Netflix price increase

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix price increase

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3361817 7-Apr-2025 22:55

fe31nz:

gehenna:

It's a misnomer that being a listed company comes with a responsibility to increase revenue and profit.

In New Zealand, yes. Companies here often talk about "stakeholders", which can include their staff and the general public, for example. But I believe the law in the USA requires maximising the return to shareholders, and nothing else.

Nope. The directors have a duty to act in the best interests of a public company as a whole, not to maximise shareholder return. It's a bit different for private companies.

In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.

If that was the case it would be almost impossible to be a director of a public company, they would be sued into oblivion.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3362133 8-Apr-2025 19:27

RunningMan:

Apparently they make too much money off the cheaper plans with ads so need to up the prices on the expensive plans too https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/557424/why-netflix-has-increased-its-subscription-by-up-to-6-a-month

For a second there, I was thinking great, here comes the sh&t&fica*ion of Netflix. Where you ad a bunch of cheaper but get what you pay for type things to make their premium services appear to be worth the price rise.

However, that does make sense, if the higher plan customers are now costing them by not being apart of the additional revenue streams. My standard plan which I've had for about a year and never used it (it's for family), hasn't gone up yet, but the premium price changes are there.

mattwnz

20111 posts

Uber Geek

#3362204 9-Apr-2025 00:00

I don't think the ad supported version is provided by them in NZ, so it seems unfair that they don't provide that cheaper option, if it provides them with more revenue. I guess if they end up losing a lot of customers, then they may have to rethink things. I do wonder how many people here are ending netflix as a direct result of the increased prices.

zodac

1 post

Wannabe Geek

#3362206 9-Apr-2025 03:09

It's not like this is the first price raise by Netflix recently. Clearly they're making more money from keeping subscribers through inertia than losing on people cancelling their subs.

I would expect to see more increases until that changes - the past couple of years (ads, removal of family sharing) has shown people will keep paying them despite a drop in the quality of service.

JPNZ

1520 posts

Uber Geek

#3362215 9-Apr-2025 08:22

The problem for me personally is that Netflix used to be known for its high quality original programming (Stranger Things, Ozark, Squid game etc) but in the last 2-3 years their original shows have been a wasteland. Adolesence being about the only one I have enjoyed.

Then I look at something like Apple TV+ that is half the price and has way better quality shows (Severance, Slow Horses, For all mankind, The studio etc) obviously my tastes can be different to all. But thats my observation

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3362223 9-Apr-2025 09:06

zodac:

It's not like this is the first price raise by Netflix recently. Clearly they're making more money from keeping subscribers through inertia than losing on people cancelling their subs.

I would expect to see more increases until that changes - the past couple of years (ads, removal of family sharing) has shown people will keep paying them despite a drop in the quality of service.

People threatened to revolt when Netflix disabled account sharing. As I expected, what they gained financially from that, vs what they lost, made it a pretty clearly good decision from a financial perspective.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3362224 9-Apr-2025 09:08

JPNZ:

The problem for me personally is that Netflix used to be known for its high quality original programming (Stranger Things, Ozark, Squid game etc) but in the last 2-3 years their original shows have been a wasteland. Adolesence being about the only one I have enjoyed.

Then I look at something like Apple TV+ that is half the price and has way better quality shows (Severance, Slow Horses, For all mankind, The studio etc) obviously my tastes can be different to all. But thats my observation

I dropped my Sub not for pricing reasons directly, but because the combination of TV I prefer to watch is better served by a combination of other platforms. It's not cheap enough to keep for casual viewig purposes. I'll resubscribe when the content landscape shifts around as it will certainly do.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

scuwp

3880 posts

Uber Geek

#3362272 9-Apr-2025 12:10

We use a pattern of subscribing, watching what we are interested in, then unsubscribing and move onto another service. Rinse and repeat. Only ever have 1 or 2 subscriptions at a time. By the time we come back around there are a range of new things to watch. Getting too expensive to keep a service that is only used occasionally.

Sadly Netflix won't care less if a few thousand NZ subscribers leave. We are a small drop in a very large ocean.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

jonb

1769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3362286 9-Apr-2025 13:12

Buying sports rights is not cheap - NFL especially and feels like the price rise is to help fund that. Disney seems to be doing the same thing

nitro

648 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3362288 9-Apr-2025 13:37

Handle9:

Nope. The directors have a duty to act in the best interests of a public company as a whole, not to maximise shareholder return. It's a bit different for private companies.

In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.

If that was the case it would be almost impossible to be a director of a public company, they would be sued into oblivion.

while i understand your position, the quote you provided does not support your position at all. specifically, something that is not required is not automatically illegal. Let us at least have the full sentence:

While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.

(1) It professes the central objective "is to make money". And (2) it is completed with the clause "many do not do so", acknowledging that some do.

having worked long term for publicly held corporations, it's very hard to escape the perception of short-term focus on profit being at least a primary concern, if not THE primary concern. that said, there are other laws, including those that ensure public safety. safety recalls of consumer products are examples of this.

now Netflix... i agree with the previous comment that it's almost not cheap enough to keep for casual viewing. however, i'm still subscribed, and mainly because it remains the default streaming option for my family.

disney+ has gotten a reprieve with the addition of espn+, as i do watch some of those sports and quite like the sport docos. will have to evaluate this towards the end of the year.

amazon prime, after finishing Reacher, is on the hot seat for us. yes, it's the cheapest but the constant barrage of content that is only available on a sub-subscription or separate rental payment annoys me.

Aucklandjafa

380 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3362295 9-Apr-2025 13:42

Just cancelled.

Was paying for standard + an extra member. I just can't see the value anymore.

Saying that, if three people were to split payment for a premium plus 2 extra accounts, that works out at $18/each - not bad for 4K viewing too.

rugrat

3100 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3362311 9-Apr-2025 15:20

Aucklandjafa:

Just cancelled.

Saying that, if three people were to split payment for a premium plus 2 extra accounts, that works out at $18/each - not bad for 4K viewing too.

For people that are not able to do this I wonder how reliable the web sites that let people share accounts that don’t know each other are? Using the member add on seems to be the way to get better value.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3362317 9-Apr-2025 15:44

nitro:
while i understand your position, the quote you provided does not support your position at all. specifically, something that is not required is not automatically illegal. Let us at least have the full sentence:

Yeah nah. If you are adamant that it is a legal requirement for public companies to maximise profits please show the legal basis for this. If it’s a legal requirement (it isn’t) it should be very straight forward to show that.

nitro

648 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3362320 9-Apr-2025 16:12

Handle9:

Yeah nah. If you are adamant that it is a legal requirement for public companies to maximise profits please show the legal basis for this. If it’s a legal requirement (it isn’t) it should be very straight forward to show that.

never said that.

you effectively said they cannot aim to maximise profits. and that's incorrect.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3362332 9-Apr-2025 16:39

nitro:

Handle9:

Yeah nah. If you are adamant that it is a legal requirement for public companies to maximise profits please show the legal basis for this. If it’s a legal requirement (it isn’t) it should be very straight forward to show that.

never said that.

you effectively said they cannot aim to maximise profits. and that's incorrect.

Sorry I thought you were the one who made that claim, which was what I was responding to. It was someone else.

I never made any comment, or implied, that many companies did not aim to maximise profits. This discussion was whether they are legally obligated to do so, which they aren’t. It’s a management decision not a legal obligation.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6