New forms of internationalisation? The impact of Netflix in Australia

Stuart Cunningham,Alexa Scarlata

doi:10.1177/1329878x20941173

Abstract

This article examines the impact of multinational subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services in Australia, noting the degree to which a stalled policy response to the challenge of unregulated SVOD services has been shaken up by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We look at the phenomenon from a screen-ecological perspective – where dynamics of consumption, reviewing, production and regulation are interdependently and often contradictorily in play. We examine how these diverse, sometimes conflicted, perspectives can be approached as responding to new forms of internationalisation presented principally by the operations of Netflix in Australia (Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ and Apple TV+ are also mentioned when relevant). This article is part of a larger project (ARC Discovery DP190100978 Internet-Distributed Television: Cultural, Industrial and Policy Dynamics, chief investigators Ramon Lobato, Amanda Lotz, Stuart Cunningham) studying the cultural, industrial and policy dynamics of multinational SVOD globally and in situ locally.

Highlights

This article examines the impact of multinational subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services in Australia, noting the degree to which a stalled policy response to the challenge of unregulated SVOD services has been shaken up by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Given the warm embrace extended by Australian consumers to multinational SVODs, stark in comparison with the cold shoulder shown to Netflix by professional reviewers, it is important to stress the cultural innovation and industry stimulus that disruptive forces such as Netflix have visited on production environments, including Australia’s
It is important to contextualise spending on titles that have premiered online. This still constitutes a relatively small slice of the overall production pie, and for Screen Australia’s purposes includes content first released on all forms of online video-on-demand (Broadcast (BVOD), Advertising (AVOD) and Transactional (TVOD), as well as SVOD). This should be contrasted with the startling claim from the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros in the Asia-Pacific region, that SVOD commissions or co-productions in Australia ‘already exceed the investment in original drama made by commercial broadcasters without being required to do so by regulation’ (Fernandes, 2019: 3)

Summary

Brand power and the politics of consumption

SVOD has had a remarkably rapid take-up in Australia, overtaking the monopoly pay-TV provider Foxtel within 18 months of launch (Roy Morgan, 2016) to reach more than half the population in 5 years (ACMA, 2020; Roy Morgan, 2019). Whereas Stan’s Australian originals are reviewed as familiar extensions of well-understood local genres and routines of representation, Netflix’s major commissions so far, Pine Gap, Tidelands and Lunatics, have been met with bemusement, befuddlement and excoriation. The commissioning of the ABC/Netflix co-production Pine Gap saw high hopes that this ‘timely’ thriller (Idato, 2017) based on a concept ‘shrouded in intrigue for many Australians’ would be ‘just the beginning’ of a slate of new content production (Slessor and Bogle, 2018) Fairfax reviewer Houston (2018), in classical cringe mode, began her review with ‘What will the international audience for whom it’s clearly intended make of Tidelands?’ This response was measured when compared with the critical vitriol Chris Lilley’s Netflix original, Lunatics, attracted. Anna Potter (2018) even argues that Netflix’s kids’ product is sometimes more Australian than local broadcaster-commissioned product

Production opportunity and threat

To regulate or not to regulate

Findings

Conclusion