goal, it seeks to inspire further exploration and examination in this
field.
van Es 3

Netflix’s discursive positioning

When Netflix entered the online streaming landscape, Mareike Jenner (2018) notes it
strategically marketed itself as television with its CEO Hasting claiming they wanted to
‘become HBO faster than HBO can become us’ (Jenner, 2018: 5). In Netflix and the
Reinvention of TV (2018), Jenner explores Netflix as ‘dominant challenger to linear
television, viewing practices, nationalized media systems and established concepts of
what television is’ (Jenner, 2018: 3; original emphasis). However, the positioning of
Netflix in the media landscape has been more complex. Ramon Lobato (2019) observes
how Netflix combines different technologies and institutions. He argues that Netflix has
many faces and that it is ‘a media object that perfomatively enacts its association with
these media at different times and for different purposes’ (Lobato, 2019: 43). As he
explains, for the government it presents itself as a digital media service to navigate
regulatory concerns. In public relations, leveraging consumer familiarity, it postures itself
as television while its interface design suggests a cinematic experience. In terms of its
recommender system, however, it promotes itself as new media.
Scholars have also been grappling with the question ‘what is Netflix?’ (Lobato, 2019:
19) and have been trying to establish which conceptual frameworks they can use to study
it. Perhaps most telling in this regard is how Amanda Lotz (2017) initially insisted that
Netflix was internet television. Later, however, she stated that her claim of Netflix as
television was an ‘emotional response’ and that ‘Although there is considerable formal
similarity in the content commissioned by linear ad-supported channels and SVODs, the
nature of this content, the strategic purpose of the content to different services, and the
strategies by which they pursue that purpose are critically different’ (Lotz, 2022: 117).
Nowadays, she gives preference to describing Netflix as a form of internet-distributed
video.
Similarly, scholars (Johnson, 2019: 30; Lobato, 2019: 36; Poell et al., 2022: 6) have
underscored the importance of distinguishing Netflix from the concept of platforms. Their
work highlights that Netflix lacks direct economic and infrastructural accessibility for
third parties. This distinction raises a pertinent question: can user-generated forms of
video, which bypass traditional industrial modes of production, be considered television?
Johnson (2019) refines the distinction, shifting focus from modes of production to the
nature of content acquisition. She points out that content acquisition can fall into two
categories: passively acquired, as observed on platforms like YouTube, where users
upload content to the platform; or editorially selected, as is the case with Netflix, which
produces or licenses content.
In the end, how Netflix is understood depends on the specific perspective from which
one is looking (Johnson, 2019: 32). Moreover, as Lobato rightfully points out, ‘what is
more important than what we call Netflix is how we think about it’ (Lobato, 2019: 44). For
the analysis of Netflix, Lobato advocates combining multiple analytical approaches,
merging insights from television studies, digital media studies, and platform perspectives.
In this context, the intervention and critical examination of myths become urgent as they
have a profound impact on our thinking about VoDs and traditional television,
4 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

constraining our understanding in significant ways. The three myths discussed in this
article have been central to how Netflix has characterized itself over the years.
Reflecting on these myths, the value of television theory is recognized because of the
dichotomy it draws between the old and the new. As emphasized by Judith Keilbach and
Markus Stauff (2013), the broader significance of television theory to media theory lies in
its engagement with an object continually undergoing transformation and, consequently,
redefinition. They compare television to an experimental system with ‘a heterogenous
constellation of theories, objects, instruments and practices redefining each other con-
stantly’ (Keilbach and Stauff, 2013: 83). In so doing they take seriously the suggestion of
Lotz to speak not of television, but televisions (2014: 91) in the plural. As they explain, it
is useful to consider how ‘post-network television often re-articulates already existing
topics, problematizations, or supposed ‘potentials’ with different emphases and strate-
gies’ (Keilbach and Stauff, 2013: 92). They argue it is useful to focus on ‘problem-
atisation,’ involving debates and strategies around various issues, that help produce the
rearrangement of assemblages. In what follows it is proposed that the myths surrounding
VoDs centre on problematizations associated with attention, scheduling, and individu-
alization, respectively. In the case of each of these problematisations, VoDs propose a
solution.

Fuelling interrelated myths

Before discussing the myths associated in more depth, it is important to explain how the
concept myth is understood here. As Roland Barthes explains, ‘Myth does not deny
things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply it purifies them, it makes
them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity
which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact’ (Barthes, 1993 [1972]:
143). Vincent Mosco (2004: 19) suggests that when technologies are new, a lot of hope is
projected onto them even though their real social impact is only realized when they
become banal. Referencing Barthes, he states that myths provide ‘[..] “euphoric clarity”
by eliminating complexities and contradictions’ (Mosco, 2004: 30). Crucially, these
myths don’t concern false beliefs per se, but rather involve a process of naturalization that
impedes critical scrutiny. Importantly then, there is a need to examine the ‘facts’ presented
by myths and to reclaim the complexities and contradictions they often eliminate.
In the following paragraphs, the three interrelated myths propagated around VoDs, and
Netflix in particular, are explored: binge watching, on-demand and big data. Importantly,
these myths are highly interconnected and have been disentangled for the sake of clarity.
While by no means an exhaustive list of myths related to VoDs, these central myths have
persistently circulated and been perpetuated in both popular media and academic dis-
course without receiving sufficient scrutiny. These myths are partially produced by the
industries themselves through what has been termed ‘streaming lore’ (Burroughs, 2018),
which encompasses the everyday sensemaking carried out by industry professionals. The
ideas circulating within this context contribute to the formation and perpetuation of these
myths. As is discussed, the myths around VoDs often reaffirm established myths around
van Es 5

traditional broadcast television that Caldwell (1997) has written about: distraction,
liveness, and human expertise.

Myth of binge-watching
First, to address the myth of binge-watching connected to the problematization of at-
tention. Binge-watching is made possible because VoDs release entire seasons of content
at once. It is, as Jenner states, ‘how content is supposed to be watched on Netflix’ (2018:
109) and has come to stand for all audience consumption practices. Netflix has presented
binging as ‘the new normal’ and implied it constitutes a ‘more attentive viewing practice’
(Tyron, 2015: np). This is because releasing seasons all at once ‘conditions the audience to
consume in specific ways that elevate the status of the show to “complex”’ (Burroughs,
2018: 9). Binging challenges the temporality of televisual content with its windows of
opportunity for viewing, liveness, and schedules. Apart from being presented as a pure
and natural way of watching content on Netflix, binge watching underscores the viewers
autonomy affording them the flexibility to watch content when they want (Jenner, 2018:
115). It connects to another myth, namely one centred around on-demand, which will be
discussed shortly.
In the process of differentiating itself from broadcast television, the myth of distraction
has been reproduced as well. As Caldwell (1997) explains, viewers of television have
often been seen as inattentive and distracted. In part, he states, this perception derives
from the domestic context in which the medium is consumed. Moreover, as he claims,
even updates to this theory provide that viewers are often occupied with other activities
while watching television. Caldwell advocates that ‘Theorists should not jump to the-
oretical conclusions just because there is an ironing board in the room’ (1997: 27). This
reasoning applies to VoDs too. The availability of entire seasons at once does not
necessarily mean that people are predominantly binging on it (or that the content on offer
is necessarily more complex).

Myth of on-demand
Second, centred on the problematization of scheduling, Netflix suggests that it offers
viewers more control, freeing them from the constraints of broadcast television schedules
(Jenner, 2018: 114). As Wayne points out, Netflix ‘Often emphasizes binge-viewing as a
mode of audience behaviour that improves upon traditional television’s liveness and
linear scheduling’ (2022: 195). This was perhaps particularly evident in 2017 when
Netflix, as part of an April fools’ prank, introduced the series Netflix Live (2017) with Will
Arnett. In the series, Arnett narrated mundane activities such as microwaving, photo-
copying, and toasting bread, humorously poking fun at liveness, long seen as a central trait
of broadcast television (cf. Van Es and Keilbach, 2018).
Zooming in on traits associated with liveness (e.g. slow motion, direct address, replays,
narration), Netflix Live (2017) portrayed broadcast television as an exceptionally boring
and inferior form of entertainment. The series was jokingly concluded with its cancel-
lation after the first episode stating that Dave from analytics had miscalculated interest.
6 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

Herein it also strategically capitalized on its Big Data reputation, which is the third myth
that will be discussed. Overall, Netflix positioned itself with the prank as a new and
improved form of television (Van Es and Keilbach, 2018).
Here again, in the process of differentiation, an earlier myth around broadcast tele-
vision is reaffirmed, namely the myth of liveness. As mentioned, liveness has long been
seen as one of the defining characteristics of traditional broadcast television. Caldwell
refers to the ideology of liveness as a ‘theoretical obsession’ of television studies and a
‘paradigm that simply will not die’ (Caldwell, 1997: 27). He finds the myth to be
problematic because the overestimation of the centrality of liveness in television theory
has been at the expense of the analysis of other modes of practice and production. While
liveness has been used by television as a mark of distinction, he explains, very little
programming actually supports this claim.

Myth of Big Data

Third, related to the problematization of individualization, Netflix feeds the myth of big
data perhaps best captured in the early buzz surrounding House of Cards (2013-2018) and
the VoD’s ability to predict success (Frey, 2021: 109–112). As explored elsewhere (Van
Es, 2023) notions of magic and wizardry have long surrounded the service, extolling the
belief that data possess the capacity to capture and know all in an objective manner. The
Netflix recommender system is portrayed as accurately discerning human tastes providing
viewers exactly what they want. In Finn’s words, ‘for Netflix, the brand is algorithmic, the
magic computational, and the humans are kept carefully out of the spotlight’ (2017: 94).
Netflix consistently underscores the extent to which its content is consumed due to the
effectiveness of its recommender system. Burroughs (2018) explains how Netflix
guarantees their audiences that they will get content that they love because of their use of
data and algorithms. In contrast to Nielsen Media Research, which relies on a repre-
sentative sample for measuring viewing behaviour, they collect vast amounts of data from
all users, asserting a fuller understanding of audiences and their preferences. It is also
claimed that with VoDs, demographics of subscribers are no longer important (Lotz,
2022).
Netflix, however, doesn’t disclose much data about consumption nor information
about the workings of their algorithms. As Wayne comments, ‘This public discourse
about proprietary data provided Netflix opportunities to differentiate itself from its linear
competitors, explicitly criticize traditional industry practice, and deflect criticism about
programming decisions’ (Wayne, 2022: 194). This also ensures that assertions of success
are indisputable, while any shortcomings remain out of sight.
In cultivating its data-driven image, Netflix underscores a distinction from traditional
industries, thereby reinforcing an existing myth centred on the human. As claimed
elsewhere (Van Es, 2023), Netflix establishes a dichotomy between data and humans,
implying that they possess opposing characteristics and epistemic potentials. However,
there has been a notable shift in their narrative. While continuing to celebrate the virtues of
data and algorithms, Netflix increasingly lays claim to the role of human expertise and
creativity in their processes, presenting themselves as both science and art. Nevertheless,
van Es 7

the overarching narrative continues to position Hollywood and television studios as

dinosaurs. They rely on fallible human intuition that cannot predict or cater to the
(individual) preferences of viewers. This remains a central point of contrast for Netflix.

Resisting simplified thinking

They ways in which VoDs are envisioned by the industry (cf. the myths) is reproduced in
and by media and circulated also in academic publications. Problematically, harking back
to Lobato, it limits how we think about it, our understanding of the role of Netflix in
culture and society. Consider, for instance, binging. Graeme Turner (2021) has claimed
the concept is not useful in television studies. As he explains:

Having served the industry as a means of branding changes to the practice of delivery, and
television studies as a placeholder for the closer analysis of changes in consumption, not only
must we define binge-viewing more precisely but we also need to develop new descriptors for
the various behaviors and practices which do not fit that definition but which are allowed to be
subsumed under the term. (Turner, 2021: 231).

Turner is thus concerned with the fact that we do not know what is happening as
people are watching. This, he provides, requires ‘more located and nuanced obser-
vational accounts of the evolving “cultures of use” within consumer households to
develop more accurate and usable set of terms to describe what is actually happening
in the domestic spaces as people watch television’ (Turner, 2021: 229). This is rather
like the criticism voiced by Caldwell on glance theory – which describes television
viewers as inattentive and distracted. Turner recognizes some work being done on
audiences and their consumption practices, but he finds there is also a need for more
‘directed or located observation’ (Turner, 2021: 230) rather than surveys, interviews
and focus groups alone.
In Netflix Recommends (2021), Mattias Frey sets out to address the myth of big data.
Specifically, his focus centres on misconceptions about the algorithmic recommender
system. As he writes, ‘Largely untested and sometimes speculative in nature, they are
proving to be out of step with the available empirical evidence. How might we better
understand algorithmic systems by not stipulating that their “revolutionary” features blow
up long-standing user norms a priori?’ (Frey, 2021: 8). He calls for empirical investi-
gation. By adopting a more evidence-based approach, he suggests, a more nuanced
understanding of algorithms can be provided.

More industry studies and empirical research

The three myths created and perpetuated by VoDs – pertaining to binge-watching, on-
demand, and big data – prompt a whole host of questions. Some of these issues are now
gradually being addressed in scholarly research, but they require much more systematic
attention in transdisciplinary collaborations:
8 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

· What makes up the library of the VoD catalogue?

· How is content circulated? (interface, workings of recommender system)
· What, how and for how long are users watching content?
· What content is popular/culturally significant?
· How are data used by these services for producing and distributing content?

Instead of sticking to the simplified realities of myths, the field need to tackle these
sorts of questions and in doing so, further our understanding of these services and other
televisions. In other words, it is important to challenge industry-sourced information. To
achieve this, a greater emphasis on media industry studies and empirical research is
needed. However, this work is being hampered by issues of opaqueness and access.

Issues of opaqueness and access

More specifically, what is needed to combat these myths has been termed critical media
industry studies. This involves a keen interest in the study of ‘microlevel industrial
practices’ and laying bare the role of human agents in ‘interpreting, focusing, and re-
directing economic forces’ (Havens et al., 2009: 236). It concerns methods that con-
centrate on scrutinizing industry discourse and practices to reveal the commonsense
assumptions that inform their practices. As stated by Caldwell with regard to ethnographic
research, it ‘can provide rich insights that speculative theorizing misses’ (Caldwell, 2013:
63–4), yet he also points out that the industry is not very transparent or accessible.
With VoDs it has, however, become even more difficult to understand how culture is
produced, circulated, and consumed. More concretely, datafication and algorithmization
are processes that have created additional layers of complexity to understanding these
services and further cloak the activities of industry. Answering some of the questions
about VoDs requires ‘hard’ quantitative data as well. As discussed above, Netflix and
many other VoDs limit the release of data about consumption on their services. As Wayne
explains,

Whatever shared sense of collective audience-hood was discursively produced by widely

accepted albeit thoroughly flawed ratings systems like Nielsen is being replaced by the
industrial discourses associated with black-box audience data within which claims of
popularity and cultural significance cannot be substantively challenged. (2022: 194)

Moreover, in contrast to published TV guides or cinema schedules, there is still a lot

unknown about what makes up the libraries of these VoDs. Also, the how, when, and why
of users exposed to certain content on the service, driven by (algorithmic) recommen-
dations, remains unclear.
Within critical algorithm studies, Nick Seaver reflects and tackles some of the
challenges involved in this type of research. In Computing Taste (2021), Seaver conducts
an ethnography of music recommendation algorithms. Pushing back against the idea of
access as a singular event, he proposes to address it as a texture characterized by ‘patterns
of disclosure and refusal’ (Seaver, 2021: 15). For instance, he highlights a topology of
van Es 9

knowing and not knowing within companies. Nobody knows everything. Furthermore, he
cautions against assumptions that secrecy necessarily implies relevance or signals
something that needs to be known. Seaver suggests that much of what critical scholars of
algorithms want to know – how they are thought about and understood – is accessible by
building relationships within the industry.
These lines of inquiry and discussions about the related challenges are not entirely new.
For example, in 2017 Lobato pointed out to the difficulties is studying platforms as
opposed to television channels. He argued the need for a research agenda round Netflix
catalogues to study content diversity and global media flows. Similarly, Lotz (2021)
points to challenges in the study of VoDs, particularly around the investigation of cultural
power. She highlights the lack of publicly available data about content consumption and
emphasizes Netflix’s business model, which is directed at providing individual satis-
faction rather than appealing to a broad audience. For interrogating cultural power in
VoDs, Lotz suggests ‘raising broader questions about the intersection of texts and in-
dustrial practices’ (2021: 896) with the goal of deeper theorization of these services.
However, until now academics have tended to target only specific questions and chal-
lenges around VoDs. The broader and more fundamental challenge of opacity and access
and the ability of a service like Netflix to define itself on their own terms needs to be put on
the agenda.
The following section offers a mapping of the different methods and approaches that
are already being used to study VoDs that can serve as inspiration. While laudable and
interesting efforts, they are only first steps that have been taken that allow us to evaluate
the narratives propagated by Netflix. Mirroring the questions raised above about VoDs
which stem from the discussed myths, these have a focus on library analysis, content
circulation, viewing behaviours and data practices and use. However, as is apparent, these
approaches have limitations that require attending to. Moreover, as insightfully noted by
Lobato et al. ‘Empirical research on VODs has been siloed till date […] As a result, certain
aspects of catalog-interface-audience interaction remain under-researched’ (Lobato et al.,
2024: 1342). Getting a better understanding of Netflix is going to require innovative
methods centred on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration.

Library analysis
To counterbalance assertions of quality, complexity, and notions of control perpetuated in
the myths of binge-watching and on-demand, it is crucial to examine critically the library
of VoDs catalogues. In pursuit of this goal, library analysis studies are conducted. As
mentioned, Lobato made a plea for this area of research several years ago. In the context of
Australian Netflix, for instance, Lobato and Scarlata (2017) have conducted a manual
content analysis of the amount of Australian content. Here they relied on counting the
amount of content tagged Australian and then relied on trade press for the overall amount.
By contrast, Lotz et al. (2022) conduct an analysis of 17 different Netflix libraries using
large-scale quantitative analysis of proprietary data sets from third-party Ampere Ana-
lytics. This company provides metrics on subscriber video on demand services and their
TV and film titles by country and service. They provide data on their own terms, not
10 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

always scrutable to academics. Additionally, the high cost of acquiring these data makes
them unaffordable for many researchers. More recently, scholars have turned to scraping
the website JustWatch, a VOD metadata aggregator (e.g. Iordache et al., 2023) for in-
formation on the availability of movies and shows on streaming platforms. However, this
data has not always proven to be entirely complete or reliable.

Content circulation
The myth of big data claims that Netflix knows us better than we know ourselves. To better
understand media circulation (which includes content visibility and prominence), VoDs have
been accompanied by the emergence of interface analyses in television studies (Johnson,
2019). These studies have looked at matters like how, with the shift from programming in
traditional television to the use of adaptive agents in online platforms, the televisual flow has
transformed (Uricchio, 2008), distinctions between linear/broadcast and non-linear/on-
demand television (Johnson, 2017), and media circulation power (Hesmondhalgh and
Lotz, 2020). Additionally, Van Esler (2021) highlights how the Netflix interface provides
an illusion of viewer control while steering them towards original content. These studies
typically focus on surface-level observations, providing limited understanding of the un-
derlying data flows, algorithms and their effects on content visibility.
Then there have also been attempts at reverse engineering the recommender algo-
rithms. Fatima Gaw (2022), for instance, is interested in in understanding how the Netflix
algorithm constructs cultural taste. She offers a socio-technical analysis of the recom-
mender systems, analysing Netflix documents to reverse engineer the algorithm, re-
flecting on user accidents and controversies with the algorithm and finally using the data
from the first two to interrogate the configuration of the algorithm. To uncover how the
NRS works and its impact on processes of taste-making, Pajkovic (2022) went in a
different direction. He set up three Netflix user profiles with three distinct taste persona
and traced them over time. While this work is interesting and important, it remains limited
in scope and is highly context-dependent, raising more questions than it answers about
how the recommender system works.
Frey (2021), for his part, provides valuable insights into how people engage with rec-
ommender systems through empirical studies of user reactions to these systems. More
specifically, he conducted the quantitative analysis of two nationally representative surveys
(UK and USA) and the qualitative analysis of thirty-four in-depth interviews. To a slightly
different end, using the walkthrough method (Light et al., 2018) and in-depth interviews with
Netflix users, Varela and Kaun (2019) explored the use and perception of Netflix’s rec-
ommendation algorithm. Both studies were important in that they countered techno deter-
ministic ideas of algorithms as all-powerful entities. However, their focus on small samples of
users in specific regions limited their capacity to generalize findings more broadly.

Viewing behaviours
Is binge-watching a pure and natural way of watching content on Netflix? What does it
even entail? To understand viewing behaviours, including on streaming services, Lotz and
van Es 11

McCutcheon (2023), for The Australian Streaming Stories Viewing report, conducted a
survey (n = 2060) amongst Australians over the age of 18. It focused on scripted series and
movies they conclude, amongst others, that viewing of streaming is less distracted and
less personal than often thought. Interested in investigating the motivations, contexts, and
affective states surrounding Netflix viewing, Castro et al. (2021) used a browser extension
to log interactions and supplemented this ‘objective data’ with questionnaires. This work
helped in understanding binge-watching as an individual activity connected to boredom,
lasting on average a little over two hours. These insights, however, were based on the data
collected from only 11 millennials over a ten-day period.
In a rather different vein, academics (Idiz et al., 2024; Scarlata, 2023) have interrogated
the Netflix top 10 list over a period to reflect on ‘popularity.’ However, the Top 10 is less
than ideal for research purposes in that it is ‘problematically repetitive and lacks a
methodological transparency that can tell us anything more concrete about viewer be-
havior’ (Scarlata, 2023: np). Only recently, the European Audiovisual Observatory
(Grece and Tran, 2023) published a report on SVOD usage in the European Union for the
years 2022-3. Their findings, however relied on survey data rather than actual user
interactions and covered only a limited selection of works.

Data practices and use

While Netflix boldly asserts the role of data and algorithms in the myth of big data,
gaining insights into how VoDs such as Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Netflix influence
production processes, industry structures, and content is crucial. To explore this,
Rasmussen (2022) conducted interviews with European film and television workers to
understand how they interpret and interact with streaming data. She also uses interface
ethnography – meaning attending events in which the industry present itself to ‘the
public.’ To a similar end, but based on observational participation and interviews,
Keilbach and Surma (2022) provide insight into the role of data analysis in the creative
process of script development at Videoland in the Netherlands. Both papers reflect on the
challenges relating to dealing with Non-Disclosure Agreements signed either by the
interviewees or the researchers and the need to navigate industry speak.

Discussion
The studies mentioned above are inspiring research pathways that contribute to exploring
myths about VoDs. While important initial steps and offering valuable methodological
directions to be further pursued, they have limitations. In addition to de-siloing empirical
studies, to gain a deeper understanding of how VoDs operate and how users engage with
their content, more interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, approaches are needed.
Regarding media industry research, universities are increasingly focused on achieving
impact and fostering public engagement, encouraging collaboration with external parties.
Collaborative research projects with industry can provide unique access to data, dis-
courses, and practices (Schäfer et al., 2024). At Data School (Utrecht University), for
instance, we collaborate with industries on shared areas of interest. Admittedly, this is
12 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

usually easier with public-facing companies who are willing to be more open and not hide
behind non-disclosure agreements. For instance, master students work on thesis projects
in collaboration with the German public broadcaster ZDF on recommender systems. They
are given access to anonymized interaction data from the VoDs and communicate directly
with the data scientists working to improve and maintain the system. Such collaboration
presents a dual narrative. On the one hand, it offers opportunities to help shape the digital
society. However, on the other hand, it gives rise to tensions around academic integrity,
encompassing liberties to publish findings and delineate trajectories of research inquiries.
This dynamic raises questions about the role of academics within society.
Another possible path is research involving the utilization of data donations (cf. Araujo
et al., 2022). Data donation projects capitalize on the European General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR), that grants citizens the right of access to their personal data from
processors such as Netflix. In these projects, researchers encourage individuals to request
their data traces from platforms and donate them to academic research. As part of a larger
consortium dedicated to establishing sustainable infrastructure to facilitate such projects,
the author of this article is conducting a pilot study focused on Netflix. The study received
Netflix data donations from 126 subscribers in the Netherlands and aims to advance
understanding of how people engage with content on the VoD. By employing compu-
tational methods, it can help create empirical insights into phenomena such as binge-
watching, taste clusters and content popularity – topics that have captivated media
scholarship. Data donations research has several limitations, including challenges in
recruiting participants and concerns about sampling bias and representativeness.
While progress is starting to be made, both VoDs and broadcast television continue to
transition. Broadcast television has responded to the emergence of VoDs by providing on-
demand access to exclusive content online (Johnson, 2017). Nielsen has even initiated a
weekly ranking system in 2020, highlighting the most popular VoDs based on minutes
consumed. VoDs, for their part, have tempered some of their initially perceived ‘radical’
and ‘disruptive’ features. In 2021, Netflix announced an experimentation with their
release format, opting for staggered releases over a month instead of dropping all episodes
at once. Netflix, once positioned in discourse as the antithesis of traditional television, has
ventured into live programming and introduced a ‘Basic with ads’ subscription tier at a
reduced rate in some countries. This tier provides access to a limited library along with
some non-skippable advertisements. The evolving strategies of both VoDs and broadcast
television challenge the notion of stability in media forms and demonstrate that the
trajectory of their development is hardly linear. It supports this article’s argument that the
prevalent myths about Netflix oversimplify the company’s identity and its impact on
culture and society.

Conclusions
This article has argued the need for more media industry studies and empirical research to
understand VoDs. Such research plays a crucial role in examining the myths produced and
circulated by VoDs. These myths offer us simple narratives about our media by
van Es 13

eliminating complexity. Too often, these myths been uncritically reproduced, and their
claims have been taken for granted.
Although current research shows promising progress, further exploration is needed,
and several challenges still remain. Most often, as discussed, these relate to heightened
issues of opacity and access. For instance, a limitation of interface studies is that they are
still rather focused on the front-end, that is the visible tip of the interface. Additionally,
retrieving data from commercial companies or scraping it from online websites raises
questions about how the dataset was constructed and the extent to which the availability/
disclosure of certain data points determines the type of research questions that can be
posed. It also requires either computational skills – which are not always common in the
humanities and social sciences – or sufficient funding to cover the high purchasing costs.
Addressing these obstacles calls for innovative and collaborative methods that
combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In efforts to enhance accessibility,
the preservation of academic freedom should be guaranteed. This includes establishing
sustainable pathways for access to data that avoid reliance on commercial parties. The
power imbalance between VoDs and academics in producing knowledge about these
services needs to be addressed. To counter their opaque and inaccessible nature, emphasis
should shift towards rendering these services more observable (cf. Rieder and Hoffman,
2020) to relevant parties such as journalists, academics, and governmental bodies. This
allows, on the one hand, better theorizing and, on the other hand, better regulation and
policy making.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Markus Stauff and Eggo Müller for engaging in constructive
dialogues about the arguments of this article, and Judith Keilbach for providing useful feedback on
earlier drafts. Moreover, a lot of gratitude to Cathrin Bengesser, Deborah Castro, Luca Barra,
Susanne Eichner and Lisa Plumeier, for extending an invitation to talk at the local ECREA TV
section conference, an opportunity that inspired the development of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Spinoza grant of the Dutch Research
Council (NWO), awarded in 2021 to José van Dijck, Professor of Media and Digital Society at
Utrecht University; SPI.2021.001.

ORCID iD
Karin van Es  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5184-8640
14 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

References
Araujo T, Ausloos J, van Atteveldt W, et al. (2022) OSD2F: an open-source data donation
framework. Computational Communication Research 4(2): 372–387.
Barthes R (1993 [1957]) Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers. London: Vintage.
Burroughs B (2018) House of Netflix: streaming media and digital lore. Popular Communication:
The International Journal of Media and Culture 17(1): 1–17.
Caldwell J (2013) Para-Industry: researching Hollywood’s Blackwaters. Cinema Journal 52(3):
157–165.
Caldwell J (1997) Televisuality: Style, Crisis and Authority in American Television. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Castro D, Rigby J, Cabral D, etal. (2021) The Binge-watcher’s journey: investigating motivations,
contexts, and affective states surrounding Netflix viewing. Convergence 27(1): 3–20.
Finn E (2017) What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Frey M (2021) Netflix Recommends: Algorithms, Film Choice and the History of Taste. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Gaw F (2022) Algorithmic logics and the construction of cultural taste of the Netflix recommender
system. Media, Culture & Society 44(4): 706–725.
Grece C and Tran JA (2023) SVOD Usage in the European Union. European Audiovisual Ob-
servatory. https://rm.coe.int/svod-usage-report-in-the-eu-2023-december-2023-c-grece-and-j-
a-tran/1680af0850.
Havens T, Lotz A and Tinic S (2009) Critical media industry studies: a research approach.
Communication, Culture & Critique 2: 234–253.
Hesmondhalgh D and Lotz A (2020) Video screen interfaces as new sites of media circulation
power. International Journal of Communication 14: 386–409.
House of Cards (2013–2018) Netflix Television.
Idiz DR, Noordegraaf J and Vliegenthart R (2024) Culture as window dressing? a threefold
methodological framework for researching the locality of Netflix Series. Critical Studies in
Television 0(0).
Iordache C, Raats T, Pakvis M, et al. (2023) Piecing the puzzle of VoD offerings: a comparison of
Eight US and local services in Flanders. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 14 (US-Based
SVoD Providers in Europe: Impacts and Challenges): 357–376.
Johnson C (2019) Online TV. London: Routledge.
Johnson C (2017) Beyond catch-up: VoD interfaces, ITV hub and the repositioning of television
online. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 12(2):
121–138.
Jenner M (2018) Netflix and the Re-invention of Television. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Keilbach J and Stauff M (2013) When old media never stopped being new television’s history as an
ongoing experiment. In: de Valck M and Teurlings J (eds) After the Break. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, pp. 79–98.
Keilbach J and Surma H (2022) Nutzungsdaten und das Bauchgefühl der Drehbuchautor*innen:
Eine Fallstudie zur datengestützten Drehbuchentwicklung für einen Streamingdienst In:
van Es 15

Henschen J, Krauß F, Ksenofontova A, et al. (eds) Drehbuchforschung: Perspektiven auf Texte

und Prozesse, pp. 47–67.
Light B, Burgess J and Duguay S (2018) The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps.
New Media & Society 20(3): 881–900.
Lobato R (2019) Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution. Polity Press.
Lobato R (2017) Rethinking international TV flows research in the age of Netflix. Television & New
Media 19(3): 241–256.
Lobato R and Scarlata A (2017) Australian content in SVOD catalogs: availability and discov-
erability. Submission to the Australian and Children’s Screen Content Review. September.
Available at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/ramon-lobato-
and-alexa-scarlata.pdf.
Lobato R, Scarlata A and Wils T (2024) Video-on-demand catalog and interface analysis: the state
of research methods. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies 30(4): 1331–1347.
Lotz A (2022) Netflix and Streaming Video. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lotz A (2021) Unpopularity and cultural power in the age of Netflix: new questions for cultural
studies’ approaches to television texts. European Journal of Cultural Studies 24(4): 887–900.
Lotz A (2017) Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television. Michigan Publishing.
Lotz A (2014) The Television Will be Revolutionized. New York: New York University Press.
Lotz A, Eklund O and Suroka S (2022) Netflix, library analysis, and globalization: rethinking mass
media flows. Journal of Communication 72(4): 511–521.
Lotz A and McCutcheon M (2023) Australia Screen Story Viewing Report: Part 3: Viewing
Practices. Brisbane.
Mosco V (2004) The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Netflix Live (2017) Netflix Television, 1 April.
Pajkovic N (2022) Algorithms and taste-making: exposing the Netflix recommender system’s
operational logics. Convergence 28(1): 214–235.
Poell T, Nieborg D and Duffy BE (2022) Platforms and Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Rasmussen NV (2022) The Netflix machine: how European screen workers interpret and interact
with streaming data. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research 2022.
Rieder B and Hofmann J (2020) Towards platform observability. Internet Policy Review 9(4).
https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/towards-platform-observability.
Scarlata A (2023) What are people watching in your area?’: interrogating the role and reliability of
the Netflix Top 10 feature. Critical Studies in Television 18(1): 7–23.
Schäfer MT, van Es K and Lauriault TP (eds) (2024) Collaborative Research in the Datafied
Society: Methods and Practices for Investigation and Intervention. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Seaver N (2021) Computing Taste: Algorithms and the Makers of Music Recommendation. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner G (2021) Television studies, we need to talk about ‘Binge-Viewing’. Television & New
Media 22(3): 229–240.
Tyron C (2015) TV got better: Netflix’s original programming strategies and the on-demand
television transition. Media Industries Journal 2(2): 104–116.
16 Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 0(0)

Uricchio W (2008) Television’s first seventy-five years: the interpretive flexibility of a medium in
transition. In: Kolker r (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Film and Media Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 286–305.
Van Es K (2023) Netflix & Big Data: the strategic ambivalence of an entertainment company.
Television and New Media 24(6): 656–672.
Van Es K and Keilbach J (2018) Keeping up the live: recorded television as live experience. VIEW.
Journal of European Television History and Culture/E-journal 7(13). https://viewjournal.eu/
articles/10.18146/2213-0969.2018.jethc142.
Van Esler M (2021) In plain sight: online TV interfaces as branding. Television & New Media 22(7):
727–742.
Varela D and Kaun A (2019) The netflix experience: a user-focused approach to the Netflix
recommendation algorithm. In: Plothe T and Buck AM (eds) Netflix at the Nexus: Content,
Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television. New York: Peter Lang,
pp. 197–211.
Wayne ML (2022) Netflix audience data, streaming industry discourse, and the emerging realities of
‘Popular’ television. Media, Culture & Society 44(2): 193–220.

Author biography
Karin van Es is an Associate Professor at the Department of Media and Culture Studies and
project lead Humanities at Data School at Utrecht University. Her research addresses the
datafication and algorithmization of culture and society.