Why Streaming Services Keep Cancelling Shows So Early

It's been a meme for years — don't get too attached to that new streaming series you discovered, because it likely won't be back for another season. Netflix has been the worst perpetrator, building a reputation for two-season shows that rarely last longer (look no further than the cancellation of "Warrior Nun"). However, over the years, other streaming platforms have earned similarly grim reputations. How many "Star Wars" shows never got sophomore orders? HBO Max subscribers, I'm pouring one out for "Scavengers Reign." Even the streamers backed by more robust business models — the ones that typically let big shows run longer — have hit the problem. "My lady Jane" fans, I see you. "Schmigadoon"? Gone too soon. 

It certainly feels like streaming is a less concrete venue for scripted television than traditional, linear TV used to be, and the data backs that up. But why? Why is it so much harder for shows to find their footing today? Part of it is simply due to the overwhelming volume of content being produced. Airwaves only have so many hours in the day, but when you're choosing everything you watch from a library, there's no limit to how vast it can be. In efforts to compete with one another, streamers in their early years threw money at the wall just to fill out their original content rosters, hoping to build out subscriber counts.

That focus on subscription numbers is another one of the issues at play — a business model that, while related to viewership numbers, is less tethered to the success of individual shows.

In the streaming business, subscriber counts are everything. That's become somewhat less true with more and more ad-supported tiers introduced across different platforms, but that ad revenue is still dependent on the number of eyes watching content. "Growth" is the only thing that really matters, and streamers like Netflix put a lot of stock in which shows seem likely to keep subscribers around.

"The general rule of thumb is that if 50% of the show's audience doesn't complete the season, it is unlikely to be renewed," Bitmovin CEO Stephen Lederer told Newsweek in 2024. Lederer's company provides streaming infrastructure to various industry players. "From a pure business perspective, this makes sense because Netflix only wants hit shows to attract more advertisers and boost its revenue from advertising." In other words, the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach is only sustainable in a long-term growth context if you're willing to bail early on things that aren't sticking — even if they might get more purchase later.

Another big factor is the ease with which streaming services can cut programming, compared to linear TV. Scheduling on a network like CBS is pretty rigid, adhering to a primetime hierarchy where established shows dovetail into newer ones to try to build interest. If one of those new shows is floundering, it's hard to cancel it without having a substitute ready to go that can pick up the slack. "You're moving these things and they don't move like speed boats," former NBC Studios president Tom Nunan told The Wrap in December. "They move like giant aircraft carriers." Streamers, on the other hand, can cancel shows at a moment's notice with no such concerns, all while relying on the thing that still drives most subscriptions in the first place — their back catalogs of old content.

"The dirty little secret about streaming is [that] still the most robust numbers are coming in for their library, not for their new shows," Nunan said. "So the new shows can come and go."

The extreme end of the streaming series meat grinder, which has been a heightened point of focus in recent years, is companies not just cancelling shows, but removing them from their platforms altogether. HBO Max has earned the lion's share of ire for this practice, removing shows like "Raised by Wolves" and "Infinity Train" to major fan backlash. But it isn't the only streamer that's done this.

The goal is cost-cutting by removing royalty routes. If a show isn't driving any new subscriber growth, it's not doing anything for the company's stock price, but it is still paying out to the folks who made it as dedicated fans continue to stream the content. As Matt Spiegel, executive vice president of data firm TruAudience told Forbes in 2023, "Each stream carries royalty costs, so removing them from the library reduces costs without impacting revenue."

To those with a heart, or a love of television, or any empathy for the already underpaid creatives who make it, that might sound extremely sinister, and similar cost-cutting approaches affect the production process as well. As "The Good Place" creator Michael Schur told Vulture in 2023, some streamers would promise bigger bonuses to writers with each progressive season, in exchange for some diminished returns early on. "What no one saw coming was they'd just kill the show before they ever had to pay that money out," Schur said. "They kind of tricked everybody."