Jack Tame: Streaming services have only made our impatience worse

If I’m ever in a job interview and they ask me what my weaknesses are, I won’t hesitate in my answer. No, I won’t say I work too hard or that I care too much. I’ll be honest and say that I’m impatient.

For me, that was a big part of the reason I was so excited when TV streaming services finally got good. Instead of waiting for episodes to be drip-fed to the audience, week by week, I could turn on telly and watch a whole series in a night if I so chose.

To be honest, bingeing twelve hours of television at a time is not really my style. But in the first few years of streaming, we were told repeatedly by Netflix and co why getting a whole series at once was such a good idea. It changes storytelling for the better, they told us. You don’t have to worry about weak cliff-hangers. Writers don’t have to shoehorn a whole story arc into exactly twenty-three minutes. It’s more organic. More nuanced. More thoughtful.

We should’ve known better. But instead, we fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. The streamers played us like drug dealers play addicts. They published full season of bingeable TV upon full season of bingeable TV, niche shows, big-budget dramas, the best programmes in the history of television, and when subscriptions were near an absolute maximum across the board, they cut down on the supply.

If you think about it, the economics are simple. Why have your audience bingeing TV, watching a month’s worth of telly in four days and then pausing their subscriptions? It’s much smarter to have them pay you the same amount but only give them one episode ever week.

There’s another downside to the drip-drip-drip model that I only appreciated this week.

For almost five years I’ve been watching Succession, one of the best programmes on TV. Right now, Succession is broadcasting it’s fourth and final series. It’s dark. It’s funny. It’s surprising. It’s observant. It critiques our culture and reminds me of my twenties in New York. And given it’s the last season, the pièce de resistance, I’ve been deliberately waiting for a gap in my schedule to sit down and properly enjoy it. Between Easter, work, and everything else, I’ve been tempering my impatience and waiting for a moment when I can properly savour ever second of the final season glory.

To be fair I think Succession has always been a weekly episodic. HBO never went to the Netflix full binge model. But there’s a difference in the way that audiences behave between the two different styles.

When full series are published all at once, no one gives up spoilers. It’s generally accepted that as a viewer, you won’t necessarily watch a whole series on the day it becomes available. You might, but most people will probably spread out a series a little bit. How many of us have talked about TV, and asked our friends – carefully – what episode they were up to?

But a show like Succession is different. There are millions of viewers around the world, waiting for the hour every week in which they know a new episode will become available. And because that’s the way they’re watching the show, the presume everyone is doing the same thing.

You can see where this is going.

This week, Succession delivered its biggest plot twist in five wonderful years of storytelling. A huge twist. A massive shock. A Shakespearean dynamic-changer.

But I didn’t see it for myself. Having carefully, deliberately waited, I read it on Twitter. Twice. Then I saw it again in a newspaper headline.

Maybe streaming ruined TV-watching etiquette. And maybe impatience isn’t such a bad thing.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.