Is there "nothing to watch" on Netflix? The warning of a 21% decline reveals the true nature of the "hit shortage"

Is there "nothing to watch" on Netflix? The warning of a 21% decline reveals the true nature of the "hit shortage"

In the evening, sitting on the sofa with the remote in hand, I open Netflix. The screen is filled with rows of titles. Yet, after scrolling for a few minutes, I end up closing the app without playing anything.

Such small dissatisfaction has started to be recognized as a management issue for the giant streaming company.

On September 18, 2026, Steven Cahall, an analyst at U.S. financial giant Wells Fargo, downgraded Netflix's investment rating from "Equal Weight" to "Underweight" and significantly lowered the target stock price from $80 to $57. The issue was not simply the increase in production costs. It was the weakening of "engagement," where viewers open Netflix, select a title, and continue watching for a long time.

Following this decision, headlines suggesting "Netflix's original content will decrease by 21%" began to spread on German financial information sites and others. However, clarification is needed here.


"21% decrease" refers to a forecast of viewing volume, not the number of productions

Netflix has not officially announced that it will "reduce original content by 21%." What multiple U.S. financial media reported as Wells Fargo's analysis is a forecast that in the latter half of 2026, viewing time per member may decrease by about 4% year-on-year, and the viewing volume of the top 100 Netflix original titles may decrease by more than 20%.

In other words, the story of "the length of supplied content decreasing by 21%" is not the same as "the viewing time acquired by major original content decreasing by around 21%." If it's the former, the main issue would be the reduction of production and distribution schedules, but if it's the latter, it suggests that while the content exists, it may not be sufficiently capturing the viewers' interest.

This difference is significant. If it's just a matter of fewer titles, it can be improved by increasing the number of releases. However, if there are fewer titles that viewers "want to watch," simply increasing the quantity won't solve the problem.


The question is not the "number of titles" but rather "the one everyone knows"

Netflix has long grown by pouring a large volume of diverse content from around the world and recommending it to individual users. It is also a company that symbolizes the shift from the era of terrestrial broadcasting, where everyone watched the same program, to an era where each person enjoys different content.

However, what investors are concerned about this time is not the abundance of the catalog itself. It's the point that there may be a lack of "water cooler content" like "Stranger Things" or "The Queen's Gambit," which reach beyond subscribers, sparking conversations at schools, workplaces, and on social media.

A big hit has effects beyond mere viewing time. It can drive people who haven't subscribed yet to join, bring back dormant users, and make those considering cancellation think, "I'll stay until the next season." It leads to discussions on social media, fan creations, attention to the cast, and re-watching past seasons. A single title can elevate the presence of the entire service.

Conversely, even if a large number of small hits can maintain total viewing time, if the "reason it has to be Netflix" weakens, resistance to price revisions and temporary cancellations may increase. Especially for users who switch between multiple video services monthly, the deciding factor is not the number of titles but "the one title I want to watch this month."


Yet, total viewing time is at an all-time high—are the numbers contradictory?

According to Netflix's "What We Watched" published in July 2026, the total viewing time in the first half of 2026 exceeded 97 billion hours, the highest ever for a half-year period. From the company's explanation alone, it doesn't seem like viewer disengagement is progressing.

This is where the difficulty of the current discussion lies.

Total viewing time is the sum of all content viewed on Netflix, including the number of members, regional expansion, replay of old titles, licensed content, anime, movies, documentaries, reality shows, and live events. On the other hand, what Wells Fargo pointed out was the usage per member and the momentum of viewing generated by top original titles.

If the overall number of users increases, total viewing time can grow even if viewing per person decreases slightly. Also, if past titles or popular content acquired from outside are watched for a long time, the overall strength may remain, but the presence of new original content may weaken. Both numbers can coexist simultaneously.

Netflix also considers engagement not just in terms of total time but also in terms of the quality of the viewing experience and the ability to cater to diverse preferences. Therefore, one cannot definitively say "there's no problem because it's 97 billion hours" or "Netflix as a whole has slowed down just because of the forecasted decrease in viewing of top titles." What should be looked at is the combination of the overall volume, the depth per member, and the power of new content to generate subsequent viewing.


Is the expansion into games, live events, and podcasts a mistake?

Netflix is attempting to expand from a service focused on movies and dramas to a comprehensive entertainment hub that includes games, live events, documentaries, reality shows, and video podcasts. It is also expanding its ad-supported plans, which, as of May 2026, the company announced had reached over 250 million monthly users worldwide.

From a business perspective, this is rational. Live events can generate simultaneous viewing and buzz, providing advertisers with significant viewing opportunities. Games can increase touchpoints with popular titles, and podcasts may extend the time spent on the platform at a relatively low production cost. The judgment that movies and dramas alone are insufficient to capture viewers' time from YouTube, TikTok, and games is understandable.

However, expansion also carries risks. The more Netflix aims to be a place that has everything, the more it may dilute the impression that "you can encounter the next big hit here," which helped Netflix grow. Even if various formats are lined up on the home screen, if users cannot quickly reach the one title they are seeking, the increase in options becomes fatigue rather than value.

The issue is not the mere fact that games or podcasts have been started. It's whether the investment in and display of these are weakening the ability to easily discover strong narrative content. The question is whether comprehensive integration and the core of the brand can coexist.


On social media, dissatisfaction with "declining quality," "cancellations," and "difficulty finding content"

Reactions on social media and forums are not public opinion surveys and are heavily biased by the posters. Nevertheless, they serve as material to understand where users feel dissatisfaction.

 

In overseas Netflix-related communities, since the beginning of 2026, voices have been prominent saying, "Previously, original content itself was a topic of conversation, but recently it feels like a lot of low-quality content is lined up," and "There are more old titles and short documentaries, and fewer large series."

Additionally, there's dissatisfaction that "even if you find an interesting title, it gets canceled quickly, so I don't want to start watching new content until I can see it will be completed." This can become a troublesome vicious cycle for Netflix. If users hold back on initial viewing due to fear of cancellation, that initial weakness can negatively impact continuation decisions, further strengthening the distrust of "it'll end anyway."

There are also many posts that discuss the rise in prices, the presence of ads, and the backlash against password-sharing measures together with dissatisfaction with content. The feeling of "the price is going up, but the time spent searching for something to watch is longer" cannot be measured by the absolute volume of content. What users pay for is not the total time of videos but the expectation of a satisfying evening.

On the other hand, it is also dangerous to evaluate Netflix as a whole based solely on negative posts on social media. According to Netflix's official data, new series and movies gained significant viewership in the first half of the year, with ripple effects on past seasons. There is a distance between criticism that spreads easily on social media and actual viewing behavior. The analyst warning this time pointed out the possibility that this distance might narrow in the future and truly manifest in usage time and cancellation rates.


From Japan's perspective, the "window to the world" is rather expanding

From the Japanese perspective, Netflix's situation cannot be simply described as a "content shortage."

According to Netflix, in the first half of 2026, the viewing time of Japanese-origin content worldwide exceeded 6.1 billion hours, the highest since the company began disclosing data in the first half of 2023. Japanese content was the second most viewed among non-English productions, with more than half of the members watching at least one anime title.

This indicates that for Japanese production companies and creators, Netflix remains a very large international distribution network. Even content that seems niche domestically can acquire a global audience through subtitles, dubbing, and recommendations. A period of shortage in large English-language series may expand the potential for non-English content, including Japanese and Korean works, to become global hits.

However, with opportunity comes responsibility. If results are demanded in a short period with global distribution as a premise, there is a risk that production sites may not keep up with the burden, rights processing, and reward distribution. If the pressure to constantly supply popular content increases projects of the same format or reliance on safe original works, it may undermine the diversity that is the strength of Japanese content.

For Japan, what matters is not just how many titles Netflix orders. It's whether the content remains for a long time, connects to the next season or project, and returns profits to the production side in a sustainable way.


In the advertising business, "how many people" matters less than "how many minutes are watched"

As Netflix's ad-supported plans expand, the importance of viewing time increases. With a subscription model, monthly income continues as long as the contract is maintained, even with little usage. However, in advertising, the programs and time viewed form the basis of ad inventory.

A major hit can gather many people in a short period and present clear value to advertisers. Moreover, a popular title doesn't end on its release day, extending viewership to past seasons and related content. Conversely, even if there are many titles, if they don't progress to being played, the growth potential of the advertising business is small.

In that sense, the current warning is not just about stock prices. As Netflix positions advertising as a second growth axis, "the number of people who opened the home screen" becomes less significant as a management indicator compared to "the actual time watched and continued."


What Netflix needs is not a recovery in quantity but a recovery in trust

There are three focal points for the future.

The first is whether a global breakout title will emerge in the latter half of 2026. In the entertainment business, where a single big hit can change the annual impression, the forecast of around 21% is not a fixed future.

The second is the movement of viewing time per member and cancellations. Even if total viewing time increases, if usage per person falls and more people suspend their subscriptions with each price increase, the quality of growth weakens.

The third is the experience of discovering content. When users feel "there's nothing to watch," it may not be that the shelves are truly empty, but rather that recommendations and screen design are not showing them content that suits them. The final step to turning a rich catalog into value may be discoverability rather than production volume.

And most importantly, it's the trust with the audience. Being able to start watching a promising new title with confidence. Knowing that a favored title won't be easily abandoned. Receiving surprises that match the price regularly. If this trust exists, even if the number of titles decreases slightly, it will be perceived as "choosing quality." Without trust, no matter how much is added, it will be felt as "more filler."


Conclusion—Netflix's crisis is not about "having less" but about "not being anticipated"

Wells Fargo's downgrade does not prove that Netflix has immediately entered a decline phase. The company still holds a massive viewing scale and can produce hits from around the world, including Japan. There are also new growth options like advertising, live events, and games.

On the other hand, the large number of "over 97 billion hours in the first half" alone cannot fully explain the enthusiasm of users. If, amid growing totals, the viewing of top original titles and usage per member weakens, Netflix risks becoming a widely used but less eagerly anticipated service than before.

The next winner in the streaming competition may not be the company that lines up the most titles. It could be the company that can repeatedly produce the one title people wait for on release day and want to talk about the next day.

Netflix's real challenge is not "21% less." It's whether the power to be anticipated for "what to watch next" has diminished by more than 21%—that's where the issue lies.


Source URL

Related Articles