Netflix is available in over 190 countries, providing movies and TV shows that are created and streamed all over the world. Streaming services like Netflix have a global influence, and through this influence, create a new international culture around their movies and TV shows. Traditional TV viewership is declining, and as many of the world’s young people turn away from broadcast television they often turn towards Netflix as a replacement. Now, people watch the same original shows on the service all over the world. The art on these streaming services is important because it often promotes human rights for minorities, and in many parts of the world, that wouldn’t be shown on traditional television. Because this content shows beliefs and identities that disrupt the nations’ culture the presence or censorship of this content can hold significance for viewers.

In this paper I will explore how streaming pushes for a more liberal culture but also impacts the economy. First, the dissemination of new, original content that may be against a government’s beliefs has a political impact on every viewer. The access to this content may even result in leaders taking action against streaming services like Netflix to limit what kind of media is accessible in their countries. Second, Netflix has globalized the media landscape. People want to use Netflix for status, access to the art of different cultures, and to keep up with popular culture. Netflix is a cultural powerhouse unlike any regional broadcast television network or locally made movie.

On the economic side, streaming services have access to thriving markets but often evade taxes in their wealthy host nations. Netflix in particular is guilty of skipping out on taxes in the European Union all while using European production companies and talent. The economic impact on individuals after joining Netflix is somewhat high based on one’s national rates, but the cultural preeminence of Netflix pressures people to pay each month. Despite the belief streaming services primarily cater to young, affluent viewers, their dissemination of new ideas and damage on the economies in which it reaps profits shows that they retain a global influence.

Wherever Netflix enters a country’s market, the people flock to the streaming service. The value of content on streaming services has grown exponentially, with more people depending on them for the movies and television they watch. Our highly connected world values streaming because it shares the same content with everyone in a market, and sometimes across markets.

Right now, streaming is changing how people interact with one another. The “Netflix and Chill” phenomenon is a great example of the streaming service’s cultural influence. Young people organize get-togethers and dates around Netflix. While “Netflix and Chill” refers specifically to having sexual intercourse on a date meant for watching Netflix, the streaming service has societal importance outside of romantic relationships.

Netflix is of 15% of the total downstream volume of traffic across the entire internet. It’s no surprise, then, that watching movies and shows is a highly common hobby for today’s young people. Shows for children and families from traditional broadcast networks are added to Netflix’s catalogue and attract a younger demographic, encouraging families to purchase subscriptions. In addition, Netflix original shows like Stranger Things and Elite have massive followings among Millennials and Gen-Z audiences. Netflix creates shows and movies that audiences are extremely receptive to. The streaming giant’s seemingly endless catalogue of moves and shows, watchable now, without ads, makes it so attractive to people of all ages. Binging content is not only convenient because it works with people’s schedules, it’s also the new cultural norm. In this culture where we prize immediacy and convenience, Netflix is the main company answering our demands.

Streaming has been a powerful vehicle for promoting a more accepting global culture. Shows like Ramy and Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj have strong viewership domestically but also possess a sizeable international audience. That may be due to the leads; Ramy Youseff is Egyptian-American and Hasan Minhaj is Indian-American, and they both are Muslim-American as well.

For a long time, the only shows reaching Middle Eastern and Asian audiences from the West had only white leads with few, if any, non-heterosexual relationships. These shows, by contrast, are led by people from underrepresented communities. The shows also focus on highly controversial topics that would not be seen on national TV in the nations where they are streamed. Sometimes the shows are even pointedly critical of the cultures of countries that their audiences are from, creating a cultural value exchange between a new American crop of artists and the people in 190 countries.

These shows don’t censor themselves for their audiences, instead diving into topics of cultural relevance like infidelity and sex before marriage, and political relevance like immigration, corruption, and money laundering. Minhaj discussed the murder of Egyptian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which resulted in the censorship of Patriot Act in Saudi Arabia. He brings attention to how Prince Mohammed of Saudi Arabia is being praised for liberal reforms like allowing women to drive while simultaneously suppressing women, committing war crimes in Yemen, and attacking journalists like Khashoggi who criticize them.

But when looking past the Saudi Arabia case, streaming services do not censor themselves that often. Netflix only removed nine titles in 24 years due to government censorship. This media landscape may face restraints from time to time, but it succeeds in introducing audiences to issues like sexuality and corruption. European-based shows display ethnic diversity alongside sexual promiscuity and irreligious casts. For an audience in Egypt or India to see these kinds of shows may generate a more liberal culture that resists conservative government values.

Streaming services offer access to a wide array of movies and shows in exchange for a monthly fee. In the beginning, the subscription cost was much lower, but despite rises in the price, it has not risen high enough to stop people from renewing each month. The shift in regional markets towards Netflix is often fast. Instead of nationally broadcast television and illegal torrenting, people are buying subscriptions for streaming services to watch TV and movies. They are opting into Netflix to see popular movies and television and also to take part in a cultural trend to stream. These services offer high quality content, sometimes from producers’ that audiences have seen before. This encourages viewership and helps ensure subscribers stay with the service.

The growth in subscribers leads to a growth in company revenue. Netflix has made £1.08 billion in Britain alone in 2019. However, Netflix doesn’t pay taxes to the British government despite having highly profitable access to its market. This is the case is other European Union nations as well. By avoiding taxes, Netflix hurts the government by hurting the content distributors that do pay taxes. When Netflix consolidates companies, it interferes with fair competition in the market by creating one unchecked super-distributor. “Netflix takes out of the public purse more than it contributes in corporation tax,” Labour Party MP Margaret Hodge said, when news of Netflix avoiding taxes by registering in the Netherlands surfaced.

With the rise of Brexit and fractured economic policies among the members of the EU, there have been unprecedented divisions between EU member states. The nations disagree on a plethora of issues, some of which include refugees, economic integration, and sustainable development. In the section “Television Distribution: economic dimensions, emerging policies” of Telematics and Informatics, the two authors Evens and Donders describe how political turmoil can be fertile ground for emerging companies like Netflix. In the article, they write, “Lotz (2007, p. 4), for example, notes that periods of industrial, technological and cultural shifts create great instability in the relationships between producers, distributors and consumers, and that altered institutional norms ultimately lead to redefining the medium and the business of television. Hence, new intermediaries including YouTube and Netflix may claim, and occupy, a more prominent position in the industry.”

Netflix definitely occupies a prominent role in the media sector in Europe, particularly Great Britain. It has bought out shows from broadcasters like the BBC, preserving the same creators to maintain interest in the content. The market for television has consequently become an oligopoly. While the consolidation of producers and revenue helps Netflix expand, it hurts Britain by becoming a strong potential tax source that it fail to reign in. Netflix’s prominence and wealth poses a threat to Britain’s economy and multiplied its value during the long and painful process of leaving the EU. The medium of television has shifted without any government oversight to ensure the regulations of the past are carried over to this new streaming landscape.

Netflix has an unparalleled role in influencing global culture, with the distribution of Marvel movies and original content like Roma and Queer Eye. In tandem with its cultural hegemony is its market hegemony. It sells its service at a lower price than competitors and consolidates production companies to combine and expand its audience. A strong civil society in any country depends on art to some extent to inspire and encourage resistance against oppression. Netflix may be playing a small, but growing role in that civil society, by disseminating art that is more accepting and critical than the government of a nation would normally allow. And by circumventing taxation, its power over culture will only get stronger as it builds up to appeal to an even wider audience. Netflix is not only a cultural powerhouse; it is an economic one, too.