Netflix Raises Prices Again 77
Netflix will raise prices on most U.S. and Canadian subscription tiers after adding a record 19 million subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2024, bringing its global total to 302 million users.
The standard plan without ads will increase to $17.99 from $15.49, while its premium tier rises $2 to $24.99. The ad-supported tier will cost $7.99, up $1. The streaming service's quarterly revenue topped $10 billion for the first time, jumping 16%, while operating income rose 52% to $2.3 billion. The company credited recent successes including the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul boxing match and "Squid Game" season two for the subscriber surge.
The standard plan without ads will increase to $17.99 from $15.49, while its premium tier rises $2 to $24.99. The ad-supported tier will cost $7.99, up $1. The streaming service's quarterly revenue topped $10 billion for the first time, jumping 16%, while operating income rose 52% to $2.3 billion. The company credited recent successes including the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul boxing match and "Squid Game" season two for the subscriber surge.
Testing (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix is simply testing the limits of what people will be willing to pay for their service.
There IS a ceiling and crossing it will see folks leaving the service behind.
Until then, I would expect to see the rates climb every year.
Much like any other industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Abandoned Netflix years ago. I do not miss it.
Re:Testing (Score:5, Insightful)
They hit my limit about 3 years ago. Now I just sign up for one month of service every year to catch up on shows that I missed.
Because Netflix is also doing fewer episodes per season and stretching the breaks between "seasons" on their most popular shows, it usually means that I can get caught up in just one or two weekends of binge watching. It's certainly not worth the $200 a year they're trying to charge me for this service to have it around all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're not the only one and so I bet they're factoring that in to their calculations. They could raise it to $100/month and you'd pay annually more than now but less than that $200. That's probably too high, but useful to illustrate the point, but maybe that's what they're working on.
Re: (Score:1)
The phenomenon you're referring to is termed the "trust thermocline." [medium.com] Give it 2-3 years, tops, and Netflix will be dead, along with Meta/Facebook.
Note how Twitter keeps hemorrhaging users too...
Next Test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it is impossible to construct a capitalist society that can sustain ad-free TV or not. But I don't believe it is possible in the US.
Streaming is following the exact same trajectory as cable, because it operates under the same constraints. Any other form it could take would also be subject to demands for growth every quarter, which is impossible. To meet that demand, they have to: raise prices, insert ads, merge, cha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure - I think they may be adapting to the new model. In the DVD days I think most people had a netflix subscription and they kept it year round year after year.
After the shift to streaming without the wait times and reordering (intentional for retention or simply logistical) of queues there isn't much fricition to keep people from signing up binging the show they wanted to see and leaving. That is becoming more common as more competitors have cropped.
Response one was stop dropping full seasons of
Re: Testing (Score:3)
They're adding sports crap, which is the main reason cable got too expensive. I only have it because it's included with T-Mobile, effectively making the ad free version about $6. But it's barely worth that anymore, as another poster mentioned, their better shows now go multiple years between seasons. Fuck that shit, I'm just going stop paying anything at all and go back to piracy rather than effectively pay for a bunch of overpriced sports crap that I never watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu is bad in an inverse way, where only some of their content can be played in 4k on certain devices, whose manufacturers probably payola-ed to get access to. My Pixel 6, which was older than my tv was granted this access and I could cast in 4k. That's downright ridiculous, when the stream should be wholly device agnostic.
Re: (Score:2)
They have to be careful though. Apparently one of the Canadian retailations towards the 25% Trump tariffs is to increase the US digital services tax on services like Netflix. (The tax applies to companies outside Canada which provide popular services but do not do significant other business in Canada.).
In other words, the goal is to drive up Netflix prices even higher, encouraging Canadians to drop the service.
Re: Testing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is simply testing the limits of what people will be willing to pay for their service.
See "Laffer curve" for more on the theory behind this.
Canceling my account (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're scaling back their scripted content and adding pro sports and WWE and now they're asking me to pay more on top of that? No thank you.
I don't give a toss about pro sports or wrestling so they are functionally asking me to pay more for less and that's not going to fly, especially since they just raised prices in 2023. If they want to create a separate sports pricing tier that would be great but I'm not down with paying for other people's sports packages.
We all know there's other ways of getting a hold of media content and I guess that's the way I'm being pushed.
WWE is not sports it's scripted content (Score:3, Informative)
WWE is not sports it's scripted content
Re: (Score:3)
I have a feeling lots of pro sports are decided ahead of time. The owners are all part of the same club after all.
Re: WWE is not sports it's scripted content (Score:1)
Why would you skam anonymously if you really believe that?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch any sports.
Re:WWE is not sports it's scripted content (Score:5, Informative)
That's why I said "pro sports and WWE". I'm sorry if that broke your brain.
Re:WWE is not sports it's scripted content (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and no. The story lines are mapped out in advance, and the matches are not actual sporting competitions as the winners are predetermined.
But not all fiction is "scripted." There is a lot of improv that happens in a wrestling match. Most of it actually. Wrestler's have internal jargon that describes how this works. The word is "calling." Sometimes both wrestlers will be the caller, but more often than not they decide in advance. The caller is basically the person deciding in the moment what move(s) they want to do next and the call is them informing their "opponent." Typically the only 'scripting' that happens within a match are the big stunts that you only see in the PPV events because they come with way higher risk and are meant to be extremely flashy & show-boat-y... as opposed to the typical moves you see in any match.
This whole reply is pedantic af... but wrestling's history with kayfabe has led to a ton of misconceptions about what it actually is vs what it's not. With many wrestling fans despising the word "fake" even though they know full well that they're not watching an actual sporting competition. Instead they're appreciating the stunts & risk taking, and the long term damage that the performers inflict upon themselves for entertainment. While non-wrestling fans have no problem with the word because they're talking about the pretend sporting competition aspect and predetermined story lines.
It's an interesting art form. My wife and I are part time magicians and there is a shared history which is why I know so much about wrestling. Both have their roots in the travelling sideshow and wrestling moves are kinda similar to magic tricks in that they are trying to create the illusion of something (only most wrestling moves are way more dangerous to execute than most magic tricks, even though the goal is to do them as safely as possible).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Shhh!! Trump will hunt you down and eat your Chihuahua!!
Re: (Score:3)
Because if media is never paid for then it wont be made. Netflix also used to produce a lot more content that I watched then it does now.
I'm happy to pay for media that I want if it's priced reasonably relative to what I'm getting but a big part of why I left cable was because of pricing structures that added large amounts to my monthly bill to pay for other people's love of watching sports on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that the vast majority of 'media that is made' it is the opposite. It's made because people will pay for it. Rather than people wanting to pay for media to be made. Therefore I contend that media would be made (and in fact is made) purely because it can be sold. Just how much say do you as a paying customer get in what and how the media you want to watch/be provided is made or produced. I'm going to say the answer is Zero, so why
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? If media companies aren't making a profit they go out of business which means they stop making content. Likewise, if a media company isnt making money making shows in the genres that I enjoy they stop making things in those genres.
As I already said, Netflix used to make far more original content then it does now that I enjoyed thus I was fine with paying the lower fees of the time. Now with higher fees and less content I find them to not be worth the money. Especially when in pla
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue it's also the case that I don't have much of a say into what content gets created in the streaming marketplace. In the past, ads or DVD sales would tie to people watching or buying the content. Now with streaming there's no 3rd party Neilson ratings and there's no direct one to one payment for a particular show.
On the other hand, no media or less media being made doesn't seem like a problem to me - there's more out there by an order of magnitude or 3 than I could consume, even just of stuff that f
Re: (Score:3)
Streaming services know what is streaming or not on their network and will approve shows from production companies based on that. Since production companies almost always don't start production (outside of a pilot) before they have a buyer this is functionally the same as what you talk about with measuring what's popular with Neilson ratings.
In other words, if a ton of Netflix watchers are streaming lots of sci-fi Netflix is more likely to approve sci-fi shows from production companies so users functionally
Re: Canceling my account (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a lot like yours since Youtube also exists in my world. Apparently silly questions are thing where you're from though.
Same ol', same ol' (Score:3)
Farmer milks cows more. News at eleven.
In a couple of yesrs one month's price will equal that of one year when they first began. Streaming services won't mind people switching often because they'll milk the same or even more money by then.
Re: (Score:1)
Catchy cow tune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'm a dreamer (Score:5, Interesting)
I miss the concepts of 'reasonable profits' and 'price-gouging is bad'.
And if sports are so great for media profits, why do sports always end up bundled to force non-fans to subsidize them?
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the concepts of 'reasonable profits' and 'price-gouging is bad'.
And if sports are so great for media profits, why do sports always end up bundled to force non-fans to subsidize them?
Sports are good! Something something something value added something something. SEE!
I couldn't understand why people stayed with Netflix when they started their rate rises almost quarterly for less content. I don't even bother with the once a year thing anymore. There's not enough there to justify paying them for a month. WWE certainly isn't sweetening the pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, at this point I think it's laziness. People don't want to think about what content they want to watch, don't want to "change channels" or "buy DVDs" or download or whatever. They want to turn on Netflix and just spur of the moment select whatever looks vaguely interesting, and then they just watch it and it just keeps starting the next episode automatically. It's Cable TV reinvented with more specialized channels dedicated to you.
I think some people just like "insert random show here" more than ot
One Man's Dream is Another's Nightmare (Score:2)
I miss the concepts of 'reasonable profits'
I'm sure most companies would argue that the concept is still there. The problem is that what a CEO wanting to make millions in bonuses each year thinks is reasonable is not what your or I think is reasonable.
Re: (Score:1)
There you go with trans people on your mind again.
Re: (Score:2)
There you go with trans people on your mind again.
Netflix productions always feature way more trans people than expected, and most have pretty graphic gay sex scenes.
Does that make your peepee hard?
That's the funniest thing I've ever read on this website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: gee, Netflix (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
black people, hot women, mystery-solving eccentrics, people with superpowers, aliens, demon invasions, pro-am baking, and funnycars. It's all Woke.
You do understand woke doesn't mean things I don't like?
Re: (Score:1)
I think that was a parody. It's so hard to tell these days though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's what the people want. Get woke or go broke.
They won the price-war with Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney and others were trying to gain streaming market-share away from Netflix, seeing it as a land-grab battle of the new streaming frontier, so there was a giant price-war for a couple of years where the players subsidized their services to attract the most new users. But they couldn't subsidize forever, even fat cats have limits. Now that Netflix is the clear winner, they can go back to being profitable, and consumers get oligopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is the winner? They're coasting on a few popular shows that are wrapping up, most of their new content is trash
Re: (Score:3)
They clearly 'won' if you look at the stock prices of Netflix vs Disney for the past 5Y:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com] 407.791B market cap
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com] 197.048B market cap
Disney owns cruises, theme parks, Pixar, Marvell, etc.... and they are now less than half of Netflix market cap which is only doing video streaming and some video games.
HBO (Max) is private so hard to compare but they do not have nearly as many subscribers. Hulu is sort of a bundle, and the other ones don't really h
Re: (Score:1)
Which competitor has the wonderful content then? Maybe they just all suck, and Netflix simply has more variety of suckage?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple TV and HBO have had some gems
Sure wish Valve would get into video distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The rights holders are far too greedy for that. That's why companies like Disney and Paramount got in to streaming, except they helped saturate the market and then discovered how expensive and hard it is to develop and run a well performing scalable streaming platform and service.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Apple and Spotify.
They both do music better then even Netflix does movies and shows, have been doing so for years now, and actually have a fair (And ad-free... mostly... some podcasts do seem to be starting to sink under the weight of ads.) pricing model that is friendly to the customer, while making it trivially easy to access pretty much any mainstream artist and most of the more obscure ones. They are both good at recommending new music based on what they already know you like. And while I'm not sur
Re: (Score:2)
Music is different than TV shows in that there's usually not a new album yearly by each band, or a new song weekly or equivalent. In general open source people have made self hosted netflix equivalents now that work just as well, and then there's the paid Plex.
I've actually just kind of moved to youtube for music - I don't really care about quality much (and I don't think Spotify went for quality either) as I'm using cheap headphones over bluetooth, and youtube has playlists and all the songs for free anywa
Re: (Score:2)
Good ol' Gabe had it right when he said piracy is a service issue. Steam is such a reasonable and decent marketplace/service that I can't recall the last time I felt compelled to pirate a game. Sure wish we had something similar for Video distribution. Just let me buy Seinfeld Season 1 for a reasonable price, and then watch it on my account. Sure, you can charge a monthly fee for first day access to the latest new content (HBO?), or a fee for "live sports" or whatever ala carte options you want; or let those of us who just want to live in the 90s buy seasons 1-8 of the Simpsons outright.
100% this...
I know all about the ways and means to get things cheaper than Steam (I.E. CD Key sites) but I can't be arsed as it's not usually that much and Steam is nice, easy, unobtrusive and a company that seems to be somewhat ethical... and by that I mean not wringing out the tears of orphans to sell as an overpriced energy drink.
Everyone and their dog has tried to take on Steam by being worse than Steam and wonders why they failed. The only competitor that has even made it is GOG which did so by b
Lower quality content (Score:4, Insightful)
Too much (Score:1)
I finally cancelled my membership. It had been 13 years plus the DVD days starting in 98ish.
Android boxes can help (Score:2)
Ye market be grey. Yarrrr, anchors aweigh!
Probably the best service for the money (Score:1)
They're still probably the best service for the money.
The amount of entertainment value they provide versus the price is nominal.
Of course people will complain that it's going up. Insert stupidity of purchasing a bottle of water for three dollars, a cup of coffee for four dollars, 93 octane gas to get to the next red light quicker.
Or maybe it's just that their grocery bill is going up and yet they still throw away / waste the same amount of food each week. Ow let's revisit the price for a family to consume
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix can get fucked. Bye bye Netflix forever.
Re: (Score:1)
93 octane gas to get to the next red light quicker.
Just an aside on this. High octane gas isn't actually guaranteed to do that. Not in most cars at least. The whole point behind high octane gas is to reduce engine knocking. So you will get higher performance in some engines that use high compression and might get engine knocking that could reduce performance with lower octane gas. Generally 90%+ of modern ICE cars in the US won't encounter engine knocking with low octane gas because they have fuel injection, better spark plugs, precise computer control over
Cancelled (Score:2)
Nuff said. Well, putting ads on a non-free account was a cynical slap in the face. And multiple price increases, today's being the last straw. Can't cancel netflix from the PS4, have to find the well hidden cancel place in their web site. Their cookie management interface flips the finger ad EU regulations. Yeah. I've been on Netflix for 20 years. Enough is enough. Netflix can fuck themselves.
Thanks for reminding me to cancel (Score:2)
I can easily afford it, but I think we as a people need to push back against streaming services collectively hiking up the price. I know damn well that the film remnants I casually watch on Netflix doesn't cost that much.