Recently, when I was writing about the Elon Musk/ Twitter deal – currently headed for court, with Twitter blaming recent revenue drops on uncertainty regarding the acquisition – I mentioned that every organization has vulnerabilities. Some people took exception to this, in the sense that they felt Twitter was being somewhat unethical while they themselves worked hard to operate their business in a more morally correct fashion.
With that in mind, I think it’s very important to explain that a company can quickly lose customer trust while operating according to its values and standards. For example – Your brand is vulnerable to several factors entirely out of your control.
The Hacker Steals the Credit Card, You Pay the Price
Let’s say there’s a data breach of the sort Neiman Marcus suffered in 2021 – 4.6 million customers had to be notified that their personal information, credit card numbers, gift card numbers, and other sensitive data had been stolen by hackers. While the luxury retailer immediately took action to mitigate the situation, including mandating all customers change their online passwords, the brand did become less trustworthy in the eyes of some customers. Perhaps the loss of trust was greatest among the brand’s long-time customers, who’d been through previous major data breach issues with Neiman Marcus.
Bad Things Happen To Good Brands: Be Trustworthy Throughout
Can you ever be completely confident that your brand will not fall victim to a criminal? Of course, you can’t. While brands take precautions, there are no guarantees in this world that your brand will ever be completely safe. In much the same way, brands are vulnerable to failures of the merchandise they sell, the customer experience employees provide, and even interactions your customers have with other people while in your business.
None of these vulnerabilities arise out of a morally questionable stance, such as Twitter’s choosing to be less than transparent about business operations. However, they all can result in the customer having an emotional experience that causes them to view your brand as less trustworthy.
If trust is important to you – and in the work we do, we’ve found it’s the brands who are the most loved and trusted that are ultimately the most successful – then it’s essential not to overlook the vulnerabilities your organization does have. Eventually, something will go wrong. Trustworthy brands have put systems in place to maintain and even strengthen customer relationships during problematic events. From a moral perspective, thinking ahead in order to best serve the customer is the right place to be.
He’s in, he’s out – Elon Musk’s decision whether or not to purchase Twitter has dominated headlines for weeks. While there’s been a lot of talk about free speech and financial shenanigans, the largest part of the discourse has been around bots. Musk raised the question of how many Twitter users are actually genuine people, and what’s happened since then?
People now trust Twitter less than they did before. This change in sentiment appears to be occurring independently of individual’s opinions of Musk. By not being able to address the bot question in a way that satisfied Musk – or, at a minimum, was understandable to the general public – Twitter left a lot of people with a lot of questions. While many of these questions are relevant to the health of discourse, there are additional huge concerns for brand building professionals.
If there’s no accurate bot numbers, how reliable is Twitter’s CPM pricing? Are the reports of a liberal, affluent user base believable? Do users really spend five hours a week on the platform? Doubts are like potato chips – you’re never going to have just one.
Doubts destroy brands.
Troll or Truth Teller: Understanding Elon Musk
Elon Musk understands better than most people that brands rise and fall based on how people feel about them. Indeed, his influence on cryptocurrency markets—especially those built on internet culture—has sparked conversations about the best meme coins for 2025, as enthusiasts anticipate how his endorsements and public statements could shift entire communities. Tesla is a beautiful case in point: its owners buy more than a car; they’re buying into a specific vision for the future, with the idea that they’re participants in progress offsetting the growing pains that come with any emerging technology.
Given the sprawling and complex nature of Musk’s business finances, I can’t say with any degree of certainty that he ever intended to complete the Twitter purchase. But there seems to be little doubt that Musk wanted to damage Twitter’s value. He did this by tactically attacking Twitter’s trustworthiness – specifically by raising concerns about the bot issue.
You have a budget to work with as you’re building a brand. How much of that money are you willing to devote to Twitter now? What Musk really did is shine a light on the tendency to accept platform performance claims without question. Prior to this, discussion of bot presence on Twitter was definitely happening in tech circles – but it wasn’t a mainstream discussion. Now that the question has been raised in such a prominent fashion, the wider business community has doubts. And that’s not good news for Twitter.
It Could Happen To You: We All Have Vulnerabilities
It’s easy to say that our brands would never be in the position Twitter is in, but in real life, almost every organization has some aspect of their operation they’d rather not talk about. Twitter’s experience serves as a wake-up call for leadership to think about what can be done ahead of time to address those situations.
The choice to keep maintaining trustworthiness at the core of a brand’s decision-making impacts every facet of the organization, from operations to communications right on up through mergers and acquisitions. Twitter had every opportunity to handle this bot question differently, but they didn’t. We’re going to see how the brand moves forward in the days to come.
I’m very interested to hear what you think about the situation. Did Elon make the right move? Will Twitter emerge triumphant after all? Let me know what you think.
I’m blessed with healthy young children. The family’s on a road trip. You know what that means – someone always needs to use the bathroom, right away, right now. And that’s how I wound up in one of the filthiest gas station bathrooms I’ve been in in a long time.
We’re not talking rats in the trashcan and overflowing toilets nasty, but this bathroom was rough enough that I felt bad about having my son in that environment. Had I known things would be this dirty in this establishment, I would have dealt with whatever the consequences might have been for driving to the next stop – no matter how distant that might have been.
Once we were out of there and back on the road, I found myself surprised about how emotional that experience had been for me. This is a tiny minor interaction with that business, yet I was angry with them. Why was I angry?
Here’s Trust Lesson #1: We All Have Trust Issues.
I was angry because I felt betrayed. I stopped at that gas station in the expectation that it would provide facilities in keeping with its branding. I knew not to expect a luxury experience, but there’s a certain basic level of competence I trusted would be in place.
Based on this trust, I brought my child into this setting. Parenting is a serious responsibility, and we all try to shield our kids from things that could make them sick or distressed. I wouldn’t stop at the sort of sketchy looking place where this filthy bathroom would be unremarkable because I don’t bring my kids to places like that.
My kids trust me to take care of them. Being in this nasty bathroom, I felt like I’d let my son down. Who was responsible for these bad feelings? The gas station that failed to live up to its brand promise. They showed me I could not trust them. How do you think I feel about that gas station now?
If this seems like an excessively personal take about a brand, you should know that every single customer interaction is like this for customers. Trust is won and lost when people interact with your brand as part of their everyday life. Everyday life is intensely personal.
In everyday life, people are much more than customers. They’re parents. They have parents they’re caring for. They have romantic partners, friendships, and countless other connections with people near and far. Every single one of these relationships is much more important to your customer than the relationship they have with your brand. If your actions – or lack thereof, in terms of bathroom cleaning – violate the customer’s trust in you and introduce negative elements into their much more important relationships, the bond you may have had with them is over.
Key point: as much as we measure our customer behaviors, it’s very easy for brands to lose sight of the customer as an entire human being, who does much more than shop. It’s only when we develop a multi-faceted understanding of our customers that we can truly prove ourselves worthy of their trust.
Trust Lesson #2: When You Trust, You’ll Be Willing to Try.
Of course I couldn’t help but contrast the experience I’d had in this gas station with what I knew I’d experience at Buc-ees. I’ve written before about how this successful chain thrives in part because it lives up to its promises – including the promise that if you bring your child there to use the bathroom, you will find clean facilities for them!
Buc-ees does more than provide clean bathrooms and gas. They also have great food. Food & Wine Magazine once wrote an ode celebrating their brisket. I have had it and I have to agree that it’s one of the best things I’ve ever eaten – but how do I know that?
Before you eat food, you have to trust that the food is safe to eat. This is a very primal aspect of being a human being, but in the modern world this plays out most often in choosing restaurants or takeaways that are suitably hygienic.
Having seen Buc-ees billboards about their bathrooms, and then the bathrooms in question, I had no hesitation in trying the food they serve. This is a brand that does a good job in rapidly establishing the fact they are trustworthy. The competence and attention to detail that goes into the restrooms made it easy for me to trust that the kitchen would be equally well-run.
They sold food in the place that had the filthy bathrooms too. And remember that I was there with my young son, who is not too old to want a giant slushie. But after the bathroom experience, I didn’t trust the cleanliness standards of that kitchen. We left that place without buying any food whatsoever!
Key Point: Being trustworthy increases a brand’s earning power. Customers buy more – and they buy more often – from brands they trust. It’s a smart strategic move to begin demonstrating your brand’s trustworthiness early in the relationship.
Trust Lesson #3: We talk about who we trust – and who we don’t.
Word of mouth and reputation management are not exactly new concepts, especially in the branding and marketing world. But what struck me most about this filthy bathroom experience is how strongly I felt the need to warn other parents away from that particular gas station.
I’m not going to name names here, because there’s already more than enough negativity online. But in those instances where I have strong trust-based relationships with people local to the area, you’d better believe I mentioned to them that there are much better businesses to visit when the kids need a potty break.
Again, we’re talking about some very deep social conditioning here. One of the ways we strengthen the bonds we have with other people in our communities is by sharing information. The impetus to do so is especially strong when we experience or perceive that our trust has been misplaced. When we care about people, we take action so they might avoid being similarly disappointed. When our trust is broken, we talk about it.
This is where social listening and artificial intelligence can be useful tools for brand building. Monitoring the conversations people are having about our organizations and using the right tech tools to filter out some meaning from the unstructured data gathered can help identify problems as they’re happening. Addressing these concerns may not restore lost customer trust, but it may be possible to strengthen relationships with your existing customers and start relationships with new customers from a better position.
Key Point: Brands need to consider their reputations as viewed through the filter of trust. Where are customers feeling let down or betrayed? How do these feelings align with the experience the business provides? Ultimately, each brand determines how trustworthy they are. Be clear about what promises your brand is making, and what operational decisions are required in order to keep them.
Setting the right prices for your audience and revenue goals is important when taking a product to market. The following questions will help you clarify your pricing model.
To develop your pricing model, consider:
What is the value you’re offering to your target customers?
Are there existing price expectations?
How do you price your product relative to your competitors?
Is there a way to create a competitive advantage with your pricing model?
Channel economics is important to consider. For example, most airlines, like JetBlue, charge a $25 booking fee when you book a flight over the phone while charging no fees for online booking. There is little variable cost for web transactions, but call center representatives are expensive.
Your goal might be to develop a revenue model based on anticipated market penetration, average transaction size, number of transactions, and so on.
Consider:
What are your primary goals for market share penetration?
What are your estimated margins over the next one-, two-, and three-year horizon, factoring in startup and ongoing expenses?
What are the human resources requirements for the first year of execution?
To help mitigate risk, it is advisable to identify the economic, competitive, and internal risks associated with executing this strategy. Outline the biggest risks that may affect your ability to reach your goals and develop strategies to address how to overcome them.
Have you heard? Phil Mickelson has sold his soul. That’s the news coming out of the usually relatively restrained sports section of the IndyStar, in the aftermath of the top PGA star and 16 of his colleagues choosing to participate in a non-PGA tournament.
Never heard of the LIV? Let me bring you up to speed. Sports are huge in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Qatar hosting numerous top-tier events in track and field, tennis, horse racing, rugby, cricket, Formula 1 racing, motocross, football, and even basketball – the NBA will have two exhibition games in Abu Dhabi this year for the first time ever.
LIV is one of many golf tournaments to take place in the region. The name is 54 in Roman numerals, indicating the score a golfer would have if they birdied on every hole. With exceptionally attractive prize money available, many professional golfers have chosen to take part. And the PGA, the league in which most of these golfers have built their careers, is furious.
You Need Us: How Does the PGA Feel About The Golfers?
Of course, I’m interested in the decisions the PGA is making as a brand as seen through the dual lens of love and trust. Barring 17 top players from PGA competition because they played golf somewhere else certainly doesn’t seem like a loving act. There’s definitely possessive language floating around, with the PGA Tour Commissioner calling LIV players freeloaders who only achieved this position because they came to prominence in the PGA.
The hostility level is incredibly high, with lots of very thinly veiled racism masquerading as concern for the sport. While it is inarguably true that the money of the Saudi government has been used for evil things in addition to funding sports events, it is also inarguably true that the evil actions of other governments have not stopped the PGA from happily hosting events where they felt conditions were favorable for them. Most notably, of course, was the choice to play Sun City during the nearly global boycott of South Africa’s apartheid regime.
You’ve been in relationships before. When you have someone who acts like they own you, who tells you you’re nothing without them, and that none of the people you’re currently talking to can be trusted, how do you feel? Probably not great. These are the characteristics of an abusive relationship, where one party does not have the freedom to act in what they feel are their own best interests.
Why Does the PGA Want to Be Seen This Way?
There’s no doubt that the PGA feels threatened by the LIV tournament. They’re acting out in ways that demonstrate a lot of hurt and anger. But in situations where you want to build love and trust with your stakeholders, making them the target of your least-pleasant feelings isn’t necessarily wise. It’s also a questionable decision to put these emotions in front of your fan base: while some will certainly toe the PGA line that the players have done wrong by participating in the tournament, others will feel that the players, like all athletes, have the right to compete when and where they want to.
Is there a last-minute hole-in-one that could change the entire game for the PGA? I hope so. International competition is not going away. If accommodations are to be reached between the parties, it’s going to need to begin from a position of greater love than what’s currently on display. What do you think? Can leadership play it where it lays? Is it possible to force loyalty through sanctions and bans? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
Choosing the correct channels can help your organization expand its offerings reach and revenue. You might include your retail store, Internet, a customer service call center, face-to-face salesperson, a trade show, a seminar, or a direct partner. Having a strong foundation in your channels can give your marketing an edge.
Amazon.com’s primary channel is its website. Walmart’s primary channel is its retail chain. BWM’s primary channel is its dealerships. AT&T’s channels include its authorized dealers (partners), independent retail stores, and website.
Your goal isn’t just to identify your channels but to ensure that each channel is as seamlessly integrated with each other as possible.
Customers should have a consistent brand experience no matter what channel or touch point through which they interact with you.
The key questions in your channel analysis are:
Where do you reach your target customers?
Where do your target customers buy?
Where will you promote your products?
What is the right distribution model?
How do you develop the right distribution channels?
Does the channel fit your offering?
How does your offering fit with your target markets and channels?
How would customers desire to interact with you?
What level of interaction do your target customers require?
Can you create a competitive advantage?
You want to make sure your offering fits your channel. For example, it is difficult to sell complex services or certain high-priced products over the web.
When our clients want to build best-in-class plans they bring together their smartest folks and the relevant information. These questions are perfect to discuss offsite with your leadership team and relevant data. Try setting aside time for your leadership team to discuss and prioritize your channel strategies for 2022 and beyond.
Understanding your product’s key features and benefits is the first step in defining your product’s unique value proposition. You must understand exactly how your product connects with your customers: the context of their use, the solutions it solves, and the benefits they derive.
Here are some key questions to bring clarity to your offering:
What needs or tensions do your target customers need solved?
Which features in your offering best address these needs?
How will customers use it?
What are important attributes or benefits of your offering?
How is your offering differentiated in the marketplace?
To help determine the product’s unique value proposition, put yourself in your target customer’s perspective when you think about presenting your company’s offering. Consider:
What do you want your customers to think?
What do you want them to feel?
What do you want them to believe?
What do you want them to remember?
The better insights you have about your customers, the more effective you can be at defining your offering. This means you need to get to know your customers, to obsess about your customers.
Talk to them, listen to them, and get to know them. Defining your offering will also help you create more effective marketing messages.
I don’t need to tell you about the many incredible things Elon Musk has already accomplished. Tesla, SpaceX, STARLINK, and The Boring Company – are all groundbreaking brands, each is operating at the frontier of possibility. Now Elon’s buying Twitter with the stated goal of making the site a more trustworthy, functioning digital town square. Do you think he can do it?
Begin with Bots: Can Science Make Twitter More Human?
Having made an offer to purchase the never-profitable social media network, Elon then brought up the issue of how many site users are actually bots. It’s easy to view this as a negotiation tactic, in much the same way a potential home buyer says they love everything about the property except for the roof needing repair: pointing out flaws can lower the purchase price.
If you’re the homeowner in this situation, you have recourse. A building inspection will quickly clear up any questions regarding the state of the roof; it’s either OK or it’s not, and the price will move accordingly.
On the other hand, Twitter can’t tell Elon how many bots there are. This raises several issues, all related to trust. How many bots are there? Twitter says no more than 5% of the user base; Elon’s experts put the number somewhere between 20-25%. Perhaps joking, Elon asked what if the actual number of bots is closer to 80%.
There’s no home inspector in this situation. Twitter, while standing by the information in their public filings, declares that getting more precise information is, for some mysterious reason, impossible. This obscurity is in itself problematic. The validity of Twitter’s public filings is in doubt if basic details like the number of active users can’t be verified.
Elon, approaching the issue from a scientific perspective, has concrete ideas for confirming the humanity of the user base. If he is allowed to put them into action, will Twitter become a more trustworthy place?
It’s not going to be a more civil environment, that’s for sure.
Complicating the situation infinitely is Musk’s assertions regarding free speech and the need for everyone to have their say, free from any constraints beyond those imposed by the nation-states where the posters reside. Hate speech and misinformation may not be illegal, but their presence minimizes the value of discourse as the costs for participating in conversation are not equal for all.
There are numerous other factors to examine, including Elon’s ability to significantly impact markets with vague Tweets and the reluctance of the SEC to hold him accountable to the same rules everyone else has to follow. The methods used to gain control of Twitter seem to be orthogonal to Elon’s stated goals for the platform. Can you create an environment full of trust while acting in untrustworthy ways? The answer to this question remains to be seen, but I’m very interested in hearing what you think.
Obviously, there’s a lot happening in the crypto community right now. Events are developing very rapidly, highlighting many conversations individuals and organizations need to have about the role crypto plays in their finances.
That’s what we were talking about last week.
At that time, our team was examining Wikimedia’s decision to no longer accept donations in cryptocurrency. To determine whether or not this is a good move, we asked two questions:
Would this decision make Wikimedia’s users love Wikimedia more?
Would this decision make Wikimedia’s users trust Wikimedia more?
Sometimes love is tricky.
There are people out there who are extremely passionate about crypto. Perhaps you’ve met one or two yourself. People who are passionate about crypto in a positive way believe that having an alternative currency helps democratize the world. They point to Africa, where cryptocurrency allows people to receive payment for their labor and services faster and more reliably than they’d been able to with traditional banking services. And they point to Ukraine, where cryptocurrency donations have been used to fund the fight against Russian invaders.
Surely Wikimedia, an organization that exists to democratize knowledge and make information available to everyone in the world, should be actively embracing the crypto community as fellow travelers.
Not so fast, the people who are equally as passionate about crypto, but from a negative perspective. Crypto mining has huge negative impacts on the planet and the people who live there, they say. China, hardly renowned for caring for the environment, banned crypto mining within its borders. Much of this business went to Kazakhstan, overwhelming the nation’s power grid and leading to chaos and political upheaval.
Surely Wikimedia, an organization committed to sustainability, shouldn’t be involved with a crypto community that operates in such an environmentally harmful way.
But decisions have to be made.
As much as organizations (and individuals!) would like everyone to love them, in real life, choices have to be made and decisions implemented. No matter what choice you make, someone will love you less as a result.
Pragmatically, it’s a good idea to have some idea of the proportional size of particularly passionate people in your user base. We’re all familiar with the vocal minority phenomenon – a small percentage of customers who through volume and tenacity dominate the conversation.
When this decision was made, cryptocurrency donations represented less than one percent of Wikimedia’s revenue stream. If this move alienates the pro-crypto contingent to the point where they’d no longer support Wikimedia’s mission, not much revenue would be lost. The love might be gone, but the wallet would still feel right.
And meanwhile, the anti-crypto users who felt Wikimedia made this decision in order to better live their corporate values may now love the brand more. Walking the walk inspires lasting loyalty.
Given the relative size of these user groups, it seems likely that this move will result in more love for Wikimedia.
But what about trust?
Now, as I mentioned, this conversation happened last week. So we spend some time talking through how divesting from crypto meant missing out on future gains, and what did that mean to the trust Wikimedia’s users have in the brand. Was abandoning tomorrow’s fortune a violation of today’s trust?
Does avoiding a crash strengthen trust?
It’s very, very easy to debate this point at length, but before you do that, it’s good to remember what Wikimedia’s user base trusts them to do. And the answer to that, across the multiple platforms under the Wikimedia umbrella, is to be a repository for the world’s knowledge, accessible to everyone. That’s the primary mission. That’s the trust Wikimedia should be focused on building – certainly more than they should be focused on effectively managing a volatile asset during complicated times.
So through this lens, Wikimedia’s decision built trust with its user base.
Crypto and Trust: Welcome to the Wild West
Another of the primary reasons Wikimedia gave for no longer accepting crypto donations is the high risk of fraud. The perception that crypto is a high-risk, untrustworthy market had more than a few adherents last week. Now that there’s story after story after story of people suffering financial devastation, that perception will be even stronger.
Crypto’s trust issues are directly tied to the problems that make the alternative currency so helpful to people in tough situations: the lack of government oversight & regulation. Investor moves that would result in SEC penalties had they happened on Wall Street are creating and crashing the cryptocurrency market. It’s often characterized as a Wild West situation, where anything goes.
Will the crypto world stay wild and free forever? I have my doubts. Whether measures to create greater stability and accountability will be imposed by nation-states or financial institutions remains to be seen, but they are coming. The genie is out of the bottle: cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The challenge is making them more trustworthy.
What do you think? I’m very interested in what you think of Wikimedia’s choices, as well as the current challenges crypto faces in terms of the trust.
I was having a conversation with my good friend and colleague Marcus Thornton, Chief Marketing Officer of Scheels, about the challenges Netflix is facing. So it’s fair to say Netflix is not having the best time ever right now. Instead of achieving 2 million more subscribers, they lost 200,000. The stock price is the lowest it’s been in five years. Employee morale is reportedly through the floor. The world is watching to see if the streaming giant has merely stumbled or if this is the beginning of a fall.
We begin with Netflix occupying a reasonably strong position – both Loved and Trusted by the public. Think about the whole Netflix and Chill phenomenon. Here we have a case of a brand being explicitly called out as integral to having a good time with your favorite person. There’s a serious amount of love going on.
But something happened. The relationship that was so strong has started to sour. Why? Let’s look at some choices Netflix has made and how they have contributed to the change in the way people feel about the brand.
Love Doesn’t Mean Giving Someone Everything They Want: You Have to Do More Than That.
Have you noticed how Netflix went from having everything you could ever want to watch to having nothing you’re excited about seeing? This is, we believe, directly attributable to the strength of the recommendation algorithms Netflix uses.
At first glance, the logic is sound. Someone likes a particular program and serves them up more content of that type. But – as you’ve undoubtedly experienced – it doesn’t take very long for all of your recommendations to look alike. The algorithms don’t stray too far from the tried and true. It just serves up more of what you’ve already enjoyed.
What’s missing from this experience? Delight. Discovery. The experience of finding something fresh and unexpected that you didn’t know you would like something people love. Netflix’s vast library undoubtedly contains many hidden gems people would happily pay to keep watching – if they ever saw it in the first place. If only there were a way to introduce serendipity into the algorithm, Netflix would be well on the way to getting some of that love back.
And Let’s Be Real: It’s Always About the Money, Honey
Netflix raised its prices steadily over the course of the pandemic. While price hikes are never welcome, doing so when their customer base was already feeling trapped by COVID restrictions was an interesting choice. There was much new financial stress introduced into people’s lives during the pandemic. Adding to this burden at this time was a choice Netflix made that negatively impacted the amount of love their customers feel toward the brand.
In much the same vein, the reports that Netflix is now open to advertising have created delight among advertising agencies – and absolutely nobody else. Customers on the fence about the value of their Netflix membership are not going to be persuaded to stay by adding commercials to the viewing experience.
The third leg of this tripod of terrible is the crackdown on password sharing. Does password sharing cost Netflix lots of money? Absolutely. Do they have the right to limit the delivery of their service to people who pay for it? No doubt. Is the ideal time to address this issue during a period where membership numbers are dropping fast and your employees have just lost tons of money as the value of their options plummeted? Perhaps not. Certainly not if Netflix asks the question, “Will this move make our customers love us more?”
The Route to Screen Needs to Change – Considering a Post-Binge Netflix
Live by the sword, die by the sword is wisdom that applies in many situations, but in this case, let’s look at it in terms of content creation. Netflix has produced some amazing original content, using a model that involves hiring well-known stars and providing generous budgets. These shows have dropped a series at a time, keeping with the love people have for binge-watching.
This all bears re-examining, given the pandemic and the much more competitive environment the streaming industry has become. Netflix’s studio arm just isn’t as strong as Disney or Paramount, which have decades of experience in fundamentals-based storytelling. Star power can not be purchased in sufficient quantities to guarantee great content. That being said, Netflix should get some credit for bringing in stars from around the world to keep things going. Case in point, Squid Games, the survival drama that introduced Americans to top Korean actors.
Additionally, a lot of Netflix’s original content is highly derivative of content that has already performed well for Netflix or another studio. It will be difficult at a time when the most comfortable response to tension is to pursue whatever appears to be the safest course, but in terms of content creation, it may be time to give the muse even more freedom. If there was ever a time Netflix needed to be more creative, it’s now.
Forcing creativity is hard. Thinking strategically about the content release is much easier. Just because a show can be binged doesn’t mean it should be binged. Subscriber retention becomes easier when viewers need to wait to see what happens next. Love requires growth. While the binge-centric model of dropping entire seasons at once may be what’s known and familiar, it could be time for Netflix to explore what might work better.
What Did I Miss?
Obviously, this is a big story with many different angles to consider. What do you think? What has Netflix done that’s reduced how much their customers love and trust them? What moves would you recommend to get Netflix back on a more positive trajectory? I’m very eager to hear your thoughts.
