Why Netflix Had To Raise Its Prices 574
sperlingreich writes "Last week, after movie streaming service Netflix raised its prices by 60%, the company's customers took to blogs and social networks in revolt, threatening to cancel their subscriptions. However, between the cost of mailing DVDs and paying increased licensing fees for content, a Netflix rate hike was inevitable. Is it still a great movie bargain? What alternative services are there?"
Whiners... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time a new DVD becomes available on streaming, Netflix has to pay a higher licensing fee. When does it stop? What good does it do me if Netflix has 1,000,000 movies on instant streaming, but because of all the licensing fees, the service costs $100/month?
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know people paying much more for much less.
Take any major cable provider. They charge per digital box, which is why you can't just hook up any TV anymore and get the premium channels, and then each box has its own charge for the premium packages.
So you get:
1) Advertisements. Way too many, way too frequent, and even channel surfing exposes you to the infection that is advertisements.
2) In-media Advertisements. Saw The Matrix for about 5 minutes on AMC a few days ago at a friends place. Was absolutely fascinated that people put up with that shit. There was an upper left advertisement for something. Breaking Bad logo and next play time in the lower right. AMC logo prominently displayed in the lower left. At least 10% of the entire movie taken up with NOT THE MOVIE.
3) High charges for channel packages including shit you don't ever want to watch.
4) Per box charges.
5) Hidden regulatory fees.
6) Pay per view and movie rentals where I get the * privileged* status of paying over $5 to rent a movie for the next 24 hours.
Riiiiigggggghhhhtttt
Netflix.
1) Still only $20.
2) Unlimited 2 DVDs as many times as I can get it.
3) Streaming options that are fairly good and getting better.
4) NO ADVERTISEMENTS.
5) NO ADVERTISEMENTS.
6) They just added Star Trek TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise. Check again. They are adding a ton of TV shows.
7) Starz play. That gets you access to some interesting movies streaming only available via shipping otherwise.
On the whole, Netflix is a great deal. Even if it goes to $40 bucks a month, you still have to pay far more than that for all the aforementioned bullshit in addition to the Internet charges from your ISP.
Competition?
Blockbuster. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody even look at it yet? Those executives must be on crack. They are still trying to charge $3 and over for streaming movies and will "sell" you protected movie content that you "own". Seriously? Who is left that is still falling for that bullshit? If you have a DRMd file on some device it is only owned by you as long as the authentication servers stay up in their data centers and are still operating. How many have gone down and fucked all the customers?
Redbox is not out with its service yet.
Websites for the actual content producers are full of advertisements and bullshit too. Not much better.
The Big Media ISP cooperatives? They are trying to offer streaming and purchase services, but again, at $5 per movie.
Look at Dish Network. Sure, I can see a movie still in theaters, but they all cost more than $5 for 24 hours.
There is NO competition to Netflix at all and they know it.
$20 bucks? Wow. There are some really entitled and bitchy people out there that cannot see the big picture.
Re: (Score:3)
$20 bucks? Wow. There are some really entitled and bitchy people out there that cannot see the big picture.
So, if a person complains about paying the "$20 bucks" (sic) that Netflix says it has to have, then the customer is the one acting entitled? It seems like the definition of "entitled" in this case means "having the temerity to decide what a product is worth to oneself".
So someone like me, who doesn't get cable TV, Netflix, etc. because I think they're all too expensive . . . I guess I'm the most entitled, bitchy person on earth. (No, I'm not Area Man. I've got an antenna and a TV so the wife can watch her s
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's the way I saw it. Their streaming content is vastly better than when I first started using it. (In the early days it was just shy of useless.) I dropped my plan from 4 discs at a time to 3 because there is enough on streaming to fill in the times when I run out of discs. (Which isn't quite as often, since they started working Saturdays, another thing they didn't always do. That meant a disc watched Thursday night didn't get to them until Monday, and the next disc didn't arrive until Tuesda
Re:Whiners... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you think they're going to get licensing for more movies (especially new releases) without raising more money to pay increased licensing fees?
By paying license fees per view, and not per program. If netflix expands their selection, I'm not watching any more than I ever did. What sense does it make for me to pay more to have access to programs I don't watch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... How do you think they're going to get licensing for more movies (especially new releases) without raising more money to pay increased licensing fees?
How about FIRST improving their offering, and THEN raising the price? You know, good old 'investing'.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay 15 dollars JUST fro streaming if there content didn't disappear and was greatly expanded.
I hope the new deal comes with a larger selection of titles.
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
If what is currently "dvd only" content was made available for streaming at the same time the price was hiked, then I believe most people would have been okay with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Volume.
Seriously t'ho, expanded titles means expanded customer base.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they haven't increased the selection, the money isn't going to pay licensing fees and there's been no promises of increased selection either.
Personally, I wouldn't have minded the hike so much had they promised something for it, but they're basically just raising their rates without giving the customer any reason to stick with them.
Were I an attorney for Blockbuster or Redbox, I'd be seriously contemplating filing an antitrust suit against Netflix. This looks an awful lot like a text book case o
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't complain about the price hike, I thought it was fair. I complained about Netflix calling a 60% hike a price cut. THAT was the bullshit move to me.
Said better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfdpcrOgUp4 [youtube.com]
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Informative)
My "cable" company (if you consider AT&T U-verse cable; it's close enough) wanted $120+ a month to watch what I wanted and DVR it. Corrupt video? Schedule get screwed up? Local network happen to be out? I'd be screwed. This was on top of $50-$60/mo just for internet. So now it's $50-60/mo on internet plus $16/mo for Netflix, $8/mo for Hulu Plus, and I can still buy $96 worth of TV off Amazon or iTMS and still break even!
Of course I'm sure the internet providers (who also provide TV) will start getting bitchy when people start dropping their service for cheaper options over their existing network connection. But their service is crappy and their prices are outrageous.
No sports on Netflix (Score:4, Informative)
So now it's $50-60/mo on internet plus $16/mo for Netflix, $8/mo for Hulu Plus
I've recommended this to a couple families, and both told me they'd rather go back to dial-up than give up ESPN.
Re:No sports on Netflix (Score:5, Insightful)
I have had the opposite experience. Our anecdotes therefore cancel out.
Hell, when I had cable I would have given up ESPN if it saved me $0.25/month.
Simple fact; I and many like me will not pay for entertainment and watch advertising. One or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Many like you, but all of you are a time and insignificant fraction of people.
By the way, paying for cable is paying for the service of having channels piped to your home, NOT for the shows; which is how it has always been with general cable.
You're premise fails on that point.
Do you not buy food because you also have to see advertising while shopping?
By your logic you shouldn't even be on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
And to think so many Americans have criticised in this forum countries like the UK for it's license fee. I pay less in a year than the parent pays every two months. I get most of the good stuff, whether live via free DTV or free satellite, or over the internet via free catch-up TV. There's no advertising on the BBC channels, and you appreciate how bad that must be for Americans when American "hour long" shows only last 43 minutes on British TV. The only thing I dislike is the Murdoch empire taking away
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I know the feeling. I live in a very small town with fewer than 800 bars, so getting to see ESPN if not at my house could require walking upwards of 50 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that makes them far more useful.
Re:Whiners... (Score:4)
If you're paying $16 a month for Netflix, go over to Blockbuster, similar size of catalog plus PS3, Wii and XBox games included for the same price. Plus if you happen to live near one of the few remaining Blockbuster locations you can trade in store if you need a new disc.
Right around the corner (Score:3)
Re:Whiners... (Score:5, Insightful)
$16/mo would be fair for being able to watch what you want, when you want...but that's not what you get with Netflix streaming. You get to watch what the studios approve of, for as long as they think you should be allowed to. Content trickles into the streaming library at a snails pace, and movies are frequently pulled after a few weeks. It's not all HD either, even newer movies which should be. Just because other options are also similarly overpriced does not make it right. The studios need to adjust to the new normal where they make less profit, have to deliver a higher quality of service, and give consumers the choices they want. The alternative is to keep taking massive hits from Bittorrent and non-sanctioned streaming sites. Until they realize that their stranglehold on content has ended and they need to compete with free (and that's possible, it really is), they're going to keep making mistakes like this.
Instead of raising prices and locking down selections and distribution channels they should be lowering prices, making things more reasonable, enticing people who haven't been paying to go back to legitimate channels. Release movies on Netflix and DVD at the same time, open up their entire back catalogue, make it available wherever and whenever the user wants.
But of course they won't do that. Some executive thinks their bottom line is better served by giving people less choices, charging more, suing people, and generally making the legal services the worst option.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a better deal than cable.
At this point Netflix only has to worry about amazon. If that improves selection anymore, they just added 2000 more titles, I will keep netflix only for DVDs and cancel their streaming. I have Prime anyway so amazon streaming is free to me, for now anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
In the streaming space they're competing with Amazon, Hulu and Crackle. Crackle is interesting because it's owned by Sony and is completely free to the viewer. I think the commercials are pretty minimal as well.
In the disc space they're competing with Blockbuster that's pretty competitive with them right now. Especially after the price hikes. Previously the streaming and pricing gave Netflix a significant advantage.
Re:Whiners... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that differs from how movies are released to premium cable channels and network TV in exactly what way?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, which is why neither are good deals. Like I said, just because other options are also overpriced doesn't make it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think workers are squeezed to work harder and longer so that managers and executives can take more and more pay while doing less. Look at income inequality, it is as high as ever and gets worse every year. People aren't working harder because they have to, they are working harder for less to enrich the elite. It's clearly the studios and the producers side that needs to get used to doing more for less, the working class has been pushed hard enough, it's time the pendulum swings back the other direction to
$16/mo only if you already pay $80/mo for cable (Score:2)
My cable company wants much more than $16/mo to get the various premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.).
My cable company won't even let me add HBO or Showtime unless I upgrade to a higher "tier" with dozens of channels I won't watch. Right now my family is on the $60/mo Digital Starter tier because that's the cheapest with ESPN; Comcast wants us on the $80/mo tier before it'll let us add premium channels.
How to get a better cable company? (Score:2)
Get a better cable company then.
It costs thousands of dollars to move to an area serviced by a different cable company. How do you expect most people to be able to afford this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What alternative services are there? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago, I began using hulu to catch up on Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse" before I started using Netflix to watch other shows. They have a smaller selection of titles, but for what they do have, new episodes of current series are available usually the day after they air on the regular networks. the annoying thing with Netflix is that it seems they wait for the DVDs to be available (regardless of anything else) before they make the streams available.
Re: (Score:3)
Hulu's increase of commercials has severely turned me off of their offerings. I once watched a ton of stuff on Hulu, but now I stick to NetFlix or just do without.
It's quite jarring to be in the middle of an intense show and then breaking to an HPV commercial.
Are movies worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I find plenty to do without going to first run movies or event renting movies.
To be brutally frank with you, much of what comes out of 'the industry' these days have very little to keep me engaged.
So, I take the money I save by not subscribing to movies and tv and engage in hobbies that keep me engaged and creative, such as these at http://www.allyn.com/ [allyn.com]
Re:Are movies worth it? (Score:4, Informative)
Examples:
Seth
Re: (Score:3)
Some are documentaries, not "industry films".
While they are great, GP is correct that the general industry has taken a nosedive in terms of quality. That is how many movies out of how many movies in those same number of years, in which these particular movies actually been well executed? How many movies over the past many years were actually good and not explicit emotional manipulation in a generally shitty movie via music tied to a scene or obvious/long drawn out plot? etc.
I used to go to 10, 20 movies a y
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exit Through the Gift Shop
This is a brilliant film, if it's a real documentary.
But it's total crap if it's a mockumentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's the other way around.
Re:Are movies worth it? (Score:5, Funny)
Of that list, I think the only one I'd consider watching is True Grit, and perhaps Black Swan. In fact, they should combine the two movies, for a perfect /. Meme movie .. "Natalie Portman in Hot (True) Grits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix in Canada - only ever had streaming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you get more with cable and HBO.
Not "why", but "how much" (Score:3)
I don't really care *why* the price is almost doubling for my plan from what I was paying last year, only that it is. And like TONS of customers, I am going to drop half of the plan. The half I am choosing to drop will be the streaming. In my case, I am not worse off than before. My pricing will be about $1 less per month than when they added streaming in the first place.
Anyway, I can understand why many people are very unhappy about it. I can also understand why it makes sense to separate the plans and have customers pay for what they use (I am not a fan of "bundling" in the first place). However, I see that for many customers, this really is a HUGE and unreasonable price jump.
Yo btw! (Score:2)
Why don't these same people complain about the federal budget as much as they have with Netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the federal budget isn't as bad as the screaming nonsense panic mongers in the news would have you believe.
There are 'News reporters' going after economic experts and calling them wrong. Just because the exerts experience and data driven statement is different then the news persons opinion.
Lets see (Score:2)
1) There PR guy was a jackasss and talked down to people.
2) They didn't tells us why.
3) we still don't know what their increased costs where. I think. My cost to mail something didn't go up 60%.
Re: What alternative services are there?" (Score:2)
Off the top of my head? Hulu Plus. On my Sony TV and blurrydisk player there's Qriocity and three or four others.
I have no idea what the selection is like on Qriocity or the others. I don't really watch that much TV to begin with and I'm just not curious enough about it to (pay money) to find out.
60%? Try 7% (Score:5, Interesting)
It's misleading to say that they raised their rates by 60%. They did I suppose if you only have the unlimited 1 DVD plan + streaming. Going by the outcry I suppose there's a lot of people who have it. However, my family has the 4 DVDs + streaming plan and the price will be going from $27.99 to $29.98 a month. That's less than a small latte from Starbucks.
Instead of screaming at Netflix and throwing tantrums comparing the price increases to rape (google it, it's really sad) I wish these people would start screaming at the media companies to get some sort of reasonable pricing and access to streaming media. This whole sending me physical pieces of plastic through the mail is getting old! It's 2011 for crying out loud! Not only is there a terribly small amount of things I can stream through Netflix, but things disappear, almost always with little warning. My streaming queue has over 200 titles that are in the saved section because they were available once but are now not.
I understand what's going on behind the scenes, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I figure there are plenty of people with 1 DVD + unlimited. And while on the one hand a 60% price increase is pretty bad, it's also only $6/month more. For some people that may be too much. But I'm curious how Netflix's subscriber numbers will fare after all this. Probably won't have much of an impact.
As far as the new interface, I think it's horrible. But OTOH, I have about 450 movies I know I want to see. So I figure I'll wait it out until the next UI update.
Cheaper now for some (Score:2)
I see a trend. (Score:2)
How many of these 'Why Netflix raised their rates' articles will Netflix PR department spawn?
Content of article? (Score:3)
So the blurb here was all the information that was actually published in that article. Does a brief comment that adds no information actually need to be posted as a story? I thought they were going to put out some numbers. The article headline seems to be misleading in that there doesn't seem to be any actual content, unless I'm missing something.
Poor Posting (Score:4, Interesting)
So at this point all we have is a vague argument that Netflix had to raise its prices because of the cost of mailing DVDs and increased licensing fees for streaming content. Let's dissect this:
Sending DVDs through the mail is what Netflix has always done. It is the core of its business. I haven't seen any news about a sudden hike in the cost of mail in the U.S. Yes, it's gone up over the last 20 years, but not since Netflix's last price increase about 7 months ago. Netflix is the postal service's life support. Without Netflix, the USPS isn't financially viable because so much written communication now takes place online, so the USPS is going to do whatever it takes to ensure Netflix doesn't send fewer DVDs through the mail. I consider this part of the argument debunked -- the cost of mailing DVDs did not force this price increase.
Netflix has progressively tried to steer customers away from the mail service, presumably because they don't have to maintain distribution centers around the country to stream videos, and they're worried someone else will beat them to the on-demand streaming party first. They want to own that party before the space gets crowded, and the easiest way for them to do that is to "convert" their huge base of snail mail customers to streaming. They started out by bundling it for free with your subscription, then offering it by itself, then disabling the ability to manage your DVD queue through the Netflix mobile apps...
The problem is that their streaming library is a fraction of the size of their DVD library. To fill in the gaps, they have to go back to the content owners and negotiate fees, and the content owners smell an opportunity to make a lot of money. Rather than use its size to convince the content owners that receiving a reasonable licensing fee for the content is better than receiving nothing at all and being left out, Netflix has decided it wants the content even if it has to overpay for it... Because it will just pass on the cost of its decision to the users. I'm sure someone at some high level meeting said, "wait, what if our customers realize this and flee?" and that's why they're providing the option to opt out of streaming altogether now. The customers who don't want to pay the increase can just opt out of streaming. The customers who are willing to pay the price for streaming will pad the pockets of the content owners.
Best value (Score:2)
I would seriously pay twice what I'm paying Netflix for now for unlimited streaming and if it helped provide a better selection.
Seriously.
Netflix is by far the best value on the Internet today.
That and they treat their employees with respect. Especially their customer service folks.
My Hulu Plus subscription isn't giving me shit.
Re:Best value (Score:4, Insightful)
What is crazy is that the senior management of these companies can't see ---here we are SCREAMING --- LET ME PAY FOR UNLIMITED ACCESS TO http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/07/21/2023219/Why-Netflix-Had-To-Raise-Its-Prices#YOUR [slashdot.org] CONTENT---HERE TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE!!!... and they would rather send me a subpoena from a RIAA lawyer. Oh the humanity!
Shut up, you babies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really think $9.99/mo for 1 DVD at a time + all the streaming content you can eat was going to last forever? Those are *startup* prices. They do that to grow the business, then they jack up the prices when they need to be profitable.
And they're never going to include new releases in the all-you-can-eat streaming at that price.
I do wish they would stop changing the streaming / not streaming status of movies, however. It's frustrating when a movie that has been out for ten years, and was streamable last week, suddenly is not streamable. Can't say I understand the reasoning behind that, other than that their licensing just makes no damn sense.
Re:Shut up, you babies. (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt, wrong. Netflix already was profitable. [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand it's time-limited licensing. If it's confusing, blame the studios for requiring closure dates for license agreements to ancient movies that are not going to see any dvd or theater re-release.
Personally, though, Netflix could go a LONG way to improving its communication on this - show that "this movie will no longer stream after August 14, 2011" or whatever.
FWIW, try to find a phone number to call Netflix, or even an email address to submit suggestions on netflix.com. There aren't an
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I can tell, NFLX never booked a loss. They were making plenty of profit they could reinvest to grow the company.
They didn't need to change their model, much less twice.
This message brought to you by Borders management.
Re: (Score:2)
Rapidshare, Filesonic, Megaupload and JDownloader?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you get a particularly nasty and painful form of cancer...
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot if you think it has anything to do with skin colour. There are violent and retarded cultures all around the world, gangs and drug users in every major city.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: we treat everyone that way now.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even the all at once, IMHO.
It's the "you're getting better value with us raising the prices and nothing additional being added" spin they tried to put on it.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had said, "Our licensing fees are going through the roof, and this new pricing scheme will help us build an even better collection of streaming content," I would have been happy to pay a little more.
That was my first reaction as well. But think about it. Why would Netflix intentionally bad-mouth the very people they're trying to negotiate lower prices with? That would accomplish nothing except even HIGHER prices for the content.
Their hands were tied. Sure, what they ended up saying didn't sound good at all, but there's no way they could have blamed the real reason for the increase.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Informative)
Because unlike the copyright cartels, Netflix is actually trying to bring content to people the way people want to have it, in an online form where much of it is at their fingertips, without having to resort to piracy to achieve same? A legitimate service that's about as good as what the pirates enjoy is a good thing for everyone. It's something the cartels should be encouraging. If they had any sense at all or any ability to think beyond the next quarter, they'd remove as many obstacles as possible and become as easy to deal with as possible in order to help this happen.
Netflix is bringing them a lot of business they may not have enjoyed otherwise. That should be a decent bargaining position. If not, someone at Netflix needs to learn how to negotiate...
I think they'd be celebrated if that's the reason and they were actually honest about it. The standard corporate practice is to insult your customers by giving them a line of bullshit, as though they were too stupid to read between the lines. They'd distinguish themselves from most other corporations by choosing to do otherwise.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Interesting)
Because unlike the copyright cartels, Netflix is actually trying to bring content to people the way people want to have it, in an online form where much of it is at their fingertips, without having to resort to piracy to achieve same? A legitimate service that's about as good as what the pirates enjoy is a good thing for everyone. It's something the cartels should be encouraging. If they had any sense at all or any ability to think beyond the next quarter, they'd remove as many obstacles as possible and become as easy to deal with as possible in order to help this happen.
That's fine and dandy, and I agree with you there. But the fact remains that they're simply not being easy to work with, and as they control the content, they get to make the rules, as stupid and stubborn as they're being about it.
Netflix is bringing them a lot of business they may not have enjoyed otherwise. That should be a decent bargaining position. If not, someone at Netflix needs to learn how to negotiate...
I have no data to confirm this, but I suspect that Netflix is actually taking away a lot of their traditional business (DVD sales, pay-per-view showings, etc). The studios gave Netflix great rates before under the impression that it would be an additional source of revenue, but now they're losing money on the deal and are jacking up the rates as their contracts expire.
I think they'd be celebrated if that's the reason and they were actually honest about it.
Probably, yes, but there's a chance that the money they'd lose to the angry studios would be greater than the money they'd gain from an increase in appreciative subscribers. Hell if I know if that's true or not though; hypotheticals were never my strong point.
I appreciate the real response though, unlike the AC above who decided to be pedantic about my wording.
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't dealt with Hollywood, have you?
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Informative)
Netflix has zero negotiating power with digital streaming. They have negotiating power with DVDs because retail prices give them a BATNA.
The studios will raise their prices until subscribers * price is maximized. Then they will raise it a little bit more and take away Netflix's profit. If they give up their DVD mailing service then they are walking dead.
Blockbuster is dead because they didn't do the retail BATNA. They got in bed with the content owners and those owners ****ed them (in bed).
Never do a business where you have a single provided of your supplies if you want to make any profit.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Insightful)
"Instead they told me how great it was that I was going to pay more"
Can you please show me where you see that in the linked page? Personally what jumps out to my eye is:
Netflix: "By offering our lowest prices ever, we hope to provide great value to our current and future DVDs by mail members."
ie This is great for the people who just want DVDs by mail.
Netflix: "Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs."
ie Letting people who are in it for the streaming get DVDs as well for just $2 isn't generally profitable for us, and people who only want the DVDs and aren't interested in the streaming don't appreciate having to pay $2 more for a service they don't want.
Netflix: "We think $7.99 is a terrific value for our unlimited streaming plan and $7.99 a terrific value for our unlimited DVD plan."
ie They think both plans are worth the price they're charging for them. (Well duh!)
So they did say it's great... if you're either Netflix or someone who only wants DVDs. If you're not in either of those categories then they didn't say it was great for you.
Yes they're obviously trying to spin it by focusing on the people who will pay less, but they're not actually saying what you're trying to spin it as.
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not at all what they're doing. They have separate streaming licenses, since you're obviously making a copy when you stream (i.e. copyright infringement).
There *is* a company doing what you're referring to, Zediva, and there are already suits & countersuits going on.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not in any way a useful figure. We'd need to know the licensing cost per subscriber and ideally net revenue per subscriber.
I do know that there's been little change in prices at the post office, little change in DVD retail prices and little change in salaries. It looks like it's the streaming subscriptions that are increasing in c
Re: (Score:3)
I don't need a video streaming business. That's what bittorrent and massive amount of disk is for.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that. They'd see a pattern and draw a line to where they think it will logically end. Then, instead of bad will orbiting one event, it's a growing festering hatred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't a matter of the money it was the condescending latte comment and the outright lying about how this was good for the customer that really drove the revolt. Plus, the money isn't going to pay for increased licensing fees, they admitted that much. Which makes me wonder where the money is going seeing as bandwidth prices have been trending downward in recent years and their catalog is as well.
Personally, I'll probably move over the Blockbuster as they include games seeing as I'd have to pay for the st
Re:The issue wasn't raising prices (Score:4, Funny)
I, however, am highly entertained by paradoxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If Netflix had raised their prices by 60% in, say, their third year of existence (2000) and *then* not raised prices for ten years, then you'd have a valid comparison.
Re:Cost of mailing DVDs (Score:4, Informative)
What increase was there in the cost of mailing DVDs?
The United States Postal Service raises its rates over time due to increases in motor fuel costs and labor costs.
If not MPAA then what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might be having a latency issue. It works just fine in the US when I stream, PC or Wii.
Re:Yeah, sure you are... (Score:4, Insightful)
Empty Threats? Do you have any statistics to back that statement up?
I for one am a Netflix subscriber that used to be 5 DVD a month - when they had that plan. But I have downgraded 3 times. First when they started throttling movies and I wasn't get my DVD's in a reasonable time. Then I was at 3 a month. I dropped to 2 a month when they pulled the Blu-Ray "bait and switch" and started charging more for Blu-Rays.
Now this. So I dropped them to streaming only and I am considering canceling.
I don't think its empty threats. A lot of us have been with Netflix for a while and we have long memories. Each time the Netflix Management pulls one of these stunts, some of us cancel and some of us downgrade.
I came very close to canceling this time.
And its not about the money, its about being treated like a "customer" and not a "moran".
I think they really f'd it up this time and I think a lot of those threats of cancellation were not idle.
Re:Yeah, sure you are... (Score:4, Interesting)
the company's customers took to blogs and social networks in revolt, making empty threats to cancel their subscriptions.
FTFY.
I love how media consumers like to bitch about every little price increase (not that this is a small increase with NetFlix) and then threaten to leave. Make your idle threats all you want. It's become a case of the Boy Who Cried Wolf to those of us who work in such industries. You have to start actually canceling and citing the price increase as the reason why if you want any of the suits to pay attention. Otherwise, you're just "normal subscriber churn" to them.
I terminated my subscription last night and filled out their post-cancellation questionnaire. There was no option to cite that their recent price hike was the specific reason I was canceling. There was also no comment box for me to fill out and state this as well. The closest option was "I need to cut costs," which is certainly not the case. I don't think they will get the message based on the available responses unfortunately.