The ‘Glass Onion’ numbers were good. The problem is that Netflix can never recover the investment

“Glass Onion,” the thrilling sequel to “Stabs in the Back,” is a well-deserved hit on Netflix. In its first weekend, it was placed at number one among the most watched shows on the platform, and between December 19 and December 25 (the period in which it was only available for the past three days) a total of 82 minutes was watched. million hours and According to the company itself. Keep in mind that the movie is two hours and twenty minutes long, but even so, Netflix estimates we’re talking about 35 million households watching the series.

Conclusions: none. We are used, with Netflix, to receive audience data (which, of course, we take for granted, although there is no way to verify it) in an unusual format: the number of hours a series or movie has been broadcast. This is a very irregular way of measuring audience and success, as each remake is not counted individually, but is subject to variables such as the duration of each film or series. At best, what we get are abstractions of the kind’ that this movie got beautiful Success”.

To put the 82.1 million hours in perspective, the numbers for “Glass Onion” are a little behind.unforgivable’, which is the platform’s now-forgotten exclusive production with Sandra Bullock from 2021, but nonetheless falls into the list of the top 10 most-watched Netflix movies in the platform’s history. Which suggests that when the month that Netflix uses to estimate the “total” number of hours watched for a product ends, “Glass Onion” will also enter that peak. It would do so, perhaps, in a similar setting, perhaps less so than hits like “Bird Box,”do not searchor his current number 1, “Red Alert”.

The special case of “Glass Onion”. sequel todaggers in the backIt has a nature that makes it a particularly great product: its very high budget. In 2021, Netflix paid $ 450 million for the rights to shoot two sequels, and an additional 40 million for the production of the first part, this “Glass Onion”. That means it caused the platform to spend at least $265 million, which is an exorbitant sum for a film that’s currently being compared to a vehicle few remember as Sandra Bullock.

To this we must add his very brief passage through cinemas: in the United States It was only seen in 600 theaters, far less than usual (though with more than any other Netflix release in theaters), and for just one week. The idea was to create a certain atmosphere of “exclusivity” that would enhance the premiere, two weeks later, on the platform. Accounts estimate that it made about $15 million during that week, which is pretty good considering how few theaters it is. A campaign equal to the film’s quality and record international premiere would have done well at the box office.

What do you want netflix. Again: subscribers. This huge investment and huge revenue black hole (remember: two, three viewers can get out of a Netflix subscription, even if accounts are shared) because the only thing Netflix cares about is gaining subscribers. And that air of exclusivity and that advertising campaign that presents a product that can only be obtained through the platform translates into subscribers. But meanwhile, from the outside, everything is question marks.

Since Netflix feeds us “hours watched” which, in summary, is a meaningless number, it’s just serving to compare the platform to itself. But because the show can be watched by one person or multiple people, depending on the household, the really helpful characters, the ones about successes and failures, escape us. The thing we do know is this: $450 million for two sequels to “Puñales por la espalda.” How high can the platform rise?