After years of trying to just spend its way through the loss of licensed content, Netflix’s future will now be highly dependent on the successful rollout of an ad tier later this year. Having a cheaper, ad-supported version of the service is projected to increase Netflix’s revenue by 20%, but the service still needs to give audiences enough quality content to tune into in order to see that boost.

What does that content look like, though? To date, the majority of Netflix’s most successful original ventures have been scripted series — like House of Cards, Stranger Things and Squid Game, among others. The service has also carved out a significant lane for reality TV-type content that’s less expensive to produce and encourages watch-time.

At the same time, Netflix has movie aspirations that have admittedly fallen short. You may recall 2021’s “new movies every week” endeavor. But that came off as a volume play more than one aimed at quality programming. Movies don’t drive hours of binge viewing the way shows do, given their shorter aggregate run-times.

Still, Netflix appears hellbent on figuring out how to make movies work — especially as digital-first competitors like Amazon and Apple get more credit for their own efforts on that front (most notably in the form of Apple’s Oscar win for CODA). And it remains willing to spend whatever amount is needed to not only create a hit movie, but also turn one into a franchise.

The latest iteration is The Gray Man, which the New York Times recently noted was a project Netflix would be “betting big on,” while discussing its expansive promotion and budget ($200 million).

Helmed by the Russo Brothers of Marvel and Community fame, the spy thriller is a chance at franchise IP. But it also needs to find success first, as the Russos themselves have admitted in interviews. Only then can The Gray Man (and its big-name stars like Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans and Ana De Armas) run toward the sequels and offshoot TV series that Netflix really wants out of this project.

The jury’s still out on whether it can find that success, however. The movie’s star power will drive viewership, for sure, and that’s what Netflix is banking on. Yet it won’t necessarily spur long-term demand or watch-time on its own. Rotten Tomatoes — for those that care — gives the movie a 52% rating on reviews, but 89% from audiences. That second data point is likely the more important one, as franchises really need content that’s not just confined to the sort that wins the approval of reviewers with their (largely) upscale coastal sensibility.

Even if the movie resonates with audiences, it’s worth wondering how much room is there at this point in the zeitgeist for franchise IP.

Netflix still needs it, mind you, as Rich Greenfield and Matthew Belloni talked through on “The Town” podcast recently. But you could argue that the environment where they’re trying to create it makes a franchise harder than ever to establish.

For example: Netflix competitor Disney+ houses some of entertainment’s most successful franchises in Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. Amazon purchased MGM and its sizable inventory of bankable IP. Paramount, Peacock and HBO Max all have recognizable IP that they have spent the last few years expanding on.

With so many franchises already taking up consumer interest, decades of history fans have invested in those projects AND the fact that there are only so many hours in the day, how exactly is Netflix supposed to break through that noise? How much of a hit does Netflix need for it to matter?

And, as an issue most important to Netflix specifically, how do you do any of that with a binge model versus serialized release schedules that clearly do a better job of creating sustained buzz?

While it’s tough to locate figures on the number of hours spent per specific entertainment franchises per week, consider the following:

The average American works over 34.5 hours in a given week, and commutes another five or six hours per week. (Or at least they did pre-pandemic.) With nearly 48 hours accounted for by sleep and another 10.5 per week (on average) dedicated to parenting, you’re already left with just about 70 hours available for exercise, eating, socializing and interacting with TV in any sort of way.

If Netflix can carve out even a couple of those hours for its franchise IP, is that enough? And would Netflix’s franchise IP audiences mostly come from new subscribers or from existing subs? The former is the best-case scenario. The latter is a decent retention strategy — though one that can prove costly, as evidenced by the $200 million price tag on the first entry in a potential Gray Man extended universe.

In an ideal world, Netflix is creating lower-cost IP around reality TV, behind-the-scenes and emerging sitcoms/dramas. There are wins to be had around action and superhero content, sure. And Netflix can take occasional swings on that front. But it may be better off imitating more easily attainable IP models like Shondaland (already in progress) and Real Housewives-style reality shows (which Bravo continues to find creative ways to build on) than trying to mimic more expensive fare to see what sticks.

With the number of imitators out there, it’s easy to forget just how much time and energy was put into universes like Star Wars, Star Trek and Marvel, nevermind properties with less of a following like Jurassic Park. These things take a lot of time and investment to build a following and dedicated fan bases. And all have regularly suffered some failures along the way (let’s not forget that Marvel was bankrupt less than three decades ago).

Netflix might not have the time to wait for all of that to coalesce anymore. If it does — and it might given the fact that its streaming model is making more money than competitors’ are — then perhaps it shouldn’t be worrying about franchises in the first place.