Netflix raises streaming prices

Andrius Simutis said:
Whuh? I know it's a little ranty, ok a lot of a rant, but the point is that Netflix has shown a pattern of trading customer experience for profits. The post that I was replying to was saying that Netflix should be blameless about not having the content we'd actually want to watch. Netflix can, and should do more to get that content because eventually we're all going to stop subscribing. I'm about ready to right now.
Click to expand...

What exactly should they do? I'm sure neither you or I are experts on the subject or else we would be rich right now. If a studio doesn't want to give them a certain show like Big Bang Theory what exactly could Netflix do to secure that show? Even if they could pay more for a show or movie that still doesn't mean the network is going to let them use it. The networks are likely the more greedy of the entity here. Should a network that already made money off of a show with advertising money strong arm Netflix into paying more just because a show is more popular? One may argue that the networks have already made more money then they hoped to with hit shows and movies.
 
What exactly should they do?
Click to expand...
Netflix can spend more money to get more and better titles. They don't.
It's not a comment on how much the network should get, but a comment on how far Netflix is willing to go to provide good content to it's customers. I've illustrated a pattern that seems to have developed there where saving money is more important than providing the best viewing experience. The examples on the DVD side are rental versions instead of full versions, 30 day new release embargoes, limited inventory, and not listing high demand titles in new releases. The streaming side shows this by not having very many current movies, rotating out titles, and only having cheaper or older titles. I may not be giving Netflix the benefit of the doubt here on the streaming side, but the very clear actions on the DVD side don't leave me much reason to believe that customer choice outweighs profit on the streaming side.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Of course Netflix should take the blame. They could get anything and everything if they were willing to pay enough for it.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Sometimes it really isn't about money - the content producers may not want to sell for whatever reason. But accepting that generally it's true that if Netflix were willing to pay enough, they'd get whatever - that's really not helpful, because Netflix then has to pass those costs on to the consumer (in addition to whatever margin of profit - they're not running a non-profit). As it is people freaked when the first - modest - price hikes were introduced some time ago. So where is the money supposed to come from when a content producer demands the sky? Netflix cannot control the price beyond their profit margin. Profit is the only price variable Netflix can play with. The hard limit on profit is zero. If the price demanded by producers is too high, even with zero profit for Netflix, then it's not the fault of Netflix - the money ultimately comes from subscribers, and if they are not willing to pay more then that's that. There's some price flexibility and sensitivity, but there are limits. Now it's possible that Netflix is just greedily trying to maximize profit at the self-defeating cost of alienating their customers, but I suspect that's not the whole picture. The truth is we just don't know who is responsible: the studio, Netflix or unrealistic consumer expectations. Probably a bit of all of that, but unless we are privy to the negotiations, we can't know for sure. If forced to guess, I'd guess the studios/content producers are to "blame", because before other DVD/streaming options became widely available, Netflix didn't seem to neglect or short-change their subscribers. All those things you blame Netflix for, like rental versions of DVDs, might be desperate measures to limit how much of the cost they are passing on to the consumer given the higher and higher prices demanded by studios, and not ever increasing greed by Netflix (why wasn't Netflix this greedy before? why only start now with the rental version DVDs, unless they were forced to, in order to save money?). Now, I write "blame", because maybe studios feel that it costs this much to produce a show and they need to ask this much to get a return or whatever, so that's "blame" only in a sense, but in another sense it's just the market finding the price, so life as usual.

The market will decide. If the studios get too greedy, they won't sell. If Netflix is forced or stupidly raises prices too high, their customers will flee. Things are not settled as yet, the market continues to evolve. We all have our price point sensitivities. For what I use (2 DVDs and streaming), I'm willing to pay the $21.06, given their selection. I'm willing to pay up to $30 or so, as long as the selection doesn't get much worse - selection of stuff I tend to watch. But everyone is different. If enough people stay, Netflix will power on. The market will decide.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Netflix can spend more money to get more and better titles. They don't.
It's not a comment on how much the network should get, but a comment on how far Netflix is willing to go to provide good content to it's customers. I've illustrated a pattern that seems to have developed there where saving money is more important than providing the best viewing experience. The examples on the DVD side are rental versions instead of full versions, 30 day new release embargoes, limited inventory, and not listing high demand titles in new releases. The streaming side shows this by not having very many current movies, rotating out titles, and only having cheaper or older titles. I may not be giving Netflix the benefit of the doubt here on the streaming side, but the very clear actions on the DVD side don't leave me much reason to believe that customer choice outweighs profit on the streaming side.
Click to expand...

You are kind of assuming a lot here.

How much should Netflix pay for that content? If the studios charge what they really want to charge for it it is likely the Netflix rates would go up to $80.00/month. Would you like to see that happen? Do you want to pay cable rates for Netflix? Yeah Netflix may be able to pay more for content but you are missing one of the main issues with the studios. It isn't as much about money as it is about fear. Services like Netflix freak them out and the studios and networks are sometimes a little reluctant to let go of their shows no matter how much Netflix would pay for it. Netflix is taking away from broadcast advertising viewers and potential DVD sales. If people stop watching TV shows on TV how will the networks make any money? They would have to charge Netflix a heck of a lot more then either me or you would be comfortable with and really jack up the rates of Netflix. Something I would not like to see.

This is a very expensive and complicated industry and it isn't always just black or white. There is a lot of money put into creating and owning this content and the studios are not going to just cut off one of their potential revenue streams from their content just to make our lives easier.

Again I'm not saying that maybe Netflix couldn't do more. I don't think either of us can really say we know what goes on with these deals. I imagine they are pretty complex. Heck the studios are even reluctant to work with Apple and it turns into a giant negotiating nightmare. Some of the content that is released is typically done so strategically to boost interest in a sequel or new TV season. For example the Avengers showed up on Netflix streaming pretty fast. That is a pretty big budget movie. Part of the reason why Netflix was allowed to have it was to boost interest for the up coming Thor and Captain America movies plus Agents of Shield. The studios made that decision. Not Netflix. Shows like The Walking dead magically update a new season on Netflix right before the start of the new season. Again to boost interest and viewers for the new season. Shows like Dexter showed up after the series was finished. Likely so people could get hooked on a Showtime TV series and want to buy Showtime to watch more shows like it.

Once the studios realize they milked their own revenue streams or want a free platform to promote their style of content then they will let Netflix or Hulu have the content.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Isn't there a way to spoof what country you're in? I've heard of people doing that here in the US to get BBC content.
Click to expand...

That would be illegal. If I were to do something illegal in order to watch stuff, I might as well download torrents, which are free and would make my actions a lot more difficult to track.
I do have a legal alternative at hand: I can rent blurays at $1.50 a pop, and the law here allows me to make personal copies of those. Still, I'd rather have Netflix...
 
Thomas Smet said:
You are kind of assuming a lot here.

How much should Netflix pay for that content? If the studios charge what they really want to charge for it it is likely the Netflix rates would go up to $80.00/month. Would you like to see that happen? Do you want to pay cable rates for Netflix? Yeah Netflix may be able to pay more for content but you are missing one of the main issues with the studios. It isn't as much about money as it is about fear. Services like Netflix freak them out and the studios and networks are sometimes a little reluctant to let go of their shows no matter how much Netflix would pay for it. Netflix is taking away from broadcast advertising viewers and potential DVD sales. If people stop watching TV shows on TV how will the networks make any money? They would have to charge Netflix a heck of a lot more then either me or you would be comfortable with and really jack up the rates of Netflix. Something I would not like to see.

This is a very expensive and complicated industry and it isn't always just black or white. There is a lot of money put into creating and owning this content and the studios are not going to just cut off one of their potential revenue streams from their content just to make our lives easier.

Again I'm not saying that maybe Netflix couldn't do more. I don't think either of us can really say we know what goes on with these deals. I imagine they are pretty complex. Heck the studios are even reluctant to work with Apple and it turns into a giant negotiating nightmare. Some of the content that is released is typically done so strategically to boost interest in a sequel or new TV season. For example the Avengers showed up on Netflix streaming pretty fast. That is a pretty big budget movie. Part of the reason why Netflix was allowed to have it was to boost interest for the up coming Thor and Captain America movies plus Agents of Shield. The studios made that decision. Not Netflix. Shows like The Walking dead magically update a new season on Netflix right before the start of the new season. Again to boost interest and viewers for the new season. Shows like Dexter showed up after the series was finished. Likely so people could get hooked on a Showtime TV series and want to buy Showtime to watch more shows like it.

Once the studios realize they milked their own revenue streams or want a free platform to promote their style of content then they will let Netflix or Hulu have the content.
Click to expand...

Very well said, Thomas :)
 
I watched Milius a couple of days ago. Definitely interesting. But everyone probably finds different things interesting. To me, Milius was sort of - well, not unexpected. The guy was definitely a fine writer, unquestionably. He was obviously a huge personality and very colorful, and from all accounts a good guy - anyone who can keep many loyal friends for decades can't be a goat. But for all that, he just was not a great director. Great writer, and a man with many insights into film, but not a well-rounded director. Red Dawn is just a poorly made movie, purely technically, it's amateurish and so clumsy you wonder if he's not trying to be camp - it's like a highschool student made it. Sure, he probably got some social flack for his politics, but it's laughable to claim that this somehow derailed his career (as Eastwood and Arnold pointed out, it's not about your politics, it's about $$$). It was tragic he lost that money, and worse with that stroke, but yeah, it was amazing to see the young directors gang and Milius was an outsize personality. Very involving documentary. If you have talent, you can write your own ticket, and he had talent as a writer, in spades, just not as a director... even so, some of his movies made big money or became part of our reference like Red Dawn and Conan. Yet, ultimately, as far as directing goes, I'd say he made and broke his own career, nothing to do with politics.
 
OldCorpse said:
I watched Milius a couple of days ago. Definitely interesting. But everyone probably finds different things interesting. To me, Milius was sort of - well, not unexpected. The guy was definitely a fine writer, unquestionably. He was obviously a huge personality and very colorful, and from all accounts a good guy - anyone who can keep many loyal friends for decades can't be a goat. But for all that, he just was not a great director. Great writer, and a man with many insights into film, but not a well-rounded director. Red Dawn is just a poorly made movie, purely technically, it's amateurish and so clumsy you wonder if he's not trying to be camp - it's like a highschool student made it. Sure, he probably got some social flack for his politics, but it's laughable to claim that this somehow derailed his career (as Eastwood and Arnold pointed out, it's not about your politics, it's about $$$). It was tragic he lost that money, and worse with that stroke, but yeah, it was amazing to see the young directors gang and Milius was an outsize personality. Very involving documentary. If you have talent, you can write your own ticket, and he had talent as a writer, in spades, just not as a director... even so, some of his movies made big money or became part of our reference like Red Dawn and Conan. Yet, ultimately, as far as directing goes, I'd say he made and broke his own career, nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

Say what you will about Red Dawn but it can at least be appreciated as sort of a cult classic. Now, the new Red Dawn? I can't even classify that one.
 
Samuel H said:
That would be illegal. If I were to do something illegal in order to watch stuff, I might as well download torrents, which are free and would make my actions a lot more difficult to track.
I do have a legal alternative at hand: I can rent blurays at $1.50 a pop, and the law here allows me to make personal copies of those. Still, I'd rather have Netflix...
Click to expand...

That's a pretty ludicrous law designed to bankrupt content producers. What incentive does anyone have to buy the blu-ray then?
 
They get a compensation: there's a specific tax on blank media, which even includes HDD drives if you can't prove you're not going to put personal copies of copyrighted materials in them (basically, unless you buy an OS at the same time you buy the HDD; weird criteria, I know) (more exactly, there used to be one, it went away a couple of years ago because of all the complaints and the compensation comes from other taxes now).
Also, you can't legally make a personal copy from somebody else's personal copy, and can't have somebody else make the copy for you, but you can make it from a rented or borrowed original disc.
It's not a Spain-specific thing, it's based on a EU directive. You can read about it here.
I'd rather have Netflix.
 
Last edited:
I have zero problems with Netflix charging a little more. I just really do not want it to go to paying ISPs, but rather see them invest more money in original programming. And while we are at it, let’s get the selection a little bigger shall we? So many titles that I cannot find on my US Netflix that are afraid on the UK version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top