tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post809886827480949395..comments2023-11-02T03:02:59.088-07:00Comments on droidMAKER: The Netflix Post That Reed Should Have WrittenRubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04311616379285986846noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-53079526634031381302011-09-20T06:58:40.818-07:002011-09-20T06:58:40.818-07:00As an older subscriber to Netflix I can recall all...As an older subscriber to Netflix I can recall all the wonderful announcements for the new Coca Cola or the Edsel, improvements that caused their companies loss of value and customers. If streaming is the future, and I use that service as well as the DVD service, then one must improve the quality and quantity of the streaming films. I happen to enjoy some of the very old clunkers that they offer - but I would not pay a premium price for the chance to see them. A very bad, mismanaged move that may indeed open the way for better competition by other companies who profit from the Netflix screw up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-7553264982959532192011-09-19T17:00:09.000-07:002011-09-19T17:00:09.000-07:00However this all shakes out one thing is certain ,...However this all shakes out one thing is certain , Reed has discouraged subscribers and hurt shareholder value . There is more pain ahead for his clumsy and uncharacteristic misstep. You should have been his PR guy Mike. Golden boy got this one very wrong . Sell NFLX!46bonanzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543332025416731889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-9962971816765690652011-09-19T13:41:19.812-07:002011-09-19T13:41:19.812-07:00I appreciate the fact you took the time to better ...I appreciate the fact you took the time to better explain Netflix' motivation for moving forward like this. However, I am still confused: Operating from a customer perspective (not involved in how Hollywood Studios may or may not benefit from the split), why in the world would Netflix raise prices on it's customers for a sub-standard product in the 1st place? <br /><br />Regardless of their international growth objectives, they "burned" their existing customer base (i.e. US base, I'm guessing?) by saying they offered streaming media then not having great content. What they should have done was continue to offer both services as options for one rate (tiering for additional usage or #units) and offer better content for streaming so we had options for viewing releases (1st rate releases, large selection, as large as is available via DVD), get us hooked, then once we were contented, addicted steaming customers, only then split the companies and pro-rate the services (90% streaming then 90% cost of service for streaming or multiple tiered rates where if you rent mostly DVDs, pay flat rate, but nominal increases for # of streamed movies (1, 5, 10+ a month - heavy streaming customers could pay more). If we were used to a great service, we would continue with the service. They did this all backwards. The splitting of the companies should have been invisible, internal and continue under one company name to maintain the integrity of the Netflix brand and preserve it's developed consumer loyalty. Even if DVDs are eventually phased out, the customers would continue to do business with Netflix for streaming since the customers had experienced success and continuity with the service. <br /><br />Eventually customers would have probably weened themselves from DVDs, paying the same or slightly increased price all along. A small incremental price increase over a 2-4 year time span would not have been as painful or noticable and would have protected the customer base. There would have been grumbling, but not a mass exodus, I'm guessing. In this economy, your price increases can't outpace inflation by that great a degree.<br /><br />If people are streaming movies they should pay for it, just as they do for renting a DVD (or for a slightly higher fee - not double the cost). Hollywood should figure out how to stream their content in lieu of creating a million DVDs. It cuts down on shipping and manufactuing costs, to stream instead of send DVDs doesn't it? Are the studios afraid of additional pirating if the A and B list movies are available for streaming? If so, then Netflix moved much too early to split the companies. <br /><br />Why didn't they just develop both depts. in house until all of the was worked out? <br /><br />The fact that they almost doubled the fees for both services before they even had great content to stream, just baffles me. The other fact that Reed H. sent out the note without addressing that is just as disconserting. From a customer perspective, this company doesn't seem to understand we will support them if if they offer great content at reasonable prices. Right now, I feel I'd be overpaying for both services (rate for just DVDs is very reasonable) and I don't want to use 2 different services. The key is we want flexibility and convenience. Netflix took a large step backwards in my opinion.Jennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-18389261394287196112011-09-19T09:45:30.559-07:002011-09-19T09:45:30.559-07:00Here's a suggestion that might help (unless it...Here's a suggestion that might help (unless it's too late). For a time, let every subscriber to one company get a certain number of freebies from the other company. Free always gets attention.<br /><br />Also, it would be helpful to have another website listing all offerings and giving how each is available. Customer would simply click on that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-80573916889799208762011-09-19T08:12:52.639-07:002011-09-19T08:12:52.639-07:00Hmmm.. i don't think of them as abandoning cus...Hmmm.. i don't think of them as abandoning customers for hollywood - i see it as abandoning current customers for future ones. No one in the rest of the world cares about DVDs; winning there is the best hope for the company.<br /><br />They have 10M paying $10 for streaming, and another 10M paying for both. But the globe offers 10s of millions more customers, if they only diminish the efficiency of the services for 1/2 their current base. A hard call, for sure, but i don't think its just about content. More customers means more dollars for content - in a positive cycle (more content means more customers too). If they get the global biz, they'll have more access to more content. Which will help everyone.<br /><br />The two websites separated sucks, for me. But even i can see the advantages. Let's see how they execute this...Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311616379285986846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18050353.post-86646706108538870782011-09-19T07:58:34.570-07:002011-09-19T07:58:34.570-07:00That would have been a better way to put it, but I...That would have been a better way to put it, but I still disagree with the underlying premise. Netflix is getting lulled into a false sense of safety by the content owners and will see their costs skyrocket once they divorce the services.<br /><br />Netflix's advantage over everyone has been their fair use rights to the DVD. This allowed them to be price competitive without the support of the studios. The streaming deals are different yes, but when customers have the DVD to fall back on, it limits how much the studios can charge to the maximum price of the DVDtimes#ofexpected turns. By picking and choosing niche content for instant, Netflix is able to drive demand and still offer hits. <br /><br />With the largest member base, it seems that now they switch tactics. Instead of being cheap with the studios they want to handsomely reward them. This is what forced the price increase that customers are rightly upset about. With 20Xmembers pay $10 towards streaming, they can afford contracts that no one else can. Redbox has no leverage with the studios for a digital site. For them to pay $200 million in a year would be crazy, let alone one studio. Hulu only has 1 million paying $9 a month. By using the size of their audience (and the price increase) to force content prices higher, they are maintaining the status quo and are preventing upstarts from challenging them.<br /><br />Maybe this really is the best thing for Netflix as their membership base matures, but it's inconvenient enough to their customers that it will put a stop to their growth. It will be much more difficult to market both services one at a time, then to convince a customer to try a cheaper streaming movie because it's free* The future may be streaming, but by abandoning their customers for Hollywood, they have shown their true colors.Davis Freeberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16697874317490303586noreply@blogger.com