from the maybe-they-could-sell-blue-checkmarks-instead dept.
The plan is to try to force Netflix customers to pay an extra $2-$3 every month for service for any users using your credentials outside of the home. An accidentally leaked Netflix help guide last week indicated that users who don't log into their Netflix account in a 31 day period would face the new surcharges, something that didn't go over well with either users or celebrities that travel a lot.
The company was then forced to backtrack, stating the guides were posted in error, and intended for customers in countries like Chile and Peru where the crackdown had already launched. Those efforts, as we'd mentioned previously, were also reportedly a confusing mess for subscribers in those countries, who say it was never really clear how the inconsistently-enforced system actually worked.
Netflix is embracing the move because the company's growth has hit a wall internationally, forcing it to begin nickel-and-diming existing subscribers if Wall Street is to get its improved quarterly returns.
[...] The question then is: is that modest bump in revenue worth alienating and annoying your existing customers in a competitive streaming market? We're apparently going to find out.
To be clear, I still think Netflix has value at its current monthly rate, and many people who complain about the new rate hikes are lazy and likely won't cancel. On the flip side, this move remains the latest signal from the company that it's done with being innovative and disruptive and has, as publicly traded companies usually do, shifted toward nickel-and-diming and turf protection as it attempts to fend off competitors.
Previously:
Netflix Fights Password-Sharing With Test of $3 "Extra Member" Fee
Netflix to Start Testing Warnings for People Borrowing Login Info
Related Stories
GammaWire is reporting: Netflix to Start Testing Warnings for People Borrowing Login Info
It's still a small sample size but we have confirmed from a number of Netflix users that the streaming service is starting to roll out a test of warnings to those allegedly borrowing account login information from users outside of their home or family.
For the time being, the number of users impacted seems to be relatively small (there is some loose chatter about specific users receiving these warnings on Twitter and other social networks, but nothing widespread yet).
The warning pops up and requests that users verify that it is in fact their account with a verification code. In other words, if you're borrowing your ex's account, good luck with that text asking for them to forward you the code.
[...] The most notable part of this whole test is that Netflix has long claimed letting people borrow passwords has been one of their strongest marketing channels. While never officially confirmed, there were reports that Netflix had metrics showing those who used other people's Netflix accounts were highly likely to sign up for their own accounts. This recent push to drive people borrowing passwords into signing up for their own accounts might indicate an internal shift in Netflix's customer acquisition data showing a worrying trend for the company.
Do you think users would bother setting up personal VPNs to masquerade as members of the same household?
Netflix fights password-sharing with test of $3 "Extra Member" fee:
Netflix will soon charge an extra fee for sharing accounts with people in other households. This is the company's latest attempt to reduce the password-sharing that has been common among Netflix users for years. The fee will roll out in Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru "over the next few weeks" and potentially go worldwide at a later date.
"Members on our Standard and Premium plans will be able to add sub accounts for up to two people they don't live with—each with their own profile, personalized recommendations, login and password—at a lower price: 2,380 CLP in Chile, 2.99 USD in Costa Rica, and 7.9 PEN in Peru," Netflix said in an announcement yesterday. Based on current conversion rates, 2,380 CLP is about $2.98 USD and 7.9 PEN is about $2.12 USD.
The new fee will be paired with the ability for users to transfer profile information (including their viewing history and watchlist) to a new account or an Extra Member account. After rolling out the fee and profile transfers in Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru, Netflix will "be working to understand the utility of these two features for members in these three countries before making changes anywhere else in the world," the company said.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Barenflimski on Thursday February 09 2023, @02:55AM (1 child)
I don't currently subscribe to Netflix. Maybe I will if its less crowded.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:08PM
Raising their prices and having less content might induce me to subscribe.
Especially their Netflix Original content, which seems to go for a season or two and then get cancelled right as the story gets going.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09 2023, @02:57AM (17 children)
>it's done with being innovative and disruptive and has, as publicly traded companies usually do, shifted toward nickel-and-diming and turf protection as it attempts to fend off competitors.
So, Netflix is already a two trick pony, one better than most meteor ride to success stories. 1) DVDs delivered in the mail, 2) streaming - both of those were ahead of the competition, but crucially: not ahead of their time or the infrastructure. DVDs in the mail utilized the internet of the day to its best advantage, negating the need for brick and mortar stores to browse in (buh bye Blockbuster) and utilizing the "station wagon full of tapes" solution to bandwidth limitations of dialup. Streaming rolled out just about as soon as the infrastructure could handle it, and DVDs kept the customer base until they all had sufficient broadband access.
I don't consider content production innovative, but that was their third play and they seem to have done quite well with it, but little by little the competition is finally staggering out of bed and pulling their content back from Netflix to make their own competing streaming services... Disney and Peacock come to mind but I'm sure there are plenty more examples. If anything, Netflix making their own content was a pre-emptive strike at how to weather this inevitability which was again: awesomely timed and pretty well up to speed before the majors like Disney started their streaming plays. If anything, this is a calculated abandonment of their original turf, not some kind of protection play to keep others' content available on Netflix.
So, here we are: market saturation. What's next? I believe they're already starting to push their homegrown content into other channels like movie theaters and maybe even cable networks, but that's kind of like selling your cars through the buggy whip storefronts. I really don't want much out of Netflix besides for them to keep doing what they're doing. I'd like to get more content produced by others through their streaming service, but I doubt I'd like to pay what that would cost while the "streaming wars" are going on. I'd like them to somehow make fiber to the home a reality, but that's asking more than they really can do within their current business envelope.
What is it you want would Netflix to do, that they aren't already doing?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aafcac on Thursday February 09 2023, @03:58AM (7 children)
They already were limiting how many simultaneous viewers could watch on an account at a time. What this says is that the extra screens you're forced to pay for if you want higher picture quality are a scam as you wouldn't be able to share the ones that are included in the more effective plans.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09 2023, @11:38AM (6 children)
What I would really like to see, the industry will never do. I would like an alacarte system where your monthly bill ends up averaging the same, but you pay per show watched. I would gladly spring $1 per episode of Andor, and I wish they would have charged $0.25 per episode for Obi Wan Kenobi just so I could have had the excuse to stop watching that crap because it's not worth supporting. Oh, and while we are at it: there would be a streaming cost, say $0.20 per hour, and a ONE TIME license cost for every show you watch, as you watch it.
There is still a problem with shared accounts in that scenario, in the one time license fee, but as an occasional watcher, I really don't like supporting the avid streamers who run Fireplace in the home 80 hours a week.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 09 2023, @03:15PM (1 child)
I don't want to pay per episode, per hour, or per X thing. You will definitely spend more money, if you have to pay alacarte for everything. Because I can guarantee you, those will all be rental prices. In the event that I got to pay once and never had to pay them again. I.E. Similar to GOG.com, I could possibly get behind that. (I forgot Amazon Prime rentals were a thing.) Otherwise, the system that you propose will only end up costing the average person more, in the long run. Sure, maybe not the person that only watches one show or will never watch more than 1 movie a week or maybe 2. Netflix offering a stream of a Fireplace that someone runs 80 hours a week, is Netflix's problem. Then again, perhaps that's literally all the customer uses it for. In which case, I would say that Netflix may be making out like a bandit. Also, your $1 per episode / $0.25 per episode are highly unrealistic for them to be charging.
Just look at the movie rentals on Amazon Prime. It's sort of the alacarte sytem you're looking for, except a lot more expensive than what you want.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09 2023, @10:14PM
>You will definitely spend more money, if you have to pay alacarte for everything
As I said, the industry will never do it, too much greed involved.
With modern tech, they certainly could generate the same revenue from the subscribers by having the average bills the same - the problem for people who use the service a lot is: there are a lot of people who don't use the service much at all, so the heavy users will get heavy bills - making up for the light users who pay but get little service.
Just imagine if exercise gyms charged by actual usage to generate the same income they get from selling annual subscriptions to people who never show up!
Maybe something like a base $5 per month "customer charge" with usage on top? I mean, the real thing I am "after" with this is: rewarding "good" content and killing off the crap faster because it doesn't generate as much revenue.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Thursday February 09 2023, @03:58PM (1 child)
Amazon already does something close to this. The prices are *slightly* higher, but there's for-pay stuff on their streaming service, even if you're already a Prime member. Enjoy!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09 2023, @10:16PM
I am an avid Amazon user. They can take their prime subscription fee dreams of me and stick them somewhere deep, dark and damp. I've had two trial prime subscriptions over the years, I know what they've got, and I don't need that subscription crack in my brain, any more than I need a Costco or Sam's Club membership bill.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by owl on Thursday February 09 2023, @04:18PM
This is exactly what the copyright owners want. However how they will want it to be will not align with what you think will come from this.
Except, the copyright owners will never go for such a low pay per view price. They will want to charge you something close to theater ticket costs, per viewer watching at the same time, for each viewing.
So if pay-per-view became the norm, prepare for paying $20 per person sitting in front of the screen at the moment for everything. And should you decide to re-watch X next week, prepare to pay $20 again for the privilege of watching it a second time.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:25PM
What I would really like to see, the industry will never do. I would like an alacarte system where your monthly bill ends up averaging the same, but you pay per show watched.
So would they, but they know it would never work. It would cost most people a lot more than they're paying now and they'd never subscribe. You and they would both lose money.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:14PM (4 children)
Netflix didn't kill Blockbuster, their own greed did. I linked an article I wrote about it below. Their DVDs were $5 a night like when movies still sold for over a hundred bucks when you could BUY that movie at Walmart for $5, while the competition lowered prices with their overhead. There are still video rental stores, not many, and none are Blockbuster.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday February 09 2023, @08:23PM (2 children)
The $5 a night was probably not an issue, the copies they rented were likely expensive, as is the staffing and realestate. The issue they had was when they stopped charging late fees, you could keep the tapes long and pay for a shorter rental. This also meant that they needed more copies to cover the need.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09 2023, @10:41PM
The real issue I saw "back when" was the content owners' greed: rental market tapes and DVDs selling for ~$100 per copy while they were "hot" which put a super-premium on end user's time holding said DVDs. At one point, we did "Redbox" to get the latest stuff, but returning that disc within 24 hours was a major PITA, even if you could copy it to a hard drive and watch (never rewatch, that would be illegal /duh) when you felt like.
One night, when returning a DVD at a Walgreens that I had no other business at, I noticed I was across the street from our local library branch.
Last night we watched Top Gun Maverick, borrowed from the library for free and with 7 days to return it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday February 11 2023, @03:09PM
The $5 a night was probably not an issue
Not when they were the only game in town and movies were over a hundred bucks each to buy back in the '80s, but a couple decades later when the Family Video literally across the street from Blockbuster rented 2 movies for 2 nights for $2 and Walmart sold that same movie for $5, that Blockbuster that still charged $5 didn't last long. Neither did any of the other Blockbusters in town.
That's a real-life example from right here in Springfield, with the real numbers. They were on 6th street as you came into town from the south. The Blockbuster closed a long time ago, I think the Family Video is gone now, too, but there's still a Redbox at the Walgreen's down the street. $1 a night, they make their money from late fees.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday February 10 2023, @03:34AM
You're one of the lucky 10,000 today. One is Blockbuster. Here's the wiki [wikipedia.org] on it. They put out funny tweets [boredpanda.com] for a while. I don't know if they still do it.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:22PM (1 child)
little by little the competition is finally staggering out of bed and pulling their content back from Netflix to make their own competing streaming services... Disney
...was producing its own content over a century ago, as was Paramount. Neither of them are catching up with Netflix, both were far ahead right out of the gate. And they're eating Netflix's lunch. Both half or less than what Netflix charges, and the content and display are head and shoulders above. They're both century old pros at it. Netflix wants an extra five bucks for their 4K that I can't tell from their 1080, while Disney doesn't charge a premium for it and its clarity is breath takig and puts Netflix to shame. At half the price.
Netflix isn't shooting itself in the foot with a .22, more like a civil war cannon. I foresee their downfall. Their greed will kill them, like Blockbuster's greed killed Blockbuster.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by stripes on Friday February 10 2023, @05:18PM
Disney and Paramount may both produce their own content, but it seems much easier to watch "all the good stuff" and run out on them then from Netflix. Which may be a result of Netflix licencien g other people's content, but for whatever reason when we sit down to watch TV D+ and P+ both seem to be "nope, nope, nope" & Netflix is "ok, yeah, that might be ok, lets try it". Now that is partly because I think we have watched all the MCU stuff on D+ already, there was a lot of it, but they aren't making a whole lot of it on a ongoing basis (as in if you watched all of it in December there isn't any more of it now). Granted tastes can differ, and maybe you love National Geographic specials and D+ has 600+ more hours of viable content for you than me.
Almost killed, almost. There is one Blockbuster left. Some day the number could grow!
(Score: 1) by stripes on Friday February 10 2023, @05:09PM (1 child)
Well I have a two screen account, which my wife and I both use. Mostly we use it to watch something together in the living room on the TV. Back when I use to leave th house to go to the office I use to also sometimes watch it on the bus. I would like Netflix to find a "no password share scheme" that doesn't make that kind of use harder than it needs to be. In theory if I used my iPad at home to download a show I was planning on watching on the bus Netflix would notice it was at the same address as the billing address and not kick up a fuss for a month, so if I that was my use case it would work out ok. However if I decided "hey I have all this unused 5G data, I can just watch the movie straight over air" (or more likely: I forgot to download ahead of time) then I would get hassled by Netflix.
I don't really need to come up with method which they could use to minimize false positives for "sharing" passwords and also catch enough of that "sharing" to positively impact their bottom line. I don't need to do that because I'm not a Netflix employee. It is their problem, not mine. Plus since I rarely end up riding a bus or otherwise out in public with a ton of idle time anymore I rarely actually feel like watching Netflix anywhere other than home. So really I should just downgrade my account from two streams to one.
In other words yeah, I understand their goals. I understand their cost structure. I don't think the goal of "well we would like to sell our service to people who use it as opposed to a subset of people who use it" is wrong. I just think it negatively impacts people who are legit customers of theirs and they need to figure out how to minimize that otherwise people will start cutting back, which would be counter to Netflix's real goals.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 10 2023, @09:46PM
Security vs convenience. When are they going to grant access based on retinal scans or DNA testing of a finger prick blood sample? I would never use such a service, but... I actually had my insurance agent suggest I install a tracking device in all four of our cars for "more affordable rates..."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by crafoo on Thursday February 09 2023, @02:58AM (3 children)
who really watches this trash? you might as well admit being an enormous pussy and just start mainlining heroin. skip to the end-game and save everyone time.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2023, @03:12AM
Your mom does. She shares her password with me so when she's over here we can netflix and chill, if you know what I mean.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:10PM
Look here sonny, I remember back in the day when I used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail. The young kids (who set their feet upon my lawn!) tell me: "stop lying!"
And then they write: Your Stupid!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:31PM
If you don't watch it, how do you know it's trash? Bill Nye is trash? The miniseries from Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism is trash? WWII documentaries are trash?
And comparing it to HEROIN? WTF is wrong with you, boy?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by owl on Thursday February 09 2023, @04:28PM (5 children)
For anyone paying attention, that is.
Netflix was, for the most part, first here. Both with the DVD rental by US mail and then by digital streaming over the internet.
By being first, that also meant that they gained profit by growing new users/viewers quarter over quarter.
But, as the summary above states, their "new user growth" has stagnated. This is likely for many reasons. One, most everyone who wants a netflix account likely has one by now. Second, the proliferation of other competitors means they are no longer the "only game in town" so new user growth further stagnates.
When you can no longer depend upon revenue growth from new user signup's, what do you have left? Well, you either spend down to bankruptcy, fire 50% of your tech staff (which just likely delays bankruptcy, not avoids it), or you try to find ways to milk your existing customers for more money.
Every "shared password" is being viewed by netflix through the RIAA/MPAA lens of "every copy pirated is a sale we didn't make ourselves" which is why they are heading down this path. To them this probably seems less egregious than going after other customers for "more money" because arguably the password share folks are breaking one or more rules in the netflix user agreement.
But, they are going to likely discover two facts. One, there is again another limit to revenue growth once all shared passwords are gone. And two, not all shared passwords is a "lost sale". Some portion of those shared passwords will not sign up, they will just stop watching netflix for free.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:34PM (1 child)
When you can no longer depend upon revenue growth from new user signup's
Do you own a grocery store? [angryflower.com]
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 09 2023, @07:23PM
So you say new user signup cannot grow?:-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday February 10 2023, @08:21AM (2 children)
"Some portion of those shared passwords will not sign up, they will just stop watching netflix for free."
And what do you think is in it for Netflix to allow that?
It's not just about INCOME, it's also about EXPENSES. Supporting lots of extra users that *aren't* actually paying for the service is a profit-hit too.
Netflix don't care whether or not you would become a customer... that's old PirateBay thinking. They care that you are freeloading on a service they have to spend money to provide, and they see nothing for it beyond "brand recognition", which is like trying to pay for your coffee by telling the cafe that you're an "influencer" and will give them airtime.
And contrary to the old RIAA/MPAA situation, Netflix *are* spending money for every stream you press Play on. Licensing, delivery bandwidth, storage bandwidth, etc.
Even the title looks like it was written by a Slashdotter of old (which is ironic, because I am one). "Netflix’s *Unnecessary* Password Crackdown"?
If Microsoft started "cracking down" on people using Office unlicenced, would that be seen as "unnecessary"? And with MS their costs *are* sunk into Office development already and one extra freeloader costs them nothing. That's not true of Netflix.
I don't care about Netflix. I had a trial once, never bothered to use it again, probably wouldn't ever pay to subscribe to such a service... Amazon Prime is the closest I get and I barely use the streaming stuff and it has almost no part in my decision making (and even then, next renewal is going up, so I'll rethink if I even bother then).
But suggesting that they doing this to try to force those freeloaders on their own customer's accounts to pay money is ridiculous. They're doing it to stop their costs of delivery being 2, 3 or 4 times more than they should be given that the account only has one paying customer.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Friday February 10 2023, @05:25PM (1 child)
But, the service is already being paid for multiple screens. I'm some cases you don't even get the option of using for one screen only.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday February 10 2023, @06:31PM
And there's only so many screens that a given amount of related people (e.g. a family) can use at one time from one location, or even on one wifi network.
Of course they're aggregating and expecting people to use their channels at times, but they're also stopping 1m "5 screen" users using 5m screens of bandwidth 24/7.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09 2023, @05:08PM
They're the most expensive streaming service out there! I'll bet that rather than paying the extra, most people will just dump Netflix. They're the Blockbuster [mcgrew.info] of the streaming world, who charged $5 a night when the competition was charging $2 a week. Their own greed will bankrupt them, just like Blockbuster.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org