Spherex and Parrot Analytics released the findings from a first-ever report on the connection between local age ratings, cultural factors and TV show audience demand in key markets worldwide. The ‘Global TV Snapshot’ report analyses the age ratings and cultural content of five popular US-originated TV shows worldwide while considering the audience demand for each show in seven targeted markets.

During Netflix Q4 2021 earnings call , COO and Chief Product Officer Greg Peters revealed the company "subtitled 7 million run-time minutes in '21 and dubbed 5 million run-time minutes" of content to reach their 222 million subscribers worldwide. That's 116,666 hours of subtitles and 83,333 hours of dubs they produced before releasing titles anywhere across their 192-territory footprint. That's a massive undertaking.

As professionals involved in the Media and Entertainment (M&E) industry, we’re sure you are aware there are separate ratings for US film and TV content. What you may not be aware of are the differences between the two. This post will highlight these differences and describe how they impact the audience as content is distributed across various platforms. The Basics Ratings exist to inform parents and audiences about the appropriateness of content for their children and families. The problem ratings attempt to solve is that exposure to violent, sexual, adult, or suggestive language content can be harmful or offensive to specific audiences. Ratings provide a warning that those events are part of the production. Age is the primary determinant in assigning a rating, but presumed maturity within a rating category (e.g., PG vs. PG-13) may also be a factor. In other countries, criticism of the government, unflattering depictions of cultural norms, or negatively describing religion are grounds for content to be assigned higher age ratings or even banned. Those factors are not typically an issue with US age ratings for film or TV. The first thing to understand is the fundamental difference in the purpose, type, and reach between the two platforms. Movie ratings were established for the content shown in movie theaters. TV ratings were created for content displayed on TV screens. The similarity is content; the difference is paid admission versus 24/7 access in our living rooms. The former is controlled access by requiring payment for a ticket, and the latter may not be controlled at all. Parents can be in the audience with a child in a theater but might be away while the show is on the living room TV. As a result, content notification requirements are more granular and specific for TV ratings than for film. For example, there is no need for a comparable TV-Y or TV-Y7 rating in theaters because a G-rated film easily encompasses and addresses the guidance those ratings provide. Likewise, there is no market for NC-17 content on linear TV or streaming platforms, so TV has no comparable rating. The next thing to understand is two different groups developed the US ratings systems. The Motion Picture Association ( MPA ), an industry trade group, developed  US film ratings in 1968. Occasional updates have reflected changes in types of content, such as the introduction of the PG-13 rating following the release of an Indiana Jones film. We have previously written about this in more detail here . Television ratings were developed and maintained by the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board, also an industry trade group, in 1996. Its members include the MPA, the National Association of Broadcasters ( NAB ), the Internet and Television Association ( NCTA ), and five public interest groups. Their interests are related, but their ratings differ at the top and bottom of the age scale. TV ratings were created as a voluntary system following concerns expressed by the US Congress and complaints made to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about objectionable TV content being aired without notice to parents. TV programs are self-rated by the networks or platforms in the US system. The Ratings Matrix Below is a comparison matrix that presents the difference between movie and TV ratings systems. US TV ratings also contain "content descriptors” that specify specific types of potentially objectionable content. The elements within those descriptors are: D – Suggestive dialogue (rarely used with TV-MA-rated programs) L – Coarse language S – Sexual content V – Violence FV – Fantasy violence (exclusive to TV-Y7-rated programs) These elements are shown below the rating and displayed for 15 seconds at the program’s beginning and following any breaks. Upon review, it’s clear that TV ratings closely resemble those used for movies; this is on purpose. The reason is to provide continuity and consistency for parents and regulators across all content distribution platforms, including theatrical, linear, retail, and online services. As a system, both have worked quite well and have served as a model for other countries worldwide who wish to provide consumers with helpful information about content and titles they may consider sharing with their children, families, and friends. Spherex: Localized Age Ratings Services Provider As the global industry authority and leading private provider of local age ratings worldwide, Spherex uniquely understands the importance of getting age ratings right, regardless of the platform.  Spherexratings™ and Spherexgreenlight™ provide content creators with the necessary knowledge to tailor titles to fit any age rating and identify their best markets. Greenlight™ is a first-of-its-kind AI/ML technology that culturally adapts content for markets worldwide. With this technology, content creators can increase engagement, drive more revenue faster, and avoid legal and regulatory risks. Take the guesswork and risk out of international expansion. Contact us today!

The controversy surrounding Netflix’s hit series “Squid Game” is the latest example of how inaccurate translations of stories can adversely impact the viewer’s experience and appreciation of foreign titles. The old theatrical days are long over, where localization service providers had months if not years to generate local language audio and subtitles prior to international exhibition. It’s the streaming era now, where post-production schedules are compressed into days and weeks, and content is globally syndicated at launch.   For the industry to meet today’s market challenges and opportunities, the localization process must ensure that stories told to foreign audiences are consistent with the original production, accounting for any linguistic and cultural differences that may impact viewers’ understanding and appreciation of titles.   Localization is more than just the literal translation of a script into another language, subtitles, or audio dub. A script is a story, and stories have context, nuance, meaning, and feeling. Plus, they reflect the writer or director’s culture and points of view. Characters within a film may have relationships that may not be fully understood or appreciated in other cultures. The native language of the film may use words for which there are no foreign language, historical or cultural equivalents. Physical gestures along with visual and musical cues also contribute to storytelling. Traditional subs and dubs often overlook these critical story components because they’re not seen as necessary to the story and are difficult to translate.   Critics have identified issues in “Squid Game” that could have been avoided if cultural knowledge had been considered during the localization process.   An example from the first episode of the series highlights a Pakistani immigrant named “Ali” who refers to two other Korean players as “sajangnim.” This term was translated and used as “Sir.” Sajangnim is a word typically used to show respect for the top boss of a company or business. The complaint is that translating “sajangnim” to “sir” minimizes the self-declared inferiority of Ali’s position as an immigrant (a class of people often overlooked and exploited in Korean society), and it fails to convey the patriarchal responsibility that a “sajangnim” would owe his subordinates. Because the translation ignores significant cultural references, some have argued the word “boss” would have been a better choice.   Later in the episode, other characters ask Ali to call them “hyung,” which means “older brother,” instead of “sajangnim.” “Hyung” in Korean culture indicates a close, friendly, familial relationship. The subtitles indicate they want Ali to call them by their given names, which again, misses the cultural importance of their relationship and downplays the betrayal that occurs later on in the show.   Defenders of the process point out the platform has its own constraints limiting how much a story can be presented to viewers. There’s only so much space on the screen where subtitles appear and only so much time available to show a subtitle before other dialogue must appear. There are different sources for closed caption and language dub scripts because each uses a distinctly different process. There’s only so much context you can provide within these limitations with the added difference in the abilities of those who perform this work. Bottom line: compromises must be made to meet industry or platform standards; and unfortunately, story clarity is what gets sacrificed. As they say, therein lies the rub.   IMDb data reports that over the last decade, an average of 15,000 new films and 251,000 new TV episodes were released each year worldwide. Each of these titles seeks an audience on the hundreds of streaming platforms or the thousands of TV channels they host. Focusing on the script alone without paying close attention to the cultural aspects of the story is what creates the problem “Squid Game” highlights. Artificial intelligence (AI) may alleviate some of these concerns, but what must come first is the knowledge and understanding of culture.   Even if automated capabilities were available to tackle that much content, the literal translation of a script to 7,115 languages is insufficient to address a film’s cultural issues. There’s more to visual storytelling than just the script: location, costumes, customs, relationships, lighting, action, and music enhance the script to tell the story. As the criticism of “Squid Game” shows, small changes can make significant differences.   Foreign-language titles will continue to find new markets in the global content ecosystem, and viewers will want to watch them. “Squid Game” reiterates the risks and shortcomings of today’s localization process and shows why it must be reinvented. As an industry, it is important to reimagine the process of localization and apply culturalization to ensure that the stories people see are those that the writers and directors intended. Without more attention and resources, great stories will continue to be lost in translation.

The controversy surrounding Netflix's hit series "Squid Game" is the latest example of how inaccurate translations of stories can adversely impact the viewer's experience and appreciation of foreign titles. The old theatrical days are long over, where localization service providers had months if not years to generate local language audio and subtitles prior to international exhibition. It's the streaming era now, where post-production schedules are compressed into days and weeks, and content is globally syndicated at launch.

In the past several months, an emerging trend is evident in the media and entertainment industry: increased levels of and calls for content censorship and regulation. It doesn't matter what country you live in or where you want to release your title, regulatory bodies and private groups exist that can limit what story you tell and how you tell it. Worldwide, varying levels of censorship exist, and some countries are more prohibitive than others. Some restrictions are intended to protect young audiences from sensitive subject matter, but others are to deter government criticism and to discriminate against minorities. It's this latter category that should concern content creators.

Pressure on content creators to ensure their productions are suitable for international markets is exponentially increasing. It began in earnest with the release of blockbuster films in the late 70s and 80s, where meeting global demand meant little more than subtitling or language dubs for three or four languages. Very few major films received the complete treatment of multiple language translations that movies and TV shows currently receive because the distribution chain wasn't what it is today, and costs were prohibitively expensive.

On June 11, 2021, Hong Kong’s government expanded its film regulations to more closely reflect mainland China’s censorship rules. The regulations, which went into effect immediately, were issued under the stated purpose of protecting “national security” and attempting to provide balance “between protection of individual rights and freedoms on the one hand, and the protection of such legitimate societal interests on the other.”

Over the past few months, this blog has examined changes in ratings criteria in India , Australia and reactions to specific titles, such as “ Family Guy ” and “ The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” The purpose has been to look at regulation from a cultural perspective and the practical impacts on content creators. In this post, we’re going to take a different perspective: that of the viewing public and their reaction to regulatory changes. In particular we will look at the recently published language guide by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and public reaction to changes impacting U-rated titles.