Why Are Streaming Services So Bad at Promoting Their Shows?

Have you heard about the acclaimed legal drama starring one of Hollywood’s most beloved stars in one of his riskiest roles to date?

How about the murder mystery with an A-list Oscar winner in her first major television role?

Okay, well, maybe you’re familiar with the groundbreaking new limited series that wowed critics and recently racked up an astonishing 11 Emmy nominations?

Actually, based on streaming data, you might have heard about — and obsessively binge-watched — that last one, Baby Reindeer.

But you probably learned about it via word of mouth.

Related: How Baby Reindeer Flipped the Script, Making Even Vile Characters Incredibly Human

Adapted from a Scottish comedian’s one-man show and dealing with a wide array of deeply uncomfortable topics, it wasn’t the sort of series that had “smash hit” written all over it.

However, Baby Reindeer has defied the odds to become one of Netflix’s most-streamed shows.

You’d think that with all its success, ads for the series would be plastered across airwaves and subway tunnels alike.

But that’s not the case.

A Change In Strategy

In fact, if you didn’t see it on the Netflix home screen or hear about it from a friend or critic, you might’ve missed the year’s most buzzed-about new series.

The same is true of Presumed Innocent, starring Jake Gyllenhall, and Lady In the Lake, with Natalie Portman turning in what some critics have called the performance of her career.

And while word-of-mouth did big things for Baby Reindeer, it proved insufficient to the task of drumming up hype for those other shows.

Related: Lady in the Lake Trailer: Natalie Portman Thrills in Apple TV+’s Visual Tour de Force!

We’ve previously discussed the declining influence of stars and the increased focus on proven intellectual properties.

But surely, new TV shows starring some of the most esteemed actors on the planet are deserving of at least a modest-sized ad campaign, right?

Granted, the two shows we just mentioned are only available on Apple TV+, and original content is obviously not that particular company’s bread and butter.

The same can be said of Prime Video, which makes up just a tiny slice of Amazon’s yearly revenue pie.

But don’t stars and creators involved in these projects feel like they deserve more?

Why put in all the work for a platform that might not even bother promoting it?

And what about companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Max who don’t make most of their money elsewhere and are wholly reliant on subscriptions and ad revenue?

Why aren’t they pouring big bucks into promoting their new projects, some of which are very expensive to produce?

On X (formerly Twitter) and elsewhere, users have certainly taken notice:

“Apple TV+ is so funny they’re like oh, sh-t, yeah, we have an amazingly talented, Oscar-winning, hot hot hot, actress in a 1960s murder mystery thriller but ah sh-t we forgot to tell you, my fault,” Flagrant magazine editor Ashtyn Butuso recently tweeted.

“With their TV service Apple did the exact opposite of how they market everything else they make,” a commenter named Erik replied.

Related: TV Nation: Would America Be Less Divided If We Still Watched the Same Shows?

“Now they are talking about cutting back spending on Apple TV+. I wonder why it hasn’t been as successful?”

Yes, the business model behind Apple TV+ brings to mind Ned Flanders’ parents complaints about their disobedient son:

“We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas,” the elder Flanderses remarked.

The Apple Falls Far From the Business Model

The situation is made especially baffling by the fact that in its previous projects, Apple demonstrated a skill for marketing and self-promotion previously unseen in any sector of the economy.

This was a company that built up unprecedented brand loyalty selling products that consumers had never heard of up to that point.

And yet, with a reasonable subscription rate and one of the best libraries in the entire streaming landscape, Apple TV+ remains a perpetual also-ran, its big-budget, star-studded series mostly neglected by casual TV viewers.

The answer has much to do with a changing TV landscape in which few shows pull in eight-figure audiences, and streamers have realized that, in many cases, they can rely on critics and social media to promote their shows for them.

It’s a strategy that’s benefitted some shows — but this approach might also explain why there’s a show that stars Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, and Jon Hamm and has been racking up Emmy nods for three seasons …

… And yet no one you know watches The Morning Show.

Related: The Age of Nostalgia: Why Young Audiences Are Seeking Out Old TV

(We’re obviously being hyperbolic; no need for everyone who’s ever watched an episode of The Morning Show to flood us with comments about how wrong we are!)

The point is, no new shows are raking in I Love Lucy and M*A*S*H finale numbers, so it’s riskier than ever to shell out for a huge advertising budget.

And with social media and Rotten Tomatoes buzz accomplishing more than most 30-second TV spots, execs understandably feel that the days of massive marketing rollout may have come to an end.

But the upshot of all of this is that shows with hit potential are now miring in obscurity for years, if not just getting canceled after a single season.

It’s bad for the fans, it’s bad for the talent, and it’s terrible for the future of the medium we love.

What do you think, TV fanatics?

Are streamers dropping the ball by failing to promote their products?

Hit the comments section below to share your thoughts!