By Lauren Foster “Stranger Things” is back. With a bang. When the series finale of the hugely popular sci-fi show dropped the night before Thanksgiving — a long-awaited return after more than three years — Netflix briefly crashed in the U.S. Since 2020, “Stranger Things” has earned Netflix at least $1 billion, according to Parrot Analytics. The platform’s subscriber count has also soared from about 94 million in 2016, when the show first aired, to more than 700 million today. Numbers like these reinforce a long-held belief across Hollywood and Silicon Valley that one monster hit can change everything. But behind the hype, there are deeper questions about how, and whether, superstar series such as “Stranger Things” change subscriber behavior. Do a handful of top-tier hits really drive the growth? Or is something else happening beneath the surface of the attention economy? Anthony Palomba’s research examines the intersection of entertainment, analytics and business strategy. These questions sit at the core of a new study, “ Series Superstars: How Subscription-Video-On-Demand (SVOD) Content Popularity Drives Provider Demand in the United States ,” co-authored by University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor Anthony Palomba. In the study, “superstar series” are defined as shows ranking in the top 1% of demand each quarter. In addition to “Stranger Things,” this short list includes massive hits like “White Lotus,” “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “Euphoria.” The Darden Report caught up with Palomba, an expert in the media and entertainment industry, to learn more about why the “Stranger Things” is so popular and what really drives subscriber growth in streaming. “Stranger Things” grew from a quirky rooted in ’80s-era pop culture show to a global phenomenon. What has made the show so popular, for so long? It is novel yet familiar. If we think about pop culture zeitgeist, say “E.T.” or “Nightmare on Elm Street,” we are keyed to look for these particular scenes. We’re keyed to be able to keep peeling the onion back on the show. “Stranger Things” is a cast of outcasts. And we can all relate to that, because at one time or another, we’ve been outcasts. This idea of bringing together people from many different backgrounds, united by a shared sense of being outsiders, is deeply resonant today. In an era shaped by social media, many of us are made to feel like outcasts: not pretty enough, not successful enough, not “enough” in one way or another. We chase our perceived ideal selves, and sometimes forget to stand firm with who we already are. “Stranger Things” asks nothing of us, except a willingness to go on chilling adventures. There is something appealing about being part of that club. It makes me think about The Losers Club from “It,” which is another movie that capitalizes on misfits — people who don’t belong anywhere — who are saving, empowering and defending. What they lack in manufactured or surface-level social capital, they more than make up for by being extraordinary human beings. When “Stranger Things” first aired in 2016, it was a very divisive political climate in the U.S., and over the past decade, the country has experienced a lot of hate and violence, and we haven’t had many touchpoints to be part of something together. “Stranger Things” reminds us that you don’t have to get along with somebody to make sacrifices for them, to prevail for them, to fight against something and to be bonded by something bigger than yourself. Netflix has set up the finale for a showdown between the newly empowered Will and the villain Vecna. Any guess how that might turn out? Oh gosh. I mean, I am thinking that Will might need to decide between saving Eleven or the world. It’s clear that someone will pass, as Queen’s “Who Wants to Live Forever” was playing in the trailer for season five. Eleven indirectly is responsible for everyone else’s suffering, and though I love her character, I think she’ll die this season. She is the reason for Vecna’s existence, and she will likely be the reason for his demise. Netflix is releasing the final season in three parts: the first four episodes streamed the night before Thanksgiving, three more arrive on Christmas Day; and the finale drops on New Year’s Eve and will also be shown in select theaters. Is that unusual? It’s extremely unusual, and you’d only attempt something like this with “Stranger Things” or a very small number of similarly iconic series. It’s happening at a moment when entertainment windows and distribution models are blurring, and platforms are experimenting to find what actually drives sustained engagement. By staggering the release, Netflix can temporarily reduce churn, boost engagement metrics, and strengthen its negotiating position, whether with creditors, creatives or advertisers. The broader context matters here. The past decade has been brutal for Hollywood. The pandemic accelerated at-home viewing, and widespread adoption of high-definition, large-format TVs has eroded the value proposition of going to the theater. Studios now confront competing audience habits that must either be reinforced or retrained. For Netflix, whose relationship with theaters has historically been ambivalent, this release strategy becomes a way to cautiously re-enter the event-cinema space and learn how to use theatrical windows to transform its biggest IP into cultural moments. What’s the strategy behind this unusual roll-out? Ha, to get you to pay more! To slowly allow in the “status quo effect” such that you’ll keep your subscription. It’s a great time to rev up the fourth quarter, along with other content, as it’ll enable better negotiating for advertising slot and media buying. You recently wrapped up a study examining how “superstar series” influence subscriber behavior across major U.S. SVOD platforms. Do a few mega-hits truly move the needle? Superstars matter, but not as much as people assume. Larger streamers can afford to chase them, but for smaller platforms, this is often the wrong strategy. They should be focused on raising their content floors, not just landing a single marquee title. While big hits can help with subscriber acquisition, their impact is nowhere near as large as the industry narrative suggests. Our findings show that consumers respond more strongly to platforms with a broad catalog of reliably popular titles rather than a few elite standouts. The key takeaway from our study is that the future of streaming competitiveness may depend less on chasing unicorns and more on systematically improving the depth, quality and consistency of the overall library. Why do consumers seem to reward platforms with consistent content quality more than those with a few giant hits? I think it comes down to quality. To ramp up, streamers first scaled so big with volume, they were interested in producing as much content as possible. Yes, there was a crowding-out effect, and there are now Himalayan-like barriers to getting into the streaming marketplace. Fine. So now what? Well, all CEOs on conference calls have talked about paring back content spending a bit. Moreover, SAG, AFTRA, WGA, DGA will have their contracts expire in 2026, and numerous sports rights are about to expire from now until 2030. There’s a serendipitous (or disastrous) convergence between entertainment and sports. How much will you spend here? How much will you spend there? Entertainment firms license opportunities to exhibit leagues, though players are increasingly branded and more important than team affiliation. It’s also getting harder to convert Gen Z as brand loyalists toward a team. What do you do here? On the other hand, you have a gig economy in Los Angeles that has flailed with cost cuts, fires, a pandemic, and union strikes. More stages are being constructed in the greater NYC area across Lionsgate and Netflix. Does this contribute to more decentralized production? Does it matter? What would you say to a streaming leader who believes their future depends on landing the next “Stranger Things”–level blockbuster? After laughing, I’d tell them to properly build failure into their balance sheet, cash flow statement and income statement. “Stranger Things” was passed over by more than a dozen networks/channels a decade ago. It is super difficult to pinpoint what will be popular in the future. Moreover, in interviews I’ve conducted with creatives about what makes a hit TV series, one theme surfaced repeatedly: entertainment executives sometimes make content for themselves. Consider that the largest concentration of movie and TV billboards is in Los Angeles. Why? Because the industry is in a constant state of internal competition and self-signaling. But being an artist who creates what you want and being an executive tasked with managing a platform that must serve the needs of its subscribers (whoever they are) are two very different things. How might your findings reshape how streaming platforms allocate budgets and greenlight content in the next phase of the streaming wars? Hopefully with the acknowledgement the streaming wars are over and Netflix has won, and it’s time to move on. Not everybody’s going to have 200 million consumers and what you have is what you have. With the unbundling we have seen in media and entertainment, there’s less room for streamers experiment. Netflix has plenty of cash. They can fail, but if smaller streamers can’t fail, this presents the conundrum where they want to try new things, want to give things a shot. But who gets to create to challenge audiences and who gets to simply satiate them are two different things? And I think that is a bit of a come-to-Jesus-moment’ for a lot of entertainment executives out there. Source: https://news.darden.virginia.edu/2025/12/03/why-hits-like-stranger-things-dont-tell-the-whole-story/