Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Businesses Technology

Netflix's Ad Tier Will Cost $7 a Month and Launch in November (theverge.com) 127

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Starting in November, Netflix will roll out its ad-supported tier for $6.99 a month, yet another sign that the onetime disruptive upstart streaming service has slowly become a cable package by another name. From a report: Netflix announced today that its new Basic with Ads tier is slated to launch on November 3rd, 2022, for $6.99 in the US, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Spain, and the UK. In exchange for making you watch an average of four to five ads per hour that run anywhere from 15-30 seconds, Basic with Ads will give subscribers access to a large swath of Netflix's programming but not the platform's full catalog. A small selection of television shows and movies will not be available to Basic with Ads subscribers due to licensing restrictions that Netflix says it's currently working on. Additionally, Basic with Ads subscribers will not be able to download content onto their devices, and video quality is capped at 720p / HD.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix's Ad Tier Will Cost $7 a Month and Launch in November More

Netflix's Ad Tier Will Cost $7 a Month and Launch in November

Comments Filter:
  • But still pay me.

    • Welcome to cable? It seems traditional.

      Consider all sorts of media:
      Cable used to be ad-free, but eventually had as many ads as broadcast.
      Magazines and newspapers, you generally have to buy them, and they're generally stuffed with ads. There are free ones out there, but those ones tend to be 90% ads.
      Hell, even printed books generally have some ads in the front or back.

      • Re:Ad supported (Score:4)

        by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:31PM (#62963583)

        Welcome to cable? It seems traditional.

        Translation: You get more of what you tolerate. Suck it.

        • I've actually never paid for cable in my life, I picked it up from my dad who seems to have an almost religious objection to paying for cable.

          The only times I've really had it is when travelling and staying in hotel rooms, or when my roommate back in the day paid for it. I've never seen it offer enough(especially with excessive ad loads) to justify paying for it. I'd put in an antenna so I can get weather reports/local news/a few shows(back before streaming was a thing). You could almost call this incide

          • If I wasn't enjoying the LOTR stuff they are making I wouldn't pay the $8 a month for the streaming service. Possibly if they release Wheel of Time S2 as LOTR S1 ends I'll stick around though that show isn't half as good. I'm as likely to just stop spending time watching stuff.

            I imagine Disney+ is totally worth it if you have children or still like Marvel/Star Wars/whatever else they have. I still find value in Netflix to carry a basic HD 1 screen sub and I still get DVDs sent to me. It's still worth it tho

          • That Amazon is one of the biggest data collectors on consumers and that the targeted ads in streaming are still soooo bad is just fucking confoundung
      • Yes, those things all exist. Is that supposed to make me want to pay for commercials?

      • Re:Ad supported (Score:5, Informative)

        by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:45PM (#62963653)

        Welcome to cable? It seems traditional.

        Consider all sorts of media:
        Cable used to be ad-free, but eventually had as many ads as broadcast.
        Magazines and newspapers, you generally have to buy them, and they're generally stuffed with ads. There are free ones out there, but those ones tend to be 90% ads.
        Hell, even printed books generally have some ads in the front or back.

        Perhaps you are too young, but actually, cable had ads from day one!

        You see, the origins of cable was to bring OTA TV to remote areas (say, a valey) where the OTA signal did not reach. The name was Community Access TeleVision or CATV for short, and started around 1948....

        You had to pay a monthly fee for putting an antena (say, a the top of a mountain), the cabling, and the upkeep (and some earnings for the operator).

        Cable TV slowly morphed from those humble origins to incorporate channels not available as OTA, some with ads (say, MTV), some without ads (say, HBO).

        Source:

        Head's Broadcasting in America:
        https://books.google.co.ve/boo... [google.co.ve]

        • Yeah, that about sums it up. You can still hook up a digital antenna and get some OTA stuff. I haven't tried it in numerous years but I hear it's gotten better.

        • Cable TV slowly morphed from those humble origins to incorporate channels not available as OTA, some with ads (say, MTV), some without ads (say, HBO).

          You forgot the 1,000 channels that were only ads.

      • Welcome to cable?

        Perhaps, but unlike cable there may be the chance to block the ads at the client side or at least download them but never play them so they cannot tell the difference. I suspect there will be an ad-blocking arms race for a few years.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Cable was never ad-free. Why do people keep repeating this myth?

      • "Cable used to be ad-free, but eventually had as many ads as broadcast."

        I don't know how people got stuck on the idea that cable was promised to be ad-free. It isn't just ahistorical, it isn't even technologically plausible. The network signals are transmitted with the ad slots in them. Some are pre-filled with national ads; some are filled by the cable company with local ads. Do people suppose the cable company was sending dead air during the the ad slots?

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:36PM (#62963601)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drhamad ( 868567 )
      I mean, yeah, it's partially ad supported, partially pay supported. You're not making a groundbreaking discovery here.

    • But still pay me

      first post, first thoughts.

      Have I got this right? You want me to pay ... To watch ads?

      Phowar!

  • Meh... (Score:3)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:09PM (#62963483) Homepage Journal
    I've been a DVD member since almost its inception as a business, and long time streamer.

    I'm about to pull the plug on both of them by end of this month.

    They just don't have anything worth seeing and I can't imagine paying for the service to get ads AND...nothing worth watching.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      If you're currently a Netflix DVD subscriber ($10, $15, and $20 tiers) and a streamer ($10, $15.50, $20 tiers), then you have nothing to worry about. You're still going to be ad-free if you change nothing right now.

      They're adding a NEW discount tier for $7/month with the differential in price being supported by advertisements.

      • OH I know...I'm quitting primarily because Netflix really offers nothing interesting to watch.

        I thought I'd had that in my original post...just was saying its bad any way you cut it at Netflix because all the good movies and such have gone to other streaming apps.

        Nothing much left at Netflix as that I'm not really interested in their home grown stuff for the most part.

  • Wouldn't even pay $1/month for Netflix with ads, let alone $7.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jhon ( 241832 )

      pluto.tv is free. And worth every dollar of it.

      • Not worth the effort to download, set up whatever.

        • Not worth the effort to download, set up whatever.

          Actually, I use Pluto.tv, and it is worth slightly more than the effort to downloa/setup/wahtever, but just barely, like by the skin of their teeth

      • pluto.tv is a collection of all the absolute bottom of the barrel stuff, or tv for people who don't actually watch and need background noise to fight their loneliness.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jhon ( 241832 )

          The SCANDLE! Completely free doesn't have first run mega hits??? The HELL you say!

          It's almost like TV from the 1980s!

          THE HORROR!

          • Ah the all or nothing fallacy. Nice. There is a rather large gulf between "first run mega hits" and "absolute bottom of the barrel stuff". But lets just pretend that I said that I expect pluto to carry first run mega hits, because your comment hinges on that false reality.

    • Wouldn't even pay $1/month for Netflix with ads, let alone $7.

      Then pay them U$D9 anf get the service with no ads, easy peasy

      • I wouldn't pay them $1/month for their ad-free service either, let alone $9.

        • Well then, you're not their target audience. From their perspective, "That's fine. Fuck off."

          • It sure is.

            Been fucking of a long time now since I cancelled their service when they raised prices without adding any value.

            Chasing their interface from decent to suck didn't help their cause any.

      • This. I don't understand the outrage. Allow those of us that know how to simply ignore an ad spend less that those that can't.

        "YOUTUBE ADS !!!@!!!!!!!111!!!!!1"

        Pay then, it's pretty simple. You are not entitled to entertainment. Entertainment costs money, and there are options where you can decide whether you pay, or the advertiser does.

        • Hey, don't cross that line. Pointing out that people feel so entitled to stuff for free they'll tie themselves into intellectual knots justifying it... that's just rude.

        • Average income from ad supported content is around 18 cents per view. They will be making gobs of money on the ad-tier from the ads alone, plus the income from the other sub tiers. Therein lies the outrage.

    • Yes, this. There are streaming services that are free with ads. I will occasionally watch those, I have a mute button. But I'll be fucked if I'm gonna pay and watch ads. I didn't pay for cable, and I'm not paying for this either.

  • and basic is getting 720P as well

    • and basic is getting 720P as well

      Luck for them, Netflix has never hidden that bandwidth costs money. Before the basic plan was introduced, normal was only 1080p, and 4K was only for premium.

      Basic being limited to 720p is par for the couse.

      Youtube has a harder battle, now that they want to hide 4K behind a paywall...

  • ... what has ads but doesn't charge a dime? Over the air television. And their costs to broadcast their signal have got to be at least as high as what it costs Netflix to stream to the people on this "ad supported" tier.

    • ... what has ads but doesn't charge a dime? Over the air television. And their costs to broadcast their signal have got to be at least as high as what it costs Netflix to stream to the people on this "ad supported" tier.

      OTA rules. I use my country's OTA (ISDV-b) extensively.

      But OTA is just a bunch of lineal channels. While netfilx is VoD (video on demand) so you (and not some guy in NY or LA or your local market) choose what you see at any given time...

      OTA is a great tool, and VoD is also a great tool. They are just different tools for different jobs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      You know what has ad and charges for their content? Over the air television. Around half of the broadcast networks revenue comes from cable carriage fees, charged to cable companies to allow them to carry their stations, and passed on to the cable subscribers. And cable, not OTA, is still how the majority of people watch them.

      Also the broadcast nets show about 20 minutes of ads per hour in prime time and that number has been creeping up over the decades.

      • This might be so, but how did OTA function for so many decades before cable started carrying their content for them? On top of that, OTA networks managed to do that back when the nightly news was just a "loss leader" for them vs being a profit center like it is today.

        • They used to get way more money for ad time, because they could charge for far more eyeballs. Shows were also made on far lower budgets and with far greater control by sponsors than today, because there weren't alternatives. Some people, myself included, are willing to shell out a few bucks per month for something better. It's allowed OTA to improve as well. Be grateful and stop bitching.

        • How many over the air channels did you grow up with? Advertisers paid for it for my whole lives, because even though it was a "free" broadcast, it was virtually ensured that each commercial reached a wide audience. I grew up with channels 2,3,13, and French on 12. When a company put down money for a spot during a Gilligan's Island rerun, it was worth it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Well they had way less competition and way more viewers. Successful primetime TV shows in 2022 are getting ratings that would’ve gotten them kicked off the CW 8 years ago and would’ve gotten the entire network executive team fired 20 years ago.. The market for ad support TV has drastically changed. Without those cable revenues over there TV wouldn’t be possible today.

    • Yeah OTA for the win! Except... in my last condo I only had an external unobstructed view northwards, when all of the broadcasting towers are south... and since the condo board wouldn't permit wiring up an appropriate antenna, I was SOL. Three indoor antenna attempts later, I gave up.

      So yeah! Provided you have the location, the signals, the antenna, and the patience, OTA clearly wins! Except you also then have to build your own DVR, probably with a Hauppauge card and a lot of trial and error...

  • I'm sure plenty of peoples' reaction is "fuck that," and that is a boring reaction precisely because it's so expected. And it's my first thought too, making it extra-boring to me.

    Someone, though, as a potential customer, might(?) consider ads-for-discount to be a good idea. I wonder how many people that is. Will this idea still be around a year or two from now, instead of being a failure? Could it even end up dominating the ad-free tier?

    I know, it's hard to believe. And yet, we know that lots of people stil

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      This is literally the price that I signed up with for Netflix a couple years ago. Without ads. When they still had content from other publishers.

      Now everyone has their own streaming service, none of which are good enough on their own to be worth what they're asking, and Netflix is just.. Irrelevant for me personally.

    • It's hard to imagine why someone would pay for something with ads. My #1 reason for abandoning cable nearly 20 years ago and switching fully to streaming was to avoid them. If they forced ads on all levels and their competitors followed suit, I'd just give up all video. The only reason I can imagine to watch ad-laden TV is that you're addicted and are just that poor.
  • How long that price will last before it is raised?

    • How long that price will last before it is raised?

      Who nows, but I can assure you that most of the time it will move in lockstep with the other two tiers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      Costs go up. Prices go up. For literally everything.

    • IIRC $7/mo was what real netflix started out as, or close to it. As in, the two-DVD-at-a-time plan type of thing.
  • The idea that I should pay for a service AND still have to watch commercials. One or the other, not both.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      I know, right! WTF do they think they are? Newspapers? Magazines? Sports Events? Doctors Offices? Toll roads? Airplanes? Buses and trains?! The fucking nerve!

    • The idea that I should pay for a service AND still have to watch commercials. One or the other, not both.

      I have a nice Idea for you. Instead of paying netflix $6 and get content + Ads:
      Why not pay them U$D 9 and get the content without ads?

      Let the "plebs" for whom U$D3 has meaning use the Ad supported tier.

  • So.. how much will the ad-free version be? Is there a viable alternative? Is anyone working to disrupt this moronic IP-exploitation fest? In short: where do I go next, or is it time to go cold turkey on TV and actually do something productive?

    • So.. how much will the ad-free version be? Is there a viable alternative? Is anyone working to disrupt this moronic IP-exploitation fest? In short: where do I go next, or is it time to go cold turkey on TV and actually do something productive?

      I had the same doubt. Basic service (1080p) with no ads is U$D9.

      No need to go cold turkey on TV. My sugestion as of where to go from here:

      1.) DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE without going cold turkey on TV. You can do something productive AND watch TV, the same way you can chew gum AND walk at the same time. Organize yourself.

      2.) Get yourself an OtA antena. That way you have most of the big Networks, and most important, local content (news and stuff) happening in your meat space local area.

      3.) Get yourself a "TentP

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      1. How much will the ad-free version be?

      $7/month.

      2. Is there a viable alternative?

      Yes. Subscribe to the next highest tier instead, which is currently the lowest, at $10/month and get no ads.

      3. Is anyone working to disrupt this moronic IP-exploitation fest?

      I don't know to what you refer.

      4. Where do I go next, or is it time to go cold turkey on TV and actually do something productive?

      If you're already paying for the $10 tier, you don't need to do anything. Nobody's current subscription tier is getting ads. It

  • This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @02:39PM (#62963617)
    assuming it gets any uptake. The price is a little high, it should be $5. But this gives Netflix a chance to let shows develop.

    Some of the most popular shows of all time had a weak 1st or even 2nd season but were kept on the air just to have something to fill a slot for advertisers.

    But without adverts Netflix shows are sink or swim. If they're not driving massive views they get cut. It's too costly to risk something that isn't bringing and keeping subscribers.

    With adverts they can take some risks and keep shows going for a bit longer to see if a few changes can lead to a winning formula.

    • With adverts they can take some risks and keep shows going for a bit longer to see if a few changes can lead to a winning formula.

      My guess is they will have to clear house in order to come up with a winning formula. Many of the present employees want total control over what Netflix shows, and they have a whole list of things they hate that must be eliminated. Unfortunately, that ends up being anything that is entertaining, and replacing it with the likes of Amy Schumer. New employees, new writers would be a big help.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      But without adverts Netflix shows are sink or swim. If they're not driving massive views they get cut.

      Then why oh why are they making shows like live-action Cowboy Bebop or Resident Evil? I am genuinely curious -- that's like trying to sink or swim with a massive weight attached to your legs.

      • That's entirely my point. Shows that start out bad can often redeem themselves but they need time for the cast and crew to get their sea legs as it were.

        The problem Netflix has is that if a show isn't a runaway hit out the door they have to cancel it immediately. That means all the time and money that's got spent is lost.

        Think of a bad first or second season has a beta. Think about how many software products you use daily that or barely functional in beta.

        • I understand where you are coming from.

          And once a show is known to be cancelled, nobody else may bother to start watching it, knowing that it got stopped halfway before it completed the full story.

          In other words, Netflix will be having "dead" shows that nobody else may want to watch.

    • But without adverts Netflix shows are sink or swim. If they're not driving massive views they get cut. It's too costly to risk something that isn't bringing and keeping subscribers.

      And people have been burned too many times watching shows that get cancelled without a proper ending, so now they don't start watching new shows until they get a proper ending. This takes years but registers as "zero views" until that happens.

      It's basically a chicken-egg problem and it's sad that Netflix can't see that.

      Maybe Netf

    • $5/month might have been nice when we had it, but reality is slowly catching up with all the services. The most directly comparable one is Hulu, and they're $6.99 for ad supported.

      I guess my question to you is, what is your cost per viewing hour? And what alternative do you have that can match it for entertainment cost/benefit?

      Okay, well, my cost per hour on Diablo III was so tiny it's definitely the king. But other than that...

      To me, $6.99 is not worth losing one moment of sleep. When I go to refill my cof

      • It's not about the extra $2 it's about the psychological effect from that extra $2. As silly as it sounds five bucks sounds like a lot less money than seven bucks even though it's not. Human beings are bad at math

    • assuming it gets any uptake. The price is a little high, it should be $5. But this gives Netflix a chance to let shows develop.

      Some of the most popular shows of all time had a weak 1st or even 2nd season but were kept on the air just to have something to fill a slot for advertisers.

      Their survival probably had more to do with studio politics. TV networks were going to fill those time slots regardless. If you cancel one show then you make or buy another.

      But without adverts Netflix shows are sink or swim. If they're not driving massive views they get cut. It's too costly to risk something that isn't bringing and keeping subscribers.

      With adverts they can take some risks and keep shows going for a bit longer to see if a few changes can lead to a winning formula.

      I'm not sure I see the relationship.

      If the show isn't popular it's not going to bring in much ad revenue either.

      I do agree that Netflix should to a better job of keeping mediocre shows around, or at least giving them a proper conclusion.

      For traditional TV everything needed a timeslot. So if you decide to cancel the show you don't have an

      • I don't see it either. With networks, the show had to do really bad to get pulled off, as they needed to replace it with something. In year 2, they'd have to replace it with a new show. Sometimes it was better to go with the devil you know. By the third year it was either doing better or it was dead. Netflix has no shortage of shows and they see the entire season before releasing it. They know pretty quickly whether they want to kill something.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      But this gives Netflix a chance to let shows develop.

      They have been cancelling a lot of shows lately. Getting as bad as some of the linear TV networks. Cancelled a lot of in-development ones too.

      Netflix used to rely on the "long tail", so even shows that were not instant mega hits could be viable because people would still be streaming them years later. Seems like they decided that's no longer an option.

    • With adverts they can take some risks and keep shows going for a bit longer to see if a few changes can lead to a winning formula.

      I do not really follow the logic you used to arrive at this. Many people will be turned away because of the ads. I have not participated in "watching" anything for over 30 years now. I have missed out on Friends, Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul, etc. Why? Because of advertisements. At best, I have maybe 100 years on this planet. Spending it listening to people try to sell shit to other people is not my idea of how my time will be spent. I don't care if it ruins the economy.

      Oh. Stop putting the beginning o

  • How about you charge me nothing to watch content with ads? Because that's how much it costs me to watch TV with my OTA antennae.

    So I'll either pay to watch stuff with no commercials or I'll watch the commercials and not pay. I am not going to pay to watch commercials.

    This is going to be a massive flop. Netflix is circling the drain.

    • How about you charge me nothing to watch content with ads? Because that's how much it costs me to watch TV with my OTA antennae.

      So I'll either pay to watch stuff with no commercials or I'll watch the commercials and not pay. I am not going to pay to watch commercials.

      This is going to be a massive flop. Netflix is circling the drain.

      AS I said in another comment, there is a small difference between OtA and Netflix (VoD).

      With OtA, SOMEONE ELSE decides what appears on your screen at any given time, that is called Linnear Channels.
      With Netflix, you can/must decide what to watch at any given time.

      So, netflix is not exaclty the same as OtA. So think of the U$D7 as what you pay for the posibility to decide for yourself what to watch at any given time.

      • "With Netflix, you can/must decide what to watch at any given time." - Yes, from a catalog of content that comes from Netflix that does not include OtA content. But point taken - Netflix does give you the ability to watch the show when you want to watch it.

        For me, the Netflix content is increasingly dismal. Disney and Paramount have siphoned off their content. What's left doesn't appeal to me very much.

        Apart from that it's not really the $7 it's the principle of it. The only reason I would pay for a streami

  • So now I'll get ads for antidepressants, period underwear and Diabetic drugs, medicare alerts, and since it's silly season, hundreds of political ads claiming that voting for the opposition candidate is akin to treason.

    Perhaps Netflix can fornicate themselves. That bullshit I just mentioned is why I don't watch most Television any more.

  • because the basic plan offers more content for $9.99/month

    • because the basic plan offers more content for $9.99/month

      Yes as you say, the basic plan offers more content NOW, but the goal is for it to be the same amount of contents. Also, basic has 1080p avaliable, while Ad supported is 720p only, and that is not going to change

      But saying that the Ads (and the extra resolution) are not even U$D 3 a month is a very naive way to do the calculation.

      # of subscribers has a value for Shareholders.
      If this ends up increasing subcriber base, because many of the people doing password sharing before now subscribe to this, or because p

      • Also, basic has 1080p avaliable, while Ad supported is 720p only, and that is not going to change

        It does not, actually it is worse than new plan - basic is capped at 480p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      Agreed. It's a non-story for the vast majority of people out there. The $3/mo. differential between the new ad-based tier and the existing $10 tier is inconsequential for the vast majority of people in the United States.

  • Netflix announced today that its new Basic with Ads tier is slated to launch on November 3rd, 2022, for $6.99 in the US, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Spain, and the UK.

    In Canada it's actually $5.99 CAD (approximately $4.36 USD). Not as much content as the US version (unless you use a VPN, which of course I would never do).

  • Reason: Inflation... I guess? (Score:3)

    by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Thursday October 13, 2022 @04:41PM (#62964171)

    Isn't $6.99 used to be what it cost without ads?

  • Is there anyone here who thinks this is a compelling deal? It seems like all of the comments are negative, but I'd be curious to hear from the person that values their free time so little that they'd be willing to sit through hours of ads to save $10 per month.

  • Starting in November, Netflix will roll out its ad-supported tier for $6.99 a month, yet another sign that the onetime disruptive upstart streaming service has slowly become a cable package by another name.

    Um, 7$/mo vs. ... well, any cable package is pretty awesome.

    (And I don't use netflix, no dog in this fight)

  • If it's ad aupprted it should be free.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    History section 1.6 : Ad-supported tiers, spiraling subscriber loss and ultimate decline to a second-rate streamer

    Thanks for the innovation Netflix, it's been quite a ride. The evil empire will take it from here.

  • Seems like this is likely to flop. I just don't see people signing up to pay AND get ads. Netflix's only hope is that people will sign up without realizing they will get ads. Then when they get tired of the ads, they will sign up for ad-free. More likely, they will just cancel.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Close