Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 32 – uploaded by zoe moore

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
PRODUCING CREDITS IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS

Table 32 PRODUCING CREDITS IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS

Related Figures (56)

Note: Leads represent the central figure(s) across a story's plot. In film, two equal protagonists sharing the central journey of the story were counted as co leads. Scripted series with 50% or more female-identified series regulars were included as having female leads/co leads. TABLE 1
Note: Leads represent the central figure(s) across a story's plot. In film, two equal protagonists sharing the central journey of the story were counted as co leads. Scripted series with 50% or more female-identified series regulars were included as having female leads/co leads. TABLE 1
Note: A total of 126 Netflix films were included in the analysis and 100 top-grossing fictional films in 2018 and 2019. Both of these samples had movies driven by ensemble casts. While the ensemble films were counted in the sample total, they could not qualify as female led or not. This latter distinction was reserved for films driven by only one or two (equal) pro- tagonists.
Note: A total of 126 Netflix films were included in the analysis and 100 top-grossing fictional films in 2018 and 2019. Both of these samples had movies driven by ensemble casts. While the ensemble films were counted in the sample total, they could not qualify as female led or not. This latter distinction was reserved for films driven by only one or two (equal) pro- tagonists.
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Of the 2,420 main cast characters, 55.8% (n=1,351) were male and 44.1% (n=1,068) were female. Only 1 character within the main cast analysis was non binary and thus was excluded from the remaining statistics. A higher percentage of female main cast members were found in series (47.3%, N=658) than in film (39.9%, n=410). A non-meaningful difference was observed from 2018 (42.9%, N=516) to 2019 (45.4%, N=552). No significant patterns emerged when crossing medium by year (see Table 3). Given these findings, Netflix approached proportional representation with U.S. Census in scripted series in 2018 and 2019 but in neither year in film.
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Of the 2,420 main cast characters, 55.8% (n=1,351) were male and 44.1% (n=1,068) were female. Only 1 character within the main cast analysis was non binary and thus was excluded from the remaining statistics. A higher percentage of female main cast members were found in series (47.3%, N=658) than in film (39.9%, n=410). A non-meaningful difference was observed from 2018 (42.9%, N=516) to 2019 (45.4%, N=552). No significant patterns emerged when crossing medium by year (see Table 3). Given these findings, Netflix approached proportional representation with U.S. Census in scripted series in 2018 and 2019 but in neither year in film.
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR
ee Te ee ee Te ee ee eee eee eee ee Oe ee ee ee EEE eee Note: A gender balanced cast featured girls and/or women in 45.7% to 55.9% of all speaking or named roles. This is a confidence interval of 10% around the U.S. Census percentage of 50.8%. A gender-balanced story was defined as featuring girls and women in 45.7% to 55.9% of all speaking or named roles.? As show in Table 6, 19.9% (n=61) of all stories depicted a gender-balanced narrative. Little deviation emerged by medium, as 16.7% (n=2 of films and 20% (n=36) of scripted series portrayed proportional representation. Though shy of the significance criterion (e.g., percentage point difference), films in 2019 (19.3%, n=11) tended to show more gender balance on screen than films in 2018 (14.5 n=10). There was no meaningful increase observed for gender-balanced casts in series. It is important to note that 15 movies an 23 scripted series across the entire sample exceeded proportional representation. No series or films excluded or rendered girls women invisible on screen. Put differently, every story featured at least one girl or woman speaking or named character on scree across 2018 and 2019 content.
ee Te ee ee Te ee ee eee eee eee ee Oe ee ee ee EEE eee Note: A gender balanced cast featured girls and/or women in 45.7% to 55.9% of all speaking or named roles. This is a confidence interval of 10% around the U.S. Census percentage of 50.8%. A gender-balanced story was defined as featuring girls and women in 45.7% to 55.9% of all speaking or named roles.? As show in Table 6, 19.9% (n=61) of all stories depicted a gender-balanced narrative. Little deviation emerged by medium, as 16.7% (n=2 of films and 20% (n=36) of scripted series portrayed proportional representation. Though shy of the significance criterion (e.g., percentage point difference), films in 2019 (19.3%, n=11) tended to show more gender balance on screen than films in 2018 (14.5 n=10). There was no meaningful increase observed for gender-balanced casts in series. It is important to note that 15 movies an 23 scripted series across the entire sample exceeded proportional representation. No series or films excluded or rendered girls women invisible on screen. Put differently, every story featured at least one girl or woman speaking or named character on scree across 2018 and 2019 content.
Note: The film industry comparisons are from the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative report.’ For scripted series, the percentages were derived from San Diego State University (SDSU). Using the SDSU research, the 2079 cell is reflective of the 2018/19 season whereas the 20718 entry is reflective of the 2017/18 season.
Note: The film industry comparisons are from the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative report.’ For scripted series, the percentages were derived from San Diego State University (SDSU). Using the SDSU research, the 2079 cell is reflective of the 2018/19 season whereas the 20718 entry is reflective of the 2017/18 season.
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN DIRECTORS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN DIRECTORS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN FILM BY GENDER Behind the Camera
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN FILM BY GENDER Behind the Camera
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ABOVE THE LINE IN FILM BY YEAR A total of 431 producers were credited across the 126 movies, with 71% men (n=306) and 29% women (n=125). No differences emerged by year (2018=28.6%, N=72, 2019=29.6%, n=53). See Table 8. Only 19% (n=130) of producers were women across 200 top-grossing films, with 21.5% (n=73) in 2019 and 16.6% (n=57) in 2018. As such, Netflix was substantially higher than the industry norm on hiring women producers to carry film projects to completion.
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ABOVE THE LINE IN FILM BY YEAR A total of 431 producers were credited across the 126 movies, with 71% men (n=306) and 29% women (n=125). No differences emerged by year (2018=28.6%, N=72, 2019=29.6%, n=53). See Table 8. Only 19% (n=130) of producers were women across 200 top-grossing films, with 21.5% (n=73) in 2019 and 16.6% (n=57) in 2018. As such, Netflix was substantially higher than the industry norm on hiring women producers to carry film projects to completion.
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY CONTENT CREATOR GENDER TABLE 9
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY CONTENT CREATOR GENDER TABLE 9
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY GENDER Scripted Series. Creators, producers, writers and directors were assessed across every episode of each Netflix series included ir the sample.” A total of 6,195 above-the-line personnel were evaluated. Overall, 66.2% of these jobs were held by men (n=4,098) and 33.8% by women (n=2,097). Table 10 reveals the breakdown of gender by position and Table 11 illuminates the percentage o! women holding these posts by year.”
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY GENDER Scripted Series. Creators, producers, writers and directors were assessed across every episode of each Netflix series included ir the sample.” A total of 6,195 above-the-line personnel were evaluated. Overall, 66.2% of these jobs were held by men (n=4,098) and 33.8% by women (n=2,097). Table 10 reveals the breakdown of gender by position and Table 11 illuminates the percentage o! women holding these posts by year.”
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ABOVE THE LINE IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ABOVE THE LINE IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
TABLE 12
TABLE 12
See a PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED LEADS/CO LEADS, SERIES REGULARS AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY SERIES CREATOR GENDE The same analysis was conducted for writers."® Here, series with at least one credited woman writer (n=113) across the first three episodes were compared to those without any women writing on the first three episodes (n=63). In terms of the leads/co leads, 61.1% (n=69) of series with a woman writer featured female-identified characters in at least half of the cast, compared to 42.9% (n=27) of series without women writers. This trend continued with series regulars. Half (50.8%, n=458) of series regulars were girls or women when one or more women writers worked on the episodes evaluated. In comparison, 40.7% (n=200) of series regulars were women when there were no women writers. Finally, for all speaking characters, 42.3% (n=2,011) of characters were girls/ women when a woman writer was present versus 37.4% (n=1,018) of characters when no woman writer was employed. As with creators, women in this critical behind the scenes role impact the inclusion profile on screen in Netflix series.
See a PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE-IDENTIFIED LEADS/CO LEADS, SERIES REGULARS AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY SERIES CREATOR GENDE The same analysis was conducted for writers."® Here, series with at least one credited woman writer (n=113) across the first three episodes were compared to those without any women writing on the first three episodes (n=63). In terms of the leads/co leads, 61.1% (n=69) of series with a woman writer featured female-identified characters in at least half of the cast, compared to 42.9% (n=27) of series without women writers. This trend continued with series regulars. Half (50.8%, n=458) of series regulars were girls or women when one or more women writers worked on the episodes evaluated. In comparison, 40.7% (n=200) of series regulars were women when there were no women writers. Finally, for all speaking characters, 42.3% (n=2,011) of characters were girls/ women when a woman writer was present versus 37.4% (n=1,018) of characters when no woman writer was employed. As with creators, women in this critical behind the scenes role impact the inclusion profile on screen in Netflix series.
/ERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR On Screen TABLE 13
/ERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR On Screen TABLE 13
PERCENTAGE OF LEADS/CO LEADS BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
PERCENTAGE OF LEADS/CO LEADS BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
Note: Underrepresented status reflects the central character in the story. Only human or anthropomorphized characters with an ascertainable race/ethnicity were included. Percentages do not sum to 100% as films with ensemble leads are not included ana heterogenous co leads were counted in each respective category.
Note: Underrepresented status reflects the central character in the story. Only human or anthropomorphized characters with an ascertainable race/ethnicity were included. Percentages do not sum to 100% as films with ensemble leads are not included ana heterogenous co leads were counted in each respective category.
>9ERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS BY YEAR Note: A total of 126 Netflix films were included in the analysis and 200 top-grossing fictional films in 2018 (n=100) and 2079 (n=100). Both of these samples had movies driven by ensemble casts. While the ensemble films were counted in the sample total, they could not qualify as underrepresented-led or not. This latter distinction was reserved for films driven by only one or two (equal) protagonists.
>9ERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS BY YEAR Note: A total of 126 Netflix films were included in the analysis and 200 top-grossing fictional films in 2018 (n=100) and 2079 (n=100). Both of these samples had movies driven by ensemble casts. While the ensemble films were counted in the sample total, they could not qualify as underrepresented-led or not. This latter distinction was reserved for films driven by only one or two (equal) protagonists.
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND GENDER FIGURE 4 The above findings focus on underrepresented status alone, not in combination with gender. Here, we cross these two measures to gain insight on the similarities and differences in access and opportunity for men and women of color on Netflix fare.
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND GENDER FIGURE 4 The above findings focus on underrepresented status alone, not in combination with gender. Here, we cross these two measures to gain insight on the similarities and differences in access and opportunity for men and women of color on Netflix fare.
Turning to the main cast across film and scripted series, a full 65.9% (n=1,583) were White, 15.7% (n=376) Black, 4.8% (n=116) Hispanic/Latino, 4.7% (n=112) Asian, 1.7% (n=41) Middle Eastern/North African, <1% (n=11) American Indian/Alaskan Native, <1% (n=8) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 6.4% (n=154) multiracial/multiethnic. In total, 34.1% (n=818) of all main cast across film and series were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group.
Turning to the main cast across film and scripted series, a full 65.9% (n=1,583) were White, 15.7% (n=376) Black, 4.8% (n=116) Hispanic/Latino, 4.7% (n=112) Asian, 1.7% (n=41) Middle Eastern/North African, <1% (n=11) American Indian/Alaskan Native, <1% (n=8) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 6.4% (n=154) multiracial/multiethnic. In total, 34.1% (n=818) of all main cast across film and series were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group.
PERCENTAGE OF MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
PERCENTAGE OF MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
Focusing on speaking characters (n=11,678), 63.8% (n=7,445) were White, 17.1% (n=1,993) Black, 5.9% (n=685) Hispanic/Lati- no, 6.2% (n=723) Asian, <1% (n=37) American Indian/Alaskan Native, <1% (n=38) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.4% (n=275) Middle Eastern/North African, and 4.1% (n=482) multiracial/multiethnic.”? Across the two-year sample, film and scripted series did not meaningfully differ across any of these specific racial/ethnic groupings. Combined, a full 36.2% (n=4,233) of main cast members were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups which was not meaningfully different from U.S. Census.
Focusing on speaking characters (n=11,678), 63.8% (n=7,445) were White, 17.1% (n=1,993) Black, 5.9% (n=685) Hispanic/Lati- no, 6.2% (n=723) Asian, <1% (n=37) American Indian/Alaskan Native, <1% (n=38) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.4% (n=275) Middle Eastern/North African, and 4.1% (n=482) multiracial/multiethnic.”? Across the two-year sample, film and scripted series did not meaningfully differ across any of these specific racial/ethnic groupings. Combined, a full 36.2% (n=4,233) of main cast members were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups which was not meaningfully different from U.S. Census.
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR The intersection of underrepresented status and gender for all speaking or named characters is found in Table 21. Here, the find- ings showed that over time no differences emerged by storytelling medium or year. Just under 40% of all speaking or named characters were white males, 24.1% were white females, 21.1% were underrepresented males and 15.1% were underrepresented females. White males over indexed relative to U.S. population estimates whereas white and underrepresented females under in- dexed. Underrepresented males were featured in line with their percentage in the U.S. (see Table 21).
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR The intersection of underrepresented status and gender for all speaking or named characters is found in Table 21. Here, the find- ings showed that over time no differences emerged by storytelling medium or year. Just under 40% of all speaking or named characters were white males, 24.1% were white females, 21.1% were underrepresented males and 15.1% were underrepresented females. White males over indexed relative to U.S. population estimates whereas white and underrepresented females under in- dexed. Underrepresented males were featured in line with their percentage in the U.S. (see Table 21).
ACROSS 2 YEARS, 38.6% OR 118 FILMS AND SCRIPTED SERIES MET OR EXCEEDED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION TABLE 22
ACROSS 2 YEARS, 38.6% OR 118 FILMS AND SCRIPTED SERIES MET OR EXCEEDED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION TABLE 22
PERCENTAGE OF SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER, STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR In terms of visibility, the number and percentage of Netflix films and scripted series missing at least one or more speaking or named characters from specific racial/ethnic groups was depicted in Table 23. Almost all Netflix stories portrayed White speaking characters whereas almost no stories portrayed Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and American Indian/Alaskan Natives. Roughly three-quarters of the films and series erased Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) characters and roughly half rendered Hispan- ic/Latinos invisible. In Table 24, we illuminated how many films and series erased female-identified characters by race/ethnicity. Fifteen out of 16 cells indicate that when we only focus on women and girls, the numbers become more dire reflecting greater erasure (see Table 24).
PERCENTAGE OF SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER, STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR In terms of visibility, the number and percentage of Netflix films and scripted series missing at least one or more speaking or named characters from specific racial/ethnic groups was depicted in Table 23. Almost all Netflix stories portrayed White speaking characters whereas almost no stories portrayed Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and American Indian/Alaskan Natives. Roughly three-quarters of the films and series erased Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) characters and roughly half rendered Hispan- ic/Latinos invisible. In Table 24, we illuminated how many films and series erased female-identified characters by race/ethnicity. Fifteen out of 16 cells indicate that when we only focus on women and girls, the numbers become more dire reflecting greater erasure (see Table 24).
Note: H/L refers to Hispanic/Latino; AI/AN refers to American Indian/Alaskan Native; NHPI refers to Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; MENA refers to Midd Eastern/North African; and Multi refers to Multiracial/Multiethnic.
Note: H/L refers to Hispanic/Latino; AI/AN refers to American Indian/Alaskan Native; NHPI refers to Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; MENA refers to Midd Eastern/North African; and Multi refers to Multiracial/Multiethnic.
Note: AI/AN refers to American Indian/Alaskan Native; NHPI refers to Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; MENA refers to Middle Eastern/North African; and Multi refers to Multiracial/Multiethnic. PERCENTAGE AND NUMBER OF NETFLIX FILMS AND SCRIPTED SERIES MISSING GIRLS AND WOMEN BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS
Note: AI/AN refers to American Indian/Alaskan Native; NHPI refers to Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; MENA refers to Middle Eastern/North African; and Multi refers to Multiracial/Multiethnic. PERCENTAGE AND NUMBER OF NETFLIX FILMS AND SCRIPTED SERIES MISSING GIRLS AND WOMEN BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN FILM BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN FILM BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED DIRECTORS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS BY YEAR
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED DIRECTORS IN NETFLIX AND TOP-GROSSING FILMS BY YEAR
NETFLIX FILM DIRECTORS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS AND GENDER BY YEAR Turning to screenwriters, there were 201 credited on Netflix films; 83.6% were white (n=168) and 16.4% were underrepresented (n=33). Netflix increased the percentage of underrepresented writers hired between 2018 (13.9%, n=14) and 2019 (19%, n=19). How does this compare to top-grossing films? A slightly higher—but not significant—percentage of underrepresented writers penned Netflix movies in 2018 (13.9%, n=14) than top-grossing films that year (11.2%, n=25). The difference was significant in 2019, as 19% (n=19) of Netflix writers were underrepresented compared to 13.2% (n=28) of top-grossing film scribes. TABLE 26
NETFLIX FILM DIRECTORS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS AND GENDER BY YEAR Turning to screenwriters, there were 201 credited on Netflix films; 83.6% were white (n=168) and 16.4% were underrepresented (n=33). Netflix increased the percentage of underrepresented writers hired between 2018 (13.9%, n=14) and 2019 (19%, n=19). How does this compare to top-grossing films? A slightly higher—but not significant—percentage of underrepresented writers penned Netflix movies in 2018 (13.9%, n=14) than top-grossing films that year (11.2%, n=25). The difference was significant in 2019, as 19% (n=19) of Netflix writers were underrepresented compared to 13.2% (n=28) of top-grossing film scribes. TABLE 26
TABLE 27
TABLE 27
We also examined writers with an intersectional lens (See Table 28). Men and women of color were least likely to work as writers on Netflix films. There was no meaningful difference by year for underrepresented men (2018=10.9%, N=11, 2019=14%, n=14), nor for underrepresented women (2018=3%, N=3, 2019=5%, n=5). There were also no significant differences between Netflix writers and top-grossing films in terms of underrepresented men in 2018 (Netflix=10.9%, top-grossing=9.8%) or 2019 (Netflix=14%, top-grossing=9.9%), or for underrepresented women in either year (2018=3% vs. 1.3%, 2019=5% vs. 3.3%).
We also examined writers with an intersectional lens (See Table 28). Men and women of color were least likely to work as writers on Netflix films. There was no meaningful difference by year for underrepresented men (2018=10.9%, N=11, 2019=14%, n=14), nor for underrepresented women (2018=3%, N=3, 2019=5%, n=5). There were also no significant differences between Netflix writers and top-grossing films in terms of underrepresented men in 2018 (Netflix=10.9%, top-grossing=9.8%) or 2019 (Netflix=14%, top-grossing=9.9%), or for underrepresented women in either year (2018=3% vs. 1.3%, 2019=5% vs. 3.3%).
NETFLIX FILM PRODUCERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER AND YEAR The specific racial/ethnic breakdown for producers was: 87% (n=375) white, 4.2% (n=18) Black/African American, 2.6% (n=11) Hispanic/Latino, 3.5% (n=15) Asian, <1% (n=4) Middle Eastern/North African, <1% (n=1) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 1.6% (n=7) Multiracial/Multiethnic. There were no American Indian/Alaskan Native producers across both years.
NETFLIX FILM PRODUCERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER AND YEAR The specific racial/ethnic breakdown for producers was: 87% (n=375) white, 4.2% (n=18) Black/African American, 2.6% (n=11) Hispanic/Latino, 3.5% (n=15) Asian, <1% (n=4) Middle Eastern/North African, <1% (n=1) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 1.6% (n=7) Multiracial/Multiethnic. There were no American Indian/Alaskan Native producers across both years.
Put differently, across 7 of 9 analyses, underrepresented creatives featured more than double the percentage of underrepre- sented leads, main cast and speaking characters than white directors did. Clearly, underrepresented content creators were more inclusive than their white counterparts when it comes to storytelling and casting. Although more white directors worked on Netflix films, they contributed less to the on-screen inclusion profile of Netflix content. Hiring practices behind the camera should take into account the need for inclusion on screen across all content. 52a eS se PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY DIRECTOR UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS
Put differently, across 7 of 9 analyses, underrepresented creatives featured more than double the percentage of underrepre- sented leads, main cast and speaking characters than white directors did. Clearly, underrepresented content creators were more inclusive than their white counterparts when it comes to storytelling and casting. Although more white directors worked on Netflix films, they contributed less to the on-screen inclusion profile of Netflix content. Hiring practices behind the camera should take into account the need for inclusion on screen across all content. 52a eS se PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY DIRECTOR UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS IN FILM BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS Scripted Series. We assessed the creators, producers, writers, and directors of every episode of each Netflix series in the sample. Of the 6,155 personnel evaluated, 82.7% (n=5,092) were white and 17.3% (n=1,063) were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. This did not change over time; in 2018, 14.8% (n=415) of positions went to underrepresented individuals and in 2019, 19.4% (n=648) of positions did. Table 31 provides the breakdown of each position by underrepresented status.
PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEADS, MAIN CAST AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS IN FILM BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS Scripted Series. We assessed the creators, producers, writers, and directors of every episode of each Netflix series in the sample. Of the 6,155 personnel evaluated, 82.7% (n=5,092) were white and 17.3% (n=1,063) were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. This did not change over time; in 2018, 14.8% (n=415) of positions went to underrepresented individuals and in 2019, 19.4% (n=648) of positions did. Table 31 provides the breakdown of each position by underrepresented status.
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS TABLE 32 TABLE 31 PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS TABLE 32 TABLE 31 PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
The specific racial/ethnic breakdown for creators was: 87.8% (n=231) white, 6.1% (n=16) were Black/African American, 2.3% (n=6) were Hispanic/Latino, <1% (n=1) were Asian, 1.1% (n=3) were Middle Eastern/North African, and 2.3% (n=6) were Multiracial/Mul- tiethnic. None were American Indian/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
The specific racial/ethnic breakdown for creators was: 87.8% (n=231) white, 6.1% (n=16) were Black/African American, 2.3% (n=6) were Hispanic/Latino, <1% (n=1) were Asian, 1.1% (n=3) were Middle Eastern/North African, and 2.3% (n=6) were Multiracial/Mul- tiethnic. None were American Indian/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
NETFLIX SERIES CREATORS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER AND YEAR TABLE 33
NETFLIX SERIES CREATORS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS, GENDER AND YEAR TABLE 33
PFIMmUnNe s PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEAD/CO LEAD, SERIES REGULARS AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS OF SERIES CREATORS
PFIMmUnNe s PERCENTAGE OF UNDERREPRESENTED LEAD/CO LEAD, SERIES REGULARS AND SPEAKING CHARACTERS BY UNDERREPRESENTED STATUS OF SERIES CREATORS
The specific racial/ethnic breakdown of directors was evaluated. Across the series evaluated, 79.9% (n=1,331) were white, 7.3% (n=121) were Black/African American,2.8% (n=47) were Hispanic/Latino, 2.3% (n=39) were Asian, <1% (n=2) were American Indi- an/Alaskan Native, 1.9% (n=32) were Middle Eastern/North African, and 5.6% (n=94) were Multiracial/Multiethnic. There were nc Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander directors who worked on episodes of a Netflix series released in 2018 or 2019.
The specific racial/ethnic breakdown of directors was evaluated. Across the series evaluated, 79.9% (n=1,331) were white, 7.3% (n=121) were Black/African American,2.8% (n=47) were Hispanic/Latino, 2.3% (n=39) were Asian, <1% (n=2) were American Indi- an/Alaskan Native, 1.9% (n=32) were Middle Eastern/North African, and 5.6% (n=94) were Multiracial/Multiethnic. There were nc Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander directors who worked on episodes of a Netflix series released in 2018 or 2019.
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Black Cast & Crew
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Black Cast & Crew
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR
Behind-the-camera. In film, 9.2% (n=12) of directors were Black with a significant increase observed from 2018 (6.9%, n=5) to 2019 (12.1%, n=7). This was in contrast to top-grossing films, where a significant decrease occurred from 2018 (13.4%, n=15) to 2019 (8%, n=9). For writers, 8% (n=16) were Black with 2019 significantly higher than 2018. Only 5.5% of top-grossing scribes were Black with no changes observed by year. There were no differences in Black producers across the industry (i.e., Netflix=5.1%, n=22, Top-Grossing=6.3%, n=43), year or the intersection of these two measures (see Table 38). Black women comprised 38% (n=19) of the behind the scenes roles in film and were most likely to work as producers (50%, n=11), followed by writers (31.3%, n=5), and directors (25%, n=3).
Behind-the-camera. In film, 9.2% (n=12) of directors were Black with a significant increase observed from 2018 (6.9%, n=5) to 2019 (12.1%, n=7). This was in contrast to top-grossing films, where a significant decrease occurred from 2018 (13.4%, n=15) to 2019 (8%, n=9). For writers, 8% (n=16) were Black with 2019 significantly higher than 2018. Only 5.5% of top-grossing scribes were Black with no changes observed by year. There were no differences in Black producers across the industry (i.e., Netflix=5.1%, n=22, Top-Grossing=6.3%, n=43), year or the intersection of these two measures (see Table 38). Black women comprised 38% (n=19) of the behind the scenes roles in film and were most likely to work as producers (50%, n=11), followed by writers (31.3%, n=5), and directors (25%, n=3).
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN NETFLIX SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK ABOVE-THE-LINE PERSONNEL IN NETFLIX SCRIPTED SERIES BY YEAR
Latinx Cast & Crew PERCENTAGE OF LATINX LEADS/CO LEADS AND MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM
Latinx Cast & Crew PERCENTAGE OF LATINX LEADS/CO LEADS AND MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM
Asian Cast & Crew
Asian Cast & Crew
Note: For film and series, the column totals do not add to 100%. Six film and six series actors identified as coming from multiple Asian communities. Actors were classified by descent and could be of any nationality (e.g., American, etc.). ASIAN MAIN CAST ACTORS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUR
Note: For film and series, the column totals do not add to 100%. Six film and six series actors identified as coming from multiple Asian communities. Actors were classified by descent and could be of any nationality (e.g., American, etc.). ASIAN MAIN CAST ACTORS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUR
PERCENTAGE OF LEADS/CO LEADS AND MAIN CAST BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
PERCENTAGE OF LEADS/CO LEADS AND MAIN CAST BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP AND STORYTELLING MEDIUM
PERCENTAGE OF LGBTQ LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Overall, 2.3% (n=7) of leads/co leads across film and series were LGBTQ. In comparison to the U.S. population (12%)*?, Netflix films and series under performed by 9.7 percentage points. Film (4%, n=5) and series (1.1%, n=2) did not differ significantly in the presentation of LGBTQ leads/co leads (see Table 44). There was also no difference by year, as 2018 (1.4%, n=2) and 2019 (3.2%, n=5) featured roughly equal percentages of LGBTQ leads/co leads. There was also no difference when year and medium were crossed. TABLE 44
PERCENTAGE OF LGBTQ LEADS/CO LEADS BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Overall, 2.3% (n=7) of leads/co leads across film and series were LGBTQ. In comparison to the U.S. population (12%)*?, Netflix films and series under performed by 9.7 percentage points. Film (4%, n=5) and series (1.1%, n=2) did not differ significantly in the presentation of LGBTQ leads/co leads (see Table 44). There was also no difference by year, as 2018 (1.4%, n=2) and 2019 (3.2%, n=5) featured roughly equal percentages of LGBTQ leads/co leads. There was also no difference when year and medium were crossed. TABLE 44
PERCENTAGE OF LGBTQ MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Overall, main cast were most likely to be gay (2.7%, n=66) in Netflix films and series, followed by lesbian (1.5%, n=37), bisexual (1%, N=23), and transgender cast (<1%, n=4). The percentage of transgender main cast was comparable to U.S. population figures (0.6%) and all of the transgender main cast appeared in series released in 2019.*° There were no significant differences per year or by medium in the distribution of LGBTQ main cast.*° TABLE 45
PERCENTAGE OF LGBTQ MAIN CAST BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Overall, main cast were most likely to be gay (2.7%, n=66) in Netflix films and series, followed by lesbian (1.5%, n=37), bisexual (1%, N=23), and transgender cast (<1%, n=4). The percentage of transgender main cast was comparable to U.S. population figures (0.6%) and all of the transgender main cast appeared in series released in 2019.*° There were no significant differences per year or by medium in the distribution of LGBTQ main cast.*° TABLE 45
ters were white and 40.2% (n=135) were underrepresented. Series (41.6%, n=101) were more inclusive of underrepresented LGBTQ characters than films (36.6%, n=34). Women of color comprised 17% (n=57) of LGBTQ speaking characters across series and film. Consistent with findings on leads/co leads and main cast, the majority of LGBTQ speaking characters were young adults (61.5%, n=208) and few were parents (17.3%, n=28).
ters were white and 40.2% (n=135) were underrepresented. Series (41.6%, n=101) were more inclusive of underrepresented LGBTQ characters than films (36.6%, n=34). Women of color comprised 17% (n=57) of LGBTQ speaking characters across series and film. Consistent with findings on leads/co leads and main cast, the majority of LGBTQ speaking characters were young adults (61.5%, n=208) and few were parents (17.3%, n=28).
TABLE 47
TABLE 47
PERCENTAGE OF MAIN CAST WITH A DISABILITY BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Turning to main cast, 4.7% (n=113) of the main cast across film and series were depicted with a disability. There was no difference in the percentage of main cast with a disability in Netflix films (4.1%, n=42) or series (5.1%, N=71), nor was there a difference over time (2018=4.4%, N=53, 2019=4.9%, N=60). Table 48 reflects the results when medium and year were evaluated. No significant differences emerged in the percentage of main cast with disabilities each year for either film or series content.
PERCENTAGE OF MAIN CAST WITH A DISABILITY BY STORYTELLING MEDIUM AND YEAR Turning to main cast, 4.7% (n=113) of the main cast across film and series were depicted with a disability. There was no difference in the percentage of main cast with a disability in Netflix films (4.1%, n=42) or series (5.1%, N=71), nor was there a difference over time (2018=4.4%, N=53, 2019=4.9%, N=60). Table 48 reflects the results when medium and year were evaluated. No significant differences emerged in the percentage of main cast with disabilities each year for either film or series content.
The demographic profile of speaking characters with a disability was evaluated. Characters with a disability were more likely to be male-identified (63.1%, n=159) than female-identified (36.9%, n=93). Series (40.7%, n=74) featured more girls and women with disabilities on screen than film (27.1%, n=19). Of the characters with disabilities, 71.3% (n=169) were white and 28.7% (n=68) were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, with no difference by medium (film: 27.3%, n=18, series: 29.2%, Nn=50). There were few girls and women of color depicted with a disability (14.3%, n=34), though series (17%, n=29) featured more underrepresented girls and women with a disability than film (7.6%, n=5). Finally, few characters with a disability were LGBTQ (5.3%, N=13), which did not vary by medium (film: 4.3%, n=3, series: 5.6%, n=10). TABLE 49
The demographic profile of speaking characters with a disability was evaluated. Characters with a disability were more likely to be male-identified (63.1%, n=159) than female-identified (36.9%, n=93). Series (40.7%, n=74) featured more girls and women with disabilities on screen than film (27.1%, n=19). Of the characters with disabilities, 71.3% (n=169) were white and 28.7% (n=68) were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, with no difference by medium (film: 27.3%, n=18, series: 29.2%, Nn=50). There were few girls and women of color depicted with a disability (14.3%, n=34), though series (17%, n=29) featured more underrepresented girls and women with a disability than film (7.6%, n=5). Finally, few characters with a disability were LGBTQ (5.3%, N=13), which did not vary by medium (film: 4.3%, n=3, series: 5.6%, n=10). TABLE 49
Within the text, some analyses focus on Latinx individuals who are part of the main cast (film) and series regulars (series). Here, research assistants obtained information about the actor’s background, including their ethnicity and birthplace. Latinx refers only to U.S.-born Latinos who are not of Spanish descent (unless they were Spanish in addition to other Latino origin). In con- trast, actors of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity include characters of Spanish origin or descent, in line with the U.S. Census definition. Below, we break out the number of main cast members and series regular cast who were Latinx versus those who were born outside the U.S. or were of Spanish origin or descent. In films, 4 main cast members were of Spanish origin or descent. In series, 9 series regulars were of Spanish origin or descent. The sexual orientation of characters was ascertained. Characters were cate- gorized as one of four values: gay or lesbian as a result of their identification and enduring romantic proclivities to the same-sex, bisexual when attracted individuals of the same- and opposite-sex, or not lesbian, gay, or bisexual in the absence of any same-sex attraction. These decisions relied upon informa- tion presented in the plot of the story about a characters’ enduring attraction to others. Transgender identity (i.e., no, yes) was also evaluated. The pres- ence of disability (i.e., no, yes) was evaluated using a definition based on the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990). Once a character with a disability was identified, they were categorized as having a disability in the communicative, cognitive, and/or physical domain, in line with U.S. Census distinctions.
Within the text, some analyses focus on Latinx individuals who are part of the main cast (film) and series regulars (series). Here, research assistants obtained information about the actor’s background, including their ethnicity and birthplace. Latinx refers only to U.S.-born Latinos who are not of Spanish descent (unless they were Spanish in addition to other Latino origin). In con- trast, actors of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity include characters of Spanish origin or descent, in line with the U.S. Census definition. Below, we break out the number of main cast members and series regular cast who were Latinx versus those who were born outside the U.S. or were of Spanish origin or descent. In films, 4 main cast members were of Spanish origin or descent. In series, 9 series regulars were of Spanish origin or descent. The sexual orientation of characters was ascertained. Characters were cate- gorized as one of four values: gay or lesbian as a result of their identification and enduring romantic proclivities to the same-sex, bisexual when attracted individuals of the same- and opposite-sex, or not lesbian, gay, or bisexual in the absence of any same-sex attraction. These decisions relied upon informa- tion presented in the plot of the story about a characters’ enduring attraction to others. Transgender identity (i.e., no, yes) was also evaluated. The pres- ence of disability (i.e., no, yes) was evaluated using a definition based on the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990). Once a character with a disability was identified, they were categorized as having a disability in the communicative, cognitive, and/or physical domain, in line with U.S. Census distinctions.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved