>>154468922
>Netflix is the only one with a decent ratio
Is that due to sheer volume or something else?

>>154468922
calling cartoons "content" is gay as fuck

>>154469183
I wonder what they count as "catalog". Most of Netfilx's content is Netflix originals, as opposed to Disney that has a backlog of pre-Disney+ shows.

The data could be fubbed if they're putting older Netflix originals (something like 13 Reasons Why) into the "original" side.

watch them conclude "clearly all people want is reboots" missing that the reboots do not count as old content, and are the reason nothing is doing well

>>154469252
I assume "catalog" just means anything that's not made by the platform-owner specifically for the streaming service.
So older content that was made pre-streaming, content made by third parties, and licensed content would probably all be considered "catalog."

>>154468922
There's a reason why Spongebob and TTGo have so many episodes. Reruns for episodic shows can be played all day and people will watch whether they've seen it or not.

>>154469183
A lot of anime

>>154468922
It’s almost like making 12 episode seasons becoming a industry standard for all forms of big media series might’ve been a step in the wrong direction.

Wouldnt this always be the case just because so much more of the content will always be old?

They need to go back to making you have DVDs shipped for the good stuff

What an asinine graph.
How old is 'old' content? If it's just 'original for the platform' then things like Stranger Things S1 from a decade ago or whatever would still count as 'new' which is retarded.
What is the ratio of old:new content? All other things being equal, if 'old' content makes up 95% of a catalogue it would follow that 95% of what is being viewed is old content. There are far more purchased/licensed movies and shows on the average streaming platform than there are original shows/movies.

>>154469183
it's due to selling the rights to stream almost every ip they didn't make, you used to be able to find almost anything on Netflix

>>154470135
This

>>154470135
I wonder if they consider every show marked with "Netflix Original" to actually be a Netflix original, even if they're really just licensing it.
Because Netflix does that with A LOT of foreign shows, including anime.

>>154468922
Animation is in its infancy

>>154468922
Gee, it's almost like there's a ton more of "old" content, while new media only remains "new" for a while.

>>154470332
What?

>>154470379
Even Disney marketing is focused mostly on the movies made by Walt himself, with exception of princesses.

>>154468922
Never 4get Johnny Test reruns drawing more eyeballs on Netflix than brand-new Zhe-Ra seasons.

>>154468922
The ancient universal quality formula holds true:

Old = good
Japan = better

>>154468922
Every medium reaches a maturation point where the back catalog becomes so good that it becomes harder and harder to make anything new and good. You can spend a lifetime watching the back catalog of animation just like you can spend a lifetime reading the back catalog of literature.

>>154471161
Yes, it will get worse as the public domain progress, soon color cartoons will be free for all over YouTube.

>>154471183
It's not the price that is the issue. It's that for someone growing up now, everything old is new to them. Every old film has the same amount of novelty as anything coming out new, only the "classics" are already curated for you and the non curated non-classics are just waiting to be discovered. You can spend a whole lifetime watching stuff that was made before you were born and not watch it all. Anything new has to compete against that and it becomes harder and harder to do so as it becomes harder and harder to make something new and novel

>>154468922
Maybe if these cheap cucks actually invested in new cartoons and didnt cancel them half way through production they could get more ratings and then streaming wouldnt be such a waste

>>154468922
>people are using streaming like a video store
wow, what an amazing discovery

>>154468922
this isn't new

studios have been making about 50% (or more) of their money every year from back catalog since before tv existed (they used to put popular old movies back in theaters back when people still went all the time)

whether it's tv rights, home media (VHS, DVD/BLURAY, streaming) or whatever, they have far more old content being viewed in any given year than new content being made and released

views =/= profit but for a streamer like Disney+, where the model that Disney has pursued via the parks for 70 years is constantly advertising "timeless" movies to all-new generations of children, it's not unreasonable that those kids are watching lots of shows and, necessarily, more older content than new content (because there is more)

there's an argument about limiting screen time (and not just for kids) to be made here but basically, a big attractor to streaming is being able to find old shows in a quality other than YT crispy or dailymotion horizontally flipped VHS transfers, so it's not really surprising that any of the streamers are selling on their access to old shows; it's sort of more surprising - given how absolutely fucking dire most Netflix Originals are - that Netflix is reporting such a large share for new shit

then again these are either third-party estimates (which are flawed for all sorts of reasons, even with an audience measure component) or based on claims made (likely without data) by the platforms themselves, so take the actual ratios with a grain of salt

but yeah basically as companies exist over time their catalogs grow and, as long as they're not out of print or horrifically dated, they're still trickling money; many trickles makes a stream

D+ won't be making much from Ten Who Dared or The Shaggy Dog but there's no reason Aladdin or Mary Poppins wouldn't be bringing people to the platform