|
|
|
richms:
If you don't like it, cancel it and do without netflix for a month so they get the message that their offering is lousy. Its not like you are on a term contract and the only way they will respond is with people leaving.
They will have budgeted for it, and I suspect for longer than most people will be able to hold out and put up with the inconvenience of not paying for a second household for $4-5 dollars.
I'll be pretty surprised if there is a significant drop in revenue long term as a result of only this change.
A 2017 tweet from Netflix has aged poorly.

We're already paying for a limited number of simultaneous streams. 1 stream for Basic plan, 2 for Standard, 4 for Premium. So I really don't understand why this is even necessary. If people are paying for 2 or 4 streams, let them use them how they want.
I bet a lot of people are paying for the Premium plan simply so they can share the password, and when that ability goes away they'll downgrade. And a huge number of people who are using someone else's password won't think it's worth paying a full membership themselves. I just don't see this resulting in more revenue for Netflix.
I pay for Premium not for extra streams, but for 4K/HDR, and honestly most of the time I question whether it's worth it when (aside from a few rare exceptions) they only provide 4K/HDR for Netflix Originals. Why are modern movies, that are shot and mastered in 4K HDR, only available to stream in 1080p? Most other streaming services are just as bad, their services are 4K/HDR capable but they don't provide the films in that format.
It will also be interesting to see what will happen with those using DNS providers or VPNs who frequently switch regions.
Paul1977:
I bet a lot of people are paying for the Premium plan simply so they can share the password, and when that ability goes away they'll downgrade. And a huge number of people who are using someone else's password won't think it's worth paying a full membership themselves. I just don't see this resulting in more revenue for Netflix.
It may not increase revenue per se, but it probably will increase profitability. If they drop 100,000 freeloading users then the back end and support requirements, and therefore people and resource use will go down.
I don't see there being many if any downsides for Netflix on this.
I could be proven wrong, a year from now they could cease to exist, but I doubt it, and I doubt it would be soley this responsible.
For all the rage I see online about this, I still maintain that at the end of the day, people value their time more than $5 a month for trying to work around this, and Netflix is unparalled entertainment value overall for most people.
networkn:
It may not increase revenue per se, but it probably will increase profitability. If they drop 100,000 freeloading users then the back end and support requirements, and therefore people and resource use will go down.
I don't see there being many if any downsides for Netflix on this.
I could be proven wrong, a year from now they could cease to exist, but I doubt it, and I doubt it would be soley this responsible.
For all the rage I see online about this, I still maintain that at the end of the day, people value their time more than $5 a month for trying to work around this, and Netflix is unparalled entertainment value overall for most people.
Don't forget the additional backend requirements to monitor and enforce their new policy.
The section I bolded above used to be true, but not so much these days. With the rise of other services, Netflix loses more and more back catalog content; and there's more and more new content that they don't get because other services secure the rights. It's about value for money, and that is getting worse and worse - Netflix used to be 80% of what I'd watch, now it's closer to 20%. Anything they do to make their services value for money worse will ultimately hurt them.
Gone are they days when Netflix could rely on being the only player in town.
networkn:
richms:
If you don't like it, cancel it and do without netflix for a month so they get the message that their offering is lousy. Its not like you are on a term contract and the only way they will respond is with people leaving.
They will have budgeted for it, and I suspect for longer than most people will be able to hold out and put up with the inconvenience of not paying for a second household for $4-5 dollars.
I'll be pretty surprised if there is a significant drop in revenue long term as a result of only this change.
If they manage to lose two to three million customers worldwide I guarantee there would be a rethink.
ajw:
If they manage to lose two to three million customers worldwide I guarantee there would be a rethink.
On global customer stats I can find online in a hurry, even at 3 mil that's an inconsequential 0.01% of their customers. They won't bat an eyelid. Also, it's not about subscribers, it about profitability.
Also that won't happen. It may be topical now because a vocal few are reacting on social media, creating some inflated sense of a global outrage that simply doesn't exist. The majority of customers I would say will just accept the changes as inevitable and get on with worrying about life's bigger problems. Once the initial outrage settles down, my bet is that they will probably have more subscribers.
Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation
scuwp:
On global customer stats I can find online in a hurry, even at 3 mil that's an inconsequential 0.01% of their customers.
Paul1977:scuwp:
On global customer stats I can find online in a hurry, even at 3 mil that's an inconsequential 0.01% of their customers.
Unless Netflix has 30 billion subscribers, your maths is a little off.
Q3 2022 they had 223 million subscribers, so 3 million would be about 1.35%.
The sneering in this thread is pretty gross.
If you think Netflix new policy is fine and still offers the value you want, good for you. If others are in a different position that's their value judgement.
This isn't a change in policy based on any moral imperative, it's a change to bolster their collapsing stock price and stagnant growth rate. There's no moral aspect to this on either side, Netflix implicitly encouraged password sharing for years and now they want to monetise those customers. That's their business and if customers now find it doesn't offer value they should leave.
Expecting customers to quietly accept a significant reduction in value is dumb, why shouldn't customers complain if the value offered is reduced?
scuwp:
On global customer stats I can find online in a hurry, even at 3 mil that's an inconsequential 0.01% of their customers. They won't bat an eyelid.
If they lose 3 million customers the markets will punish them in a significant way. They will certainly bat an eyelid and have to take action.
ajw:
Handle9
I'm surprised that they are going ahead with this as some markets are heading into recession.
I'm not surprised really. A lot of the big tech businesses are moving from high growth with extremely high PER to being lower growth businesses which have to focus on efficiency. Netflix is pretty close to saturation, it's very difficult for them get more people viewing the content.
This, like advertising supported packages, is a way to squeeze more juice out of the lemon.
|
|
|