Streaming Choice Fatigue Has Entered Review
Forty-three titles were browsed. Nothing was selected. The evening concluded.
INCIDENT REPORT Classification: Consumer Behavior. Severity: Moderate and Recurring.
Incident Summary
On the evening in question, two persons sat down with the intention of watching something. Both persons have accounts on three streaming services. The combined catalogue available to them contains more titles than they will watch in their remaining lifetimes.
Forty-three minutes later, the television was turned off. No title was selected. The evening concluded.
Timeline of Events
19:47 First streaming service opened. Genre browsed. No title produced sufficient confidence to commit.
19:54 Second streaming service opened. Titles previously added to the watchlist were reviewed. None felt like the right thing for tonight specifically.
20:03 Both persons solicited opinions from each other. The opinions were: "I don't mind," and "whatever you want." These were not useful inputs.
20:11 A title was almost selected. A trailer was watched. The trailer indicated the show might be slow in the first three episodes. It was not selected.
20:19 Third streaming service opened. A documentary was considered. A series was opened and reviewed. The series had sixty-one episodes, which was noted as a commitment.
20:31 No selection had been made. The available time for watching had been reduced to approximately forty minutes, which was insufficient for a film and awkward for a series episode.
20:37 The television was turned off. The evening was described as fine.
Root Cause
The event is not a failure of the platform. The platform delivered exactly what was requested: unlimited options. The failure belongs to the decision process, which was designed for scarcity and did not adapt to abundance.
First consequence: any title selected must justify its selection against the entire remaining catalogue. This is not possible. No title can do this.
Second consequence: the watchlist, which was created to solve this problem, became a second catalogue requiring browsing. It is now the same problem at smaller scale.
Third consequence: the same titles appear in the consideration set every week and are not selected every week for the same reasons. The consideration set does not change. The reasons do not change. The outcome does not change.
Absurd Rule in Effect
When no title can be selected with confidence, the correct response is to watch something worse that requires no decision, such as a rerun of something already seen. This rule is known. It is rarely applied. The search for the optimal title continues until time runs out.
Contradiction
During lockdown, the same two persons watched seven seasons of a show they did not particularly enjoy because it was available and required no decision. That era ended. The current era has more options and produces fewer completed seasons.
Resolution
No formal resolution. Next week, the same catalogue will be available. The search will begin again from approximately the same point.
Incident closed. Recurrence expected.