Netflix Loses 1 Million Spanish Users Over Password Policing (bloomberg.com) 119
Netflix lost more than one million users in Spain in the first three months of 2023 according to market research group Kantar, a sign that the streaming giant's crackdown on password-sharing could backfire. From a report: In early February, Spain became one of Netflix's first markets to introduce a monthly fee for users who shared their log-in details with another household and technical measures to detect such sharing. The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else's password, according to Kantar's research, which is based on surveys of household streaming habits.
"It's clear this steep drop is due to the crackdown," said Dominic Sunnebo, global insight director at Kantar's Worldpanel Division, adding that the loss of a million users, even if most weren't paid subscribers, would be a blow to Netflix in terms of word of mouth recommendation for its shows and service. Subscription cancellations in the first quarter tripled compared to the previous period, according to Kantar's research. Of all remaining Netflix subscribers in Spain, one-tenth said they planned to unsubscribe in the second quarter. Spanish subscribers are charged $6.57 a month to add members outside their household. A similar fee was introduced in Portugal, Canada and New Zealand after a roll-out in several Latin American countries.
"It's clear this steep drop is due to the crackdown," said Dominic Sunnebo, global insight director at Kantar's Worldpanel Division, adding that the loss of a million users, even if most weren't paid subscribers, would be a blow to Netflix in terms of word of mouth recommendation for its shows and service. Subscription cancellations in the first quarter tripled compared to the previous period, according to Kantar's research. Of all remaining Netflix subscribers in Spain, one-tenth said they planned to unsubscribe in the second quarter. Spanish subscribers are charged $6.57 a month to add members outside their household. A similar fee was introduced in Portugal, Canada and New Zealand after a roll-out in several Latin American countries.
On how many total is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can cut out all the rest and just tell us both numbers and you'd be more informative than all the outlets that copy this tripe verbatim combined.
Journo standards are now low, and only dropping, it seems. And that's before noticing that these editors don't actually edit anything whatsoever. Two missed chances in one post.
Re:On how many total is that? (Score:4, Informative)
Out of about 5.1 million [flixpatrol.com]. This is a 20% drop in subscribers. Catastrophic doesn't begin to cover those sorts of losses. And this is exactly what I and countless others were predicting from the moment they started talking about this idiocy.
So can we please get heads to roll in Netflix's C-suite and start over with people who actually have a vision for how to turn the company around?
Re:On how many total is that? (Score:5, Informative)
Out of about 5.1 million [flixpatrol.com]. This is a 20% drop in subscribers. Catastrophic doesn't begin to cover those sorts of losses. And this is exactly what I and countless others were predicting from the moment they started talking about this idiocy.
So can we please get heads to roll in Netflix's C-suite and start over with people who actually have a vision for how to turn the company around?
Correction: A third of those million were actual subscribers. So this is more like a 7% drop in subscribers. That's still catastrophic.
Re: (Score:2)
We're still talking a 20% market loss. Because these people will now turn to something else. Maybe to a streaming service that isn't as restrictive.
And this in turn can result in a landslide, because partners tend to go to whoever offers them the most eyeballs.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they could leave temporarily and find out they aren't getting what they were looking for elsewhere.
Re:On how many total is that? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, a ROI has to be calculated.
Netflix lost around 330K subscribers, but those subscribers were accompanied by what were, in Netflix' opinion, 670k "free loaders." So they need to calculate the cost of providing service to those 670k users vs the revenue generated by the 330k lost paying customers.
The result of that calculation is what ultimately determines whether or not they are incurring a financial loss, and the degree of "catastrophe" that such a loss represents.
Personally I'm rooting for "catastrophe" because my wife and I, while not separated, have two households and we tend to "live apart" most days because it's easier and works for us. We're sharing a Netflix account and it just wouldn't be worth it to us to have two, so we'll cancel if this comes down on us.
And I suspect a lot of the people canceling are people who are in a similar type of a position: where it's one "family unit" but maybe the kids are now college-aged and have either gone off to college or spend a lot of time at their significant other's place and so they still share an account. If Netflix bills the parent more because they're doing this, the parent might well say "I only watch like one movie a month or something... so sorry kiddo, you've got to pay for your own now because this isn't worth it." After which "kiddo" is like, "Yeah YouTube and Twitch are free and work well enough so screw that."
Re: On how many total is that? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to use the word "contractually" then you should probably look at the contract.
Besides, they almost certainly won't bother you. I'm in the same boat, and ostensibly Canada came under the policy at the start of the year. Nobody has bothered me yet. You and I, with our lone external user, are not their target.
Re: (Score:2)
> Netflix lost around 330K subscribers, but those
> subscribers were accompanied by what were, in
> Netflix' opinion, 670k "free loaders." So they need to
> calculate the cost of providing service to those 670k
> users vs the revenue generated by the 330k lost
> paying customers.
Well, I don't know which of Netflix's plans is most popular. But I subscribe to the 4-stream plan. So the cost of providing the service to up to three "freeloaders" in addition to myself is already baked in to my bil
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, a ROI has to be calculated.
Netflix lost around 330K subscribers, but those subscribers were accompanied by what were, in Netflix' opinion, 670k "free loaders." So they need to calculate the cost of providing service to those 670k users vs the revenue generated by the 330k lost paying customers.
An average household has 2.5 people. These accounts had an average of three people. These are, for all intents and purposes, normal paying customers in every respect, to within a small margin of error. This can basically be summed up as "Netflix lost 7 to 8% of their subscribers because they got greedy and tried to extort some people for more money over a disagreement about what constitutes a household."
It's bad. There's no way to sugar-coat it. This was a bad call. And everyone said so long before th
Re: (Score:3)
Re:On how many total is that? (Score:4, Insightful)
You still aren't even bothering to guess at what it might cost to provide the service. If just maximizing the number of users is the goal, why not just sell the whole country a single password for $6.57/mo?
This is not even slightly similar to an entire country sharing a password. This is three people (on average) sharing a password. This is a fairly typical family unit size, and the only reason it suddenly became a problem was because some software system decided that they were in different areas that were too far apart geographically (whether correctly or incorrectly) and tried to coerce them into paying more.
And as most of us suspected from the very beginning, they had already maximized the amount of money they could realistically squeeze out of these users, so when Netflix got greedy and demanded more, the users predictably told them to go screw themselves.
In all likelihood, they are all single households that are, for whatever reason, temporarily living apart (e.g. college kids living in a dorm), not true multiple households. Software can't tell the difference. And that's why this was a bad idea. And that's why we told them this was a stupid idea when they first hinted at it, and that's why I have exactly zero sympathy for the bloodbath that their stock is going to take if they continue this stupidity elsewhere with similar results.
Re: On how many total is that? (Score:2)
You know what also has an average size of 2-3 people? An ex couple who never lived together yet shared their accounts. A group of close friends who split the cost of multiple streaming services amongst them. And whilst anecdotes are not data, given h
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I call bullshit. That's not how data works. You can't just assume that because the average users per subscription roughly aligns with the average family size, that necessarily means a significant portion of these subscribers are families who live apart.
Realistically? We're talking about 8% of their subscriber base. Yes, it is theoretically possible for them to all be single people, but the larger the subset is compared with the population as a whole, the less likely the subset is to be statistically significantly different from the norm. At 8%, the odds are vanishingly small.
More to the point, only a little bit over 10% of Spain's entire population are single people living alone. Assuming Netflix subscribers are a representative sample of the populati
Re: (Score:2)
No, the extra users did not live in the same household. And also not the same account holder who spends part of the time in a different location. This is not the same as multiple streaming in the same house (ie, kids watching something different).
Re: (Score:2)
No, the extra users did not live in the same household. And also not the same account holder who spends part of the time in a different location. This is not the same as multiple streaming in the same house (ie, kids watching something different).
Based on what? I did the math, and it is extremely likely that most of the extra users were college kids. Spain's population of adults living alone (not in school) is only about 10%. You'd expect Netflix to have a fairly similar subscriber base to the population as a whole, perhaps with some dropoff over 65. So if every one of those 10% shared a password with two other single people living alone, that would add up to only about 3% of their subscriber base. They lost 8%. So 5/8ths of the people who drop
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect those 7% were probably on the verge of leaving anyway. Half of them probably didn't even remember they had a Netflix account because they didn't bother to notice the monthly auto-payments. The crackdown might have drawn their attention and made them realize they were still paying Netflix monthly, even though they hadn't watched it in years.
Re: (Score:2)
Good question! Netflix may have underestimated the blowback. In the process of eliminating moochers, they are also losing people who have been paying, but not actually watching.
Re: On how many total is that? (Score:1)
Reading comprehension fail on your part. âoeTwo thirds of whom were using someone elseâ(TM)s passwordâ. So really a loss of 300k, not a million.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally immediately replied when I realized that mistake. It's literally the first response to my post. Not my fault this site still doesn't allow post editing 20-odd years later. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see our posts probably crossed time-wise. Not your fault the site still doesn't tell you about more recent replies twenty-odd years later. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone who doesn't want to scroll up, dgatwood's first post was at 1:30 (EDT), his correction was posted at 2:26, pezpunk's correction was posted at 2:29.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone who doesn't want to scroll up, dgatwood's first post was at 1:30 (EDT), his correction was posted at 2:26, pezpunk's correction was posted at 2:29.
The first post wasn't mine. My original post was at 11:26, my correction was at 11:28, and pezpunk's correction was at 11:29. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
That'll teach me
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Netflix should have replaced the ones making the bad decisions. Instead they let them make even worse decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternatives? Keep the freeloaders? Start advertising?
Re: (Score:3)
They are indeed starting to stream advertisements.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The alternatives? Keep the freeloaders? Start advertising?
Allow one to add Full-HD or Ultra-HD to the basic plan (1 stream). Adding "features" should not be tied to "adding streams".
Re: On how many total is that? (Score:2)
"5 people who shared their Netflix password this year got eaten by bears. Scientists are concerned."
Churnalism (Score:2)
> Journo standards are now low, and only dropping, it seems. And that's before noticing that these editors don't actually edit anything whatsoever.
There's a word for this kind of "reporting": Churnalism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
How exactly is it backfiring? (Score:4, Insightful)
People who were facilitating theft of services moved on along with people who weren't paying at all.
shrug
Re:How exactly is it backfiring? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is better for Netflix; getting one monthly payment for two viewers or getting zero monthly payments for zero viewers?
Re: (Score:2)
> Which is better for Netflix; getting one monthly payment for two viewers or getting zero monthly payments for zero viewers?
What are the average variable costs per-viewer in their cost structure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://variety.com/2021/digit... [variety.com]
I'm not privy to how licensencing deals are made, but there's no way they don't end up reflecting the number of views.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has value to the people, just not the value Netflix is asking. Supply and demand works in many ways. The problem is that Netflix can only choose between getting x/3 bucks per viewer or zero bucks for no viewers. They can't get the x bucks per viewer that they want.
Now it's on Netflix to determine whether that is enough or whether they have to insist in x per viewer. The latter may lead to them being too expensive to operate.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The problem is that Netflix does not provide adequate value for cost. Countless studies have shown that most people are willing to pay for content if the offer is good and perceived as fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question. The actual equation Netflix has to consider is: Net = $ Added by Signups - $ Lost by Cancellations
Not everybody who shares will cancel when they can no longer share. And some people freeloading will, in fact, sign up. As long as the equation nets positive, it was the right move.
You can't look at one such transaction in an atomic manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is better for Netflix; getting one monthly payment for two viewers or getting zero monthly payments for zero viewers?
If Netflix's gross margin is less than 50%, which is it, then losing two viewers while only losing one payment puts them ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you do understand that what matters in commerce is the bottom-line, right? And that one got significantly worse.
Re: (Score:3)
theft of services
I am paying for the 2 screens subscription currently, since there was me and my son for a long time. He went off to college, and is in a different location. It's still only 2 screens. There is no "theft" going on here. The "usage" has not increased.
I asked him recently if he still uses it, as my usage has dropped significantly. He does, so I'm still subscribed. It's the *only* reason I'm still subbed. If they put this in place I'll cancel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Theft of services" my ass. They're charging for multiple streams, and their system is already capable of limiting it to the number they're being paid for.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop with that bullshit. Netflix's terms didn't originally restrict account use to one physical location. Changing the service in that way was a business decision Netflix made. People who use the service as they originally agreed aren't "stealing."
Re: How exactly is it backfiring? (Score:2)
"I can get free HBO? Well let me get those wire clipers and climb up the telephone pole!"
Some things never change.
And Yet, Lost No Profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Those users were just leeches. They didn't contribute to Netflix revenues and they actually cost them money by using bandwidth that isn't being paid for.
If I buy 1 concert ticket and then sneak in 10 friends, if they kick out the 10 friends who didn't pay, the concert isn't out any money. Seems too many aren't getting that with this potential change. Yes, a small number who were splitting the price with a friend will end their subscription, but it's not a massive loss for Netflix or whatever service. They easily make up for it with the gained profitability in having all users pay for the service they're utilizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple math works that way, sure. And no doubt, that kind of thinking leads to clear, simple metrics for review time for some PM.
Consider that the people kicked off will either go to a share-friendly service or start pirating. If you're the one paying for Netflix and all your friends start using something else, you're likely to at least try that out, too. And maybe also leave and stop giving Netflix money.
I dumped Netflix years ago. The only thing that makes me curious about trying it again is friends talki
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is that 99% of users aren't pirating. Those that have any idea how are not the normal user. They'll either go to another service or get their own account. The average college kid or parent who has been sharing a password with a friend isn't going to learn how to seek out and download the shows they want, nor are they going to put in the effort. Even if they do, again Netflix isn't out any money it didn't have before.
Re: (Score:2)
And, yet, the REAL reality is that all crackdowns on "piracy" like this directly by these companies always ends up hurting the company more in the long run. In general, the people who pirate are always going to pirate and will never ever be a paying customer - it doesn't matter what you do. For these people it is pirate or ignore it. For ANY media type, one of its best metrics (that's also impossible to track) is word of mouth - the more people talking about it, the more views, the more money. Pirates still
Re: (Score:2)
You're VASTLY overestimating the abilities of the average user. They're nothing like you. They don't go to technology sites like this and they have no clue how to even find the sites you're describing.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to go to technology sites like this. In fact, sites like this are especially bad for trying to find that information. All they need to do is go on TikTok or Reddit. And the chances of you occasionally using at least one of those two if you're under the age of 40 is pretty high. Under 30 is damn near 100%. Sometimes it's as easy as installing an app on your phone - something Gen Zers are great at.
Let's put it this way, if Netflix always had this policy of no password sharing along with abilit
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, he is not. You are vastly overestimating the worth of Netflix to the average subscriber. Just like the Morons that "lead" Netflix, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's a point the news story doesn't really cover, and most are writing about it as though it's a bad thing. They aren't realizing it is a net win for the company.
The company did indeed drop about 8% of their paid user base in Spain. That's the income line, not the bottom line.
Most that left were the high cost customers, rather than profitable low-use customers. Those roughly 8% quite likely accounted for a far greater than 8% of the total cost because they were streaming to many individuals. Sure it
Re: (Score:2)
All streaming services see churn. They frequently see it when a popular series ends. Folks cancel and move to another service that has a new series they want to watch. Then they cancel that one and return to the other when the next season is released. So a single drop during a quarter isn't the whole picture. Since there's not one service offering everything and people aren't likely going to pay for a dozen different services, this churn and return is just the nature of streaming subscribers now.
Re: And Yet, Lost No Profit (Score:3)
A lot of people think that the leech is an apex predator. They bitch when something isn't free and they bitch when it is free with commercials. Then they speculate that this will actually hurt the company and make a sometimes-veiled reference to torrenting.
I would hate it more of it didn't remind me of dial-up days.
Re: (Score:3)
The company did indeed drop about 8% of their paid user base in Spain. That's the income line, not the bottom line.
Most that left were the high cost customers, rather than profitable low-use customers. Those roughly 8% quite likely accounted for a far greater than 8% of the total cost because they were streaming to many individuals.
No, they weren't streaming to "many individuals". If the summary is correct, a third of them were paid subscribers, so that means on average there were three users per account. There are, on average, 2.5 people per household in Spain. This means these non-household households had only 20% more users per account than you would expect by simple statistics, and even that might have a wide margin of error, i.e. the number of users per account may not be statistically significantly different at all.
Worse, as
Re: (Score:3)
Most that left were the high cost customers, rather than profitable low-use customers. Those roughly 8% quite likely accounted for a far greater than 8% of the total cost because they were streaming to many individuals. Sure it may have reduced gross revenue by 8% but costs to provide the service likely dropped by 15% or 20% or even more (they haven't disclosed the numbers but we can estimate), so it's a net win for the company.
I don't get how you derived that, for example my parents have netflix but its mainly for the grandchildren who wouldn't get it anyway, so they where low use customers leaving. In fact the only good reason I see to leave Netflix because people sharing your password where no longer able to do so is you really didn't see enough value in to keep it going without the password sharing, i.e. the password sharing is a feature people are willing to pay for.
So weather they are high value or low is speculation. Also a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Makes zero sense, but I bet this is exactly the same the incompetent Netflix leadership uses to try to explain their failure away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sharing a password certainly takes up additional bandwidth. It also means losing out on revenue from those who may pay if they weren't getting the service free.
In the end, they're just leeches on the system. They add no value. There's no loss to removing someone who wasn't paying you anything to begin with. Netflix isn't in IPO, when a company has their value largely assumed based on number of users, rather than profitability. They don't need to keep those folks around in order to help inflate their value.
Re:And Yet, Lost No Profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that while that's true for 2/3rds, the other 1/3rd seem to represent actual subscribers cancelling. The business objective was not just petty punishment of freeloaders, the objective was to convert some freeloaders to paying subscribers, with some net gain of paying subscribers, regardless of number of viewers.
They didn't expect a significant number of subscribers to cancel. They presumed that essenially all paying subscribers didn't inherently care about the 'additional' users of their account, it was a nice 'freebie' to share, but the other users didn't really factor into their 'subscribe/don't subscribe' logic. Evidently, many subscribers did care explicitly about sharing their account, and so they got a lot more cancellations than I wager they expected.
Re: (Score:2)
"They presumed that essenially all paying subscribers didn't inherently care about the 'additional' users of their account, it was a nice 'freebie' to share, but the other users didn't really factor into their 'subscribe/don't subscribe' logic."
That notion so obviously fails if what is going on is some form of: "I'll subscribe and let you use my account for X, where X is $3/mo or let me use your Disney account, or "you cook me dinner once a week", etc...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As the article says, they don't know if the 1 million are paid or unpaid users. Chances are, a larger percentage of those folks are not paying users. Most people sharing a password don't just do so with 1 other person, they do it with multiple.
That calculation doesn't figure in the cost of those sharing their passwords. Those folks typically cost Netflix far more than they generate, because they're allowing numerous others to leech the content. The 8% of revenue decline they saw is matched by the savings in
Re: (Score:2)
The 8% of revenue decline they saw is matched by the savings in not having to support streaming to those additional users.
What figures did you derive that from? True there will be a decline in costs associated with streaming to non paying users, but what that cost is unknown since content creation and other fixed costs are also a factor.
Note I am not saying Netflix is better of or worse of I am just saying there is not enough information, and all you are doing formulating an argument that suits your view. Just like the story is saying they lost 1 million users look how bad it is for Netflix, and they loose advertising, well ye
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess a multi-billion dollar company has had their financial folks do plenty of calculations to determine the likely impact and they know what their profitability margins look like. If they implement it in other markets, it's likely because they know how it'll impact them financially.
They'll be just fine losing your subscription. Somehow, they'll survive.
Re: (Score:3)
Those users were just leeches. They didn't contribute to Netflix revenues and they actually cost them money by using bandwidth that isn't being paid for.
If I buy 1 concert ticket and then sneak in 10 friends, if they kick out the 10 friends who didn't pay, the concert isn't out any money. Seems too many aren't getting that with this potential change. Yes, a small number who were splitting the price with a friend will end their subscription, but it's not a massive loss for Netflix or whatever service. They easily make up for it with the gained profitability in having all users pay for the service they're utilizing.
Since I bought premium with 4 simultaneous streams I in effect bought 4 tickets to stream the concert, and no more than 4 people will be streaming the concert at any time. Why should it matter if they are in my house, on the train, on vacation, or in a dorm room?
Re: (Score:3)
In all the cases you mentioned, you can share that account.
Re: (Score:2)
They lost 2 leeches and 1 paying customer for every 3 viewers they are down. The question now is whether the loss of that paying customer warrants getting rid of the two leeches.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be this is likely 99% loss. Leeches should be very cheap (no license cost, delivery is very cheap), but a lost subscriber is almost 100% loss and they may be pissed off enough to encourage others to not even subscribe. There really is not way to interpret this result as anything but "catastrophic".
Re: (Score:2)
You just failed math 101. They lost 300k paying subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that analogy is that they aren't just going after people who cost them money. If they only sent notices to people who shared passwords and were heavy users, nobody would care and they would be penalizing the correct people.
Wishful thinking won't bring back my revenue if I get a notice. Our account is already under utilized and I won't be extorted just because my Dad sometimes uses it too, like he has since the start. We pay for X streams, or we don't. I'm also not going to jump through
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that your maths do not include the loss of paying subscribers. Convenient eh? That should tell you that you are looking at this too narrowly. On the bright side, so are the Netflix executives, so you are in good company. Keep those maths going bro.
So will netflix have to pay the studios more ? (Score:2)
They, presumably, pay on the basis of the number of eyeballs that watch the films. If there is password sharing then many more people have watched the films, so surely netflix has been historically under paying. I wonder how that will work out.
Re: (Score:2)
They, presumably, pay on the basis of the number of eyeballs that watch the films. If there is password sharing then many more people have watched the films, so surely netflix has been historically under paying. I wonder how that will work out.
Netflix doesn't do any Nielsen-esque counting of people in the room, so they are fundamentally unable to pay based on the number of eyeball impressions. They probably pay per play (with a varying structure for partial plays.)
Re: (Score:2)
They may well also just pay per "how many accounts have access", because that matches their own price structure.
Netflix will wisen up (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to handle this is mostly through proper pricing. Price in not what you feel you should charge per user, but what makes sense given the aggregate number of users in the area. I.e. - your profit must be X, your registered user base (which is not the same as actual people watching) is Y, the fee is X/Y. That does price in any externalities (such as account sharing), but avoids antagonizing users.
It also produces more subscribers than tough policing will. This is because some subscribers are "on the fence" about the service. For example, parents/adults are often not all that interested in Netflix, but they do have the income and they want to do something nice for their (somewhat adult/living elsewhere) children. So they may maintain an account to let the kids watch. Under the draconian policy children will not get their own accounts ("too expensive", they can download/watch youtube) and parents alone do not need one. So, Netflix gets less revenue, not more.
They will figure this out, eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
They will figure this out, eventually.
Techbros eventually figure out normal, social human behavior? Sure, and my mom's basement is really the Batcave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think so. Or rather I think when the wisen up, it will be too late. A user that is gone and either has found an alternative or find they can do without is not coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to figure out, that's what they did originally. Now they have competition and they have to raise the price. They're gambling that pissing off account holders who share with close friends or family that doesn't live with them will lose them fewer subscribers than pissing off people with kids by cutting back on simultaneous streams, or pissing off everybody with big price hikes.
They might be right, but I doubt it's going to help them raise revenue. Rather than their gaslighting campaign, I thi
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that dumb flamebait like that is posted by AC trolls, because I would feel really sad if these were actual thoughts of a real person.
Is a drop of users? Or a drop of accounts? (Score:2)
If an account holders was sharing his/her password with other users, and as the crackdown happened the extra users left, but the account holder remained, then no biggie. This not only mantains the same income, but also lowers bandwith expenses. A net win for Netflix!
If, on the other hand, account holders cancelled, then yes, it is a problem.
Only time will tell.
Tendre que llamar a algunos panas en espa#a para que me cuenten con mas detalles como esta el Zeitgeist
Re: Is a drop of users? Or a drop of accounts? (Score:2)
Only time will tell.
Or TFS:
a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else's password
Re: Is a drop of users? Or a drop of accounts? (Score:2)
Try reading more than just the headline, ding dong.
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers say 300k account holders quit. That is pretty catastrophic.
Should have just shown them ads (Score:2)
Users, not customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they were losing lots of users - but not customers. The thing is, where I am, they offer 720p one user, 1080p two users, and 4k four users. I have zero need for even two users, but would have to pay for four if I want 4k. So guys, be a little bit more flexible and allow high resolution single user for a little bit more than low quality.
I think those users have to be in the same location. Ie you can't be one of those users and your kid who is at college is another user sharing passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they stated that 2/3rds of the users were not customers, but that means 300,000 customers were lost.
Considering their goal was to ultimately increase customers, this seems to be a failure at their objective.
Calling It Now... (Score:2)
Netflix will be bought by another company/service within the next year.
I'll go ahead and name NBC/Peacock as the buyer, but I'm much less sure about that part.
Something doesn't add up in that article (Score:2)
Subscription cancellations in the first quarter tripled compared to the previous period, according to Kantar’s research.
And 2 lines down:
“We see a cancel reaction in each market when we announce the news,” Netflix said in its first quarter earnings release on April 18, expecting the dip to be momentary before users that didn’t pay start signing up for their own accounts.
Someone who uses someone else's account doesn't cancel. They have no account to cancel. Only the original subscriber can cancel. Why would you expect me to sign up again after I just canceled my account? You might hope that someone who didn't sign up and used someone else's account does, ok, but they didn't cancel. The people who canceled were by definition people who had an account they could cancel in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who uses someone else's account doesn't cancel. They have no account to cancel. Only the original subscriber can cancel. Why would you expect me to sign up again after I just canceled my account? You might hope that someone who didn't sign up and used someone else's account does, ok, but they didn't cancel. The people who canceled were by definition people who had an account they could cancel in the first place.
The person who was paying for the account may cancel and then one or more of the original sharers decide to open an account since they no longer have access to one.
That said, I expect that to be a somewhat rare occurrence. I do see Netflix's point though - an account isn't supposed to be a free for all for you and everyone you know to watch the content. If you and other people that live in your household are using it there and on the road that's fine, but if your friends and family actually living in diff
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that Netflix made an offer that they didn't want to follow through.
They offered low res for one watcher or high res but you have to take an account where 4 people could watch. Of course, that account was a lot more expensive. Netflix' calculation was, probably, that a lot of people would want high-res but didn't have any use for 4 streams, but making it cheaper wasn't in the cards either. It's akin to what telcos did with their "free" local calls, thinking that nobody would be on the phone 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. It's just the same old overselling scheme, reaching the inevitable Shocked Pikachu then tantrum when it doesn't net them all the free money.
I canceled my account and I don't share my pass (Score:2)
Netflix have decided to treat customers worse than cable companies. Screw it. I don't need them in my life. I canceled my netflix service. Paramount did something dicky a while back that didn't play nice with Chrome and uBlock. Screw it. I don't need them in my life. I canceled Paramount+. Never subscribed to Hulu because it's just a scam to get you back to paying $100/mo like cable from 1999. All that's left is Peacock and that streaming service that has Dr Pimple Popper and Little People Ghost Hunter Fian
Spain and Netflix (Score:3)
I spent almost 2 months roaming around in Spain late last year. In the five AirBNB/VRBO we rented, they all had smart TVs and everyone one, except one, had someone logged into Netflix (and no, it wasn't the owner), HBOMax, or etc.. So, some of this is not 'sharing', it's simply people forgetting to tell the smart TV to forget their credentials.
It was a minor adventure to find out what free streaming services we would get when we got to the next rental.
What they lost: (Score:2)
They lost
1)Word of mouth ("exposure") from 1 mil users. Not insignificant, and market share is considered often more valuable than immediate profit. So, that's something lost. That's what a spokesperson for Netflix claimed was their big loss here, and I'm inclined to agree.
2)Their profit margin on 300k customers, minus the cost of service to the 700k leeching accounts. Note, they aren't losing the total monthly subscription dollars, just the profit margin. Their profit margin is 13.6% (it's published). They
Nevermind "sharing", I can't watch in two places.. (Score:2)
As I understand these new "sharing" rules, I can't even "share" with myself... For example, I cannot watch Netflix on my home TV and later on my office TV (or my vacation home TV)...
The rules are oriented towards "locations", "homes" -- whereas I'm just one guy that may have a few TV's in different locations... I can't even use MY account in a few locations. If I can't, I will cancel...