Netflix Netflix (once again) Raises All Subscription Plans in U.S. (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

I would pay for Disney +, HBO Max or Paramount + long before paying a penny for Netflix but that's a matter of opinion. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for people sharing passwords because Netflix shouldn't have to give away their service for free but people have been doing it for so long and they've now got real competition so they are definitely going to look bad when they stop people from sharing passwords. It's going back but remember how Metallica got ripped on because they wanted Napster shut down? People were saying how they were greedy and were already rich and those people ignored the very real fact that smaller bands would get screwed by people stealing music. That attitude of entitlement has only gotten worse in society and Netflix is the king of the hill so there is no way that they aren't going to look bad if they decide to stop password sharing.

Again, they are in the right with wanting people to pay for their service but they will look bad.

Not sure I'd say "look bad", but yeah, it'll probably negatively affect people's feelings toward them (and in turn their bottomline) nonetheless.

IF they're really doing this, they should probably at least also offer a cheaper 4K option for fewer streams me thinks instead of requiring the highest price to get 4K that comes w/ 4 streams.

_Man_

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If Netflix gets bad press for tamping down on password sharing, that’s probably the direct result of them cheerleading it for so long. I’ve read interviews with their executives for years and whenever the question of password sharing came up, they’d always say something to the effect of, “we know it’s happening, it’s factored into our pricing, and we care more about having the eyeballs on our service than whether everyone is signing up for their own account.”

They were one of the first streaming companies to allow different profiles and watchlists on the same account, which at the time of their introduction was viewed as tacit acknowledgement and acceptance of the practice.

They can obviously change their mind if they choose, but they’re gonna get their own words thrown back in their face when they do.

For better or worse, no other major streaming company has been as openly accepting of the practice as they have been.

 

[Desslar]

I'm confused. Don't you normally pick and choose what you want to watch (or read or whatever) based on what you're interested in rather than what you've already seen?

If you're interested in family-friendly content, Disney+ might be your top choice. If you're interested in super-heroes, Disney+ or HBO Max. If you're interested in Star Trek, Paramount+. If you're really into British TV, there's BritBox and Acorn. And so on.

Netflix's advantage (so far) has been that, because it wasn't tied primarily to a specific studio, it's had a wider variety of options. One of the things that makes it more interesting to me is its wealth of non-English language programming. While the other platforms are starting to follow suit, they are way behind Netflix in that regard at the moment.

Right, I was just commenting on the fact that some people suggested only subscribing to Netflix (or other services) when a show they really want to see is featured. I was curious how they find about these interesting shows if they are not already subscribers. Maybe there is a good universal streaming programming guide for all services out there that I should be checking.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I was curious how they find about these interesting shows if they are not already subscribers.

Honestly, probably in the same way you find out about what non-Netflix movies or shows you might like. Sometimes it’s from seeing a commercial/trailer/billboard, sometimes it’s from reading a review, sometimes it’s from a recommendation from a friend or family member, sometimes it’s from people here on the forum talking about what they like.

In addition to all of those things, I also won’t necessarily subscribed to a service once a season of a show I like has concluded; I’ll cancel the subscription and rejoin when the next season begins, rather than subscribing in perpetuity.

 

[Mark Booth]

I would love to drop cable. I have Verizon Fios.

The problem is, that the Internet itself is provided by Verizon. I also subscribe to 1GB speed.

If I dropped the cable, the price of the 1GB speed goes up. By the time I find a service that offers all the channels I want, such as YouTube TV (as it has DVR built-in) I would think I would be paying close to what I was paying for cable.

Really have to look more into this but I have a feeling I may not be saving much.

You need to look into it more, Ron.

When we cut the cable cord several years ago, our combined Internet/Telephone (landline)/Cable TV bill was $235/mo with taxes. We had expanded cable (a couple hundred channels, most of which I never watched not even once) but did not have any premium channels.

Now we have just Internet & Telephone. Our internet is 500MBps. The telephone features unlimited long distance and some features that we don't use, but it's actually cheaper to buy that "package". The cost (including tax) is $120/mo.

The streaming services we subscribe to on an ongoing basis:

Apple TV+: $4.17/mo (because I subscribe by the year at $49.99)
Disney+: $6.67/mo (because I subscribe by the year at $79.99)
Paramount+: $9.99/mo (no ads)
Peacock: $9.99/mo (no ads)

That's $30.82/mo. So, we are now paying $150.82/mo vs. the $235/mo we were paying. That's a savings of $84.18/mo or $1010.16/yr!!

We also have Amazon Prime video. But I was paying for Prime when we still had cable TV, so that's a wash.

Saving a grand a year isn't anything to sneeze at!

Of course, we have an OTA antenna (2 of them) and get about 20 English language channels (plus about 30 Spanish ones) for free. Our Channel Master DVR+ records the shows we want.

Still, it is very common for me to just watch a CBS or NBC show the next day via the streaming apps. With the no ads plans, I don't have to skip through commercials like I do with a DVR recording.

We don't miss cable TV one single bit. The OTA image quality is noticeably superior to cable TV too.

As for Netflix. They can go out of business any day as far as I'm concerned. The service is WAY overpriced. I predicted the situation would happen. Once you raise prices to the "pain point", where people cancel their subscriptions because they no longer feel there's value, then it's all downhill from there.

Mark

 

[Mark Booth]

BTW, if you are looking for a nifty streaming app that is completely free, I recommend 'Tubi'. Lots of terrific shows available and the commercial interruptions are far less frequent than broadcast TV. If Tubi were to offer a $4.99/mo ad-free plan, I'd be a subscriber.

Mark

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I would love to drop cable. I have Verizon Fios.

The problem is, that the Internet itself is provided by Verizon. I also subscribe to 1GB speed.

If I dropped the cable, the price of the 1GB speed goes up. By the time I find a service that offers all the channels I want, such as YouTube TV (as it has DVR built-in) I would think I would be paying close to what I was paying for cable.

Really have to look more into this but I have a feeling I may not be saving much.

I have come close to dropping cable TV the past couple of years, but ended up keeping the Xfinity service from Comcast, as there really wasn't much (if any) savings for us. I watch mostly live sports on TV, which makes it more difficult.

I did drop my Internet speed from 1Gbps to 600Mbps this last time, though, and saved $20 per month. Even that speed is overkill for just my wife and I, but any lower speed didn't save us any more money based on our bundle - - we only have 200Mbps at our South Carolina condo, and that is sufficient for a 4K stream. I am paying $180 per month for TV, phone and Internet now with Comcast in Michigan , plus $43 per month for the Internet connection in South Carolina. We get basic cable TV via our HOA there. The condo complex also includes a free Internet Wi-Fi service, but it's utter crap - - a DSL shared back end that becomes useless if more than one unit uses it.

 

[Desslar]

My primary use of streaming services is to watch pre-2000 TV and movies, and if there are any interesting new movies or shows then that's a bonus.

Thinking about cancelling my Hulu subscription now. Can anyone make an argument for keeping it?

Currently I have:

Prime - This is my go to service. Definitely watching every week. If I want to watch something vintage, Prime is the best bet for finding it. Plus with as much stuff as I buy from Amazon, it just makes sense to subscribe anyway.

Netflix - Watch once in a while, mostly for new shows since their selection of movies is weak and vintage content is almost nonexistent. Not really essential I guess, but some of the new shows are pretty good.

Hulu - Very rarely watch recently. Used to be a great source of vintage TV, but not anymore. Not really sure there is anything much worth watching, although I am going through Dexter at the moment. As mentioned, thinking about dropping the service lately.

Recently had:

Disney+ - It was cool to be able to see the new Star Wars TV series, and nice to have the Marvel films and Disney classic hits at my fingertips. But I was disappointed that so much of the Disney/BuenaVista/Touchstone back catalog seemed to be missing. I think they only had 2 of the 4 Herbie films for example. And there is an ominous disclaimer before almost every pre-1980 production.

 

[benbess]

In 2021 Netflix spent $17 billion on content, which is about double what it was about five years ago. Netflix makes a few really good movies and TV shows, and a lot of good-enough movies and tv shows, but some of it is dreck with weak screenplays. Red Notice was one of their good-enough movies from my pov, but the cost of that fun but empty thrill ride was over $250 million....

‘Red Notice’ Director Rawson Marshall Thurber Talks Big Budget, Bigger Personalities, Sequel Prospects and On-Set Safety

The filmmaker, an action movie pro, also wrestles with the 'Rust' tragedy: "For something like that to happen, you would have had to ignore half a dozen safety protocols."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The already greenlit sequel will probably cost just as much. As a subscriber now paying double what I paid ten years ago, I think it's past time to reign in the costs and the salaries. And how about just less content but higher quality? I've been feeling this for years, but ironically maybe the stock market will bring about some change in this direction?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

And how about just less content but higher quality?

I think that will ultimately be the direction they take, although having spent these past few years building a large library probably won’t hurt them too much in the long term - the talent that they’ve hired has enjoyed their hands-off approach and that reputation will probably help them continue to attract good people even if they’re making less.

Their current model has them trying to have something for everyone, but that costs a lot of money and they probably have about all of people they could conceivably get. For the sake of both cost controls and customer retention, I think narrowing that focus would bring down costs and create more brand loyalty among the subscribers that they do keep.

Anecdotally, Netflix is now the most expensive service our household has, and it’s the one I watch the least personally - if my wife and mother-in-law didn’t regularly view it, I would have canceled it. They do occasionally offer something that interests me but it’s not consistent enough to entice me personally. On the other hand, something like Paramount+ offers a lot less content, but it gives me one episode of “I need to watch this the moment it comes out”-quality programming every week of the year, and that consistency makes it appealing to me. Disney+ doesn’t always have something I want to see each week, but their prices are less than half of Netflix’s and when something from D+ is in my wheelhouse, it’s at that high level of appointment television.

I think the Netflix model of releasing all episodes at once will also hurt them long term. It has a way of shortening the lifespan of the content - for a top rated show like Stranger Things, the majority of interested viewers will watch an entire season over a single day or weekend, the entertainment press and social media will talk about it for a day or two, and then it’ll be over. Meanwhile, Disney+ is going to command the same amount of attention each week when they put out a new episode, and ride that publicity for months. What was once a novel way for Netflix to release content may eventually become a liability.

 

[Todd Erwin]

I would love to drop cable. I have Verizon Fios.

The problem is, that the Internet itself is provided by Verizon. I also subscribe to 1GB speed.

If I dropped the cable, the price of the 1GB speed goes up. By the time I find a service that offers all the channels I want, such as YouTube TV (as it has DVR built-in) I would think I would be paying close to what I was paying for cable.

Really have to look more into this but I have a feeling I may not be saving much.

For most people, cord cutting doesn't save them money, especially if they have certain must-haves like sports or certain channels that you can't get anywhere else (in other words, there is no a la carte streaming option).

Before moving to Nevada, I was getting tired of my cable bill rising. We had a TV/Internet/Phone bundle, and found that if I were to drop the TV service and replace it with PlayStation VUE (this was back in 2016), it was basically a wash in terms of cost because the loss of TV service caused the other two services to increase dramatically and thus no savings.

When we cut the cord two years ago, at first it was a substantial savings, as we went old school with an exterior antenna and an OTA DVR, but with your current streaming subscriptions, we are now paying about the same as were were two years ago before dropping DirecTV, but likely still saving money as our contract at the time had expired and would have increased dramatically.

 

[David Deeb]

I cannot imagine ever subscribing to cable tv again. Ever. Not under any circumstances. Good gosh, cable tv is a vast wasteland of ad-infested channels offered via a never-ending, deceitful pricing shell game.

We have Netflix, HBO Max and AppleTV+. This gives us excellent quality & variety each month. Netflix doesn't have the legacy catalog some of the studio streamers, but they do license a lot of that content each month, great original docs & series, as well as a lot of international series we enjoy.

 

[Desslar]

I think the Netflix model of releasing all episodes at once will also hurt them long term. It has a way of shortening the lifespan of the content - for a top rated show like Stranger Things, the majority of interested viewers will watch an entire season over a single day or weekend, the entertainment press and social media will talk about it for a day or two, and then it’ll be over. Meanwhile, Disney+ is going to command the same amount of attention each week when they put out a new episode, and ride that publicity for months. What was once a novel way for Netflix to release content may eventually become a liability.

The Disney and HBO approach of one episode per week makes much more sense to me in terms of sustaining hype over an extended period, and also makes each episode seem like a separate event as I think it should be. I have never understood why Netflix wants to dump whole seasons at once. I know some hardcore fans may watch an entire series in a day, but not sure what % of the viewing public they represent.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

The Disney and HBO approach of one episode per week makes much more sense to me in terms of sustaining hype over an extended period, and also makes each episode seem like a separate event as I think it should be. I have never understood why Netflix wants to dump whole seasons at once. I know some hardcore fans may watch an entire series in a day, but not sure what % of the viewing public they represent.

I'd prefer at least 2 episodes per week myself. Not interested in waiting every week just for 1 episode (especially in serial format) anymore. I'd much rather just wait until they have enough dropped for me to watch the entire season in a week or at most 2 and just watch the vast amount of other readily available content (NVM my huge backlog of discs and purchased digitals) while I wait.

One 50-60min episode at a time for a serial storytelling format just doesn't usually feel nearly satisfying enough... and having to wait a week for each just feels unnecessarily long and even manipulative if there are cliffhangers and such.

In the old days before streaming, there was no (real) choice but wait. Not the case anymore...

_Man_

 

[Carl David]

I have commented on this quite a bit in other threads in the last year or so and mentioned that streaming prices will have to go up significantly over the coming years.

None of them make any profits. Netflix in particular has around $14 billion of debt last time I checked.

Considering Netflix has the most subscribers in the industry it pretty much tells you the business model cannot scale (at current prices).

Netflix also charges the highest fees so it does not bode well (for the others). They also started out as and are primarily a streaming platform that specialises in that niche specific field so you would think they pretty much would have the experience and data to help make them a viable business.

But no.

Yes. There are slightly different business models being adopted by other companies and some specialise in other fields as well such as Amazon.

But that will probably exacerbate the problem because generally businesses that specialise in more than one field usually end up losing money in all fields they enter over time and usually very quickly.

That's why car manufacturers don't own dealerships. They leave that field to other businesses who are more knowledgeable in that area. Insurance companies sell insurance and nothing else. Restaurants sell food and nothing else. Clothes shops sell clothes and so on ad infinitum. You stick to what you know.

The streaming companies that currently allow multiple users on one account (all of them??) will eventually have to clamp down on it out of necessity.

The market is probably very close to saturation. There is nobody left at this point who wants to subscribe to streaming who already does not do so. Prices can't be reduced to attract new customers. They have already done that. The CEOs sold the market on constant growth and if you look at Netflix subscriber forecasts it seems they actually were drinking their own Kool-Aid.

They are now expecting to lose over 2 million subscribers over the next quarter so the honeymoon period on Netflix is over and we will see where the stock price goes and what changes the management makes going forward as they try to adapt to the new reality.

It will also be interesting to see if subscriber numbers with their competitors picks up the slack from them also.

My personal opinion on it is they will not increase in correlation with Netflix losses but we will see.

With very high inflation (and high energy bills) in the west at the moment with no end in sight it looks as though peoples discretionary incomes will be vastly reduced over the coming years.

Therefore, although other streaming business prices are cheaper there could still be significant cancellations to come all across the board.

This would put a major spanner in the works in the whole industry.

Here's what I think will be inevitable.

Most if not all companies will need to have advertisements to increase their revenues and maximise profits.

A "gold" type subscription will probably be offered without ads but at very high prices above the current rates.

I think most subscribers will accept ads if their monthly fees are below or are around $9.99 per month or so. That's a pretty fair package.

The low prices in the industry since its inception were used to attract people to the new type of service and grow the industry.

It's perfectly normal for businesses to do this in a new market and to lose money in the process.

But the golden age is now probably over. Consumers were spoilt and if you want to watch a lot of content from month to month then they are going to have to pay for it.

Now it's time to start making profits and see if the industry can survive without subsidising their customers.

That for me is a very big question mark.

Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Desslar]

I'd prefer at least 2 episodes per week myself. Not interested in waiting every week just for 1 episode (especially in serial format) anymore. I'd much rather just wait until they have enough dropped for me to watch the entire season in a week or at most 2 and just watch the vast amount of other readily available content (NVM my huge backlog of discs and purchased digitals) while I wait.

One 50-60min episode at a time for a serial storytelling format just doesn't usually feel nearly satisfying enough... and having to wait a week for each just feels unnecessarily long and even manipulative if there are cliffhangers and such.

In the old days before streaming, there was no (real) choice but wait. Not the case anymore...

_Man_

I guess 2 episodes per week (a al Batman '66) could also work. For me, the wait heightens anticipation. And I am watching so many other shows that there is plenty to keep me busy in the meantime.

Yes. There are slightly different business models being adopted by other companies and some specialise in other fields as well such as Amazon.

But that will probably exacerbate the problem because generally businesses that specialise in more than one field usually end up losing money in all fields they enter over time and usually very quickly.

That's why car manufacturers don't own dealerships. They leave that field to other businesses who are more knowledgeable in that area. Insurance companies sell insurance and nothing else. Restaurants sell food and nothing else. Clothes shops sell clothes and so on ad infinitum. You stick to what you know.

Not always though. Amazon's Web Services does huge business. Tesla owns dealerships of a sort in some states and would have more if there weren't laws against it. And Walmart, Target and Costco are successful selling all kinds of unrelated products.

But yeah, companies that venture beyond their core competence often end up regretting it.

 

[John Dirk]

This time even T Mobile customers got hit with an increase. Oh well, I enjoyed the free ride while it lasted.

 

[John Dirk]

For most people, cord cutting doesn't save them money, especially if they have certain must-haves like sports or certain channels that you can't get anywhere else

I don't know about "most people" but it certainly saves me money and has for many years. I currently have Netflix through T-Mobile and that's the only streaming service I pay for. Even working just part time now there's still way more decent content out there across free sources such as YouTube than I have time to consume. As for sports, I take the free Regional content they offer to the extent I'm interested, which is marginally. These days I find the business of sports much more interesting than the over-regulated and suspect games themselves.

 

[DaveF]

In 2021 Netflix spent $17 billion on content, which is about double what it was about five years ago. Netflix makes a few really good movies and TV shows, and a lot of good-enough movies and tv shows, but some of it is dreck with weak screenplays. Red Notice was one of their good-enough movies from my pov, but the cost of that fun but empty thrill ride was over $250 million....

The already greenlit sequel will probably cost just as much. As a subscriber now paying double what I paid ten years ago, I think it's past time to reign in the costs and the salaries. And how about just less content but higher quality? I've been feeling this for years, but ironically maybe the stock market will bring about some change in this direction?

The difficulty here is this argument is: “why don’t they just spend money on hits that people love?”

They would if they could. But that’s nigh impossible to guess that right. Look at AppleTV. Their premiere shows were The Morning Show and See. Huge promotions. Huge ad budgets. What was the smash hit that got everyone watching AppleTV? Ted Lasso.

Netflix is pouring money into content to build up a back catalog it owns and searching for new shows that will be hits. Squid Games, for example. Who would have guessed subtitled Korean drama would be a smash hit in the US? It’s also, unfortunately, why Netflix brutally kills so many good shows after a season or two.

But that will probably exacerbate the problem because generally businesses that specialise in more than one field usually end up losing money in all fields they enter over time and usually very quickly.

That's why car manufacturers don't own dealerships. They leave that field to other businesses who are more knowledgeable in that area. Insurance companies sell insurance and nothing else. Restaurants sell food and nothing else. Clothes shops sell clothes and so on ad infinitum. You stick to what you know.

That’s not why car manufacturers don’t own dealerships.

Why can't you buy a car directly from a car company?

The electric car company Tesla has worked out a deal with New York State to allow it continue selling its cars directly to consumers. The deal, which will involve state legislation, will allow the company to continue operating its five sales locations in the state (all downstate). [Cuomo admin] Auto

alloveralbany.com

 

[Malcolm R]

It’s also, unfortunately, why Netflix brutally kills so many good shows after a season or two.

Which then creates a loop with subscribers like me who hesitate to take a chance and watch anything new knowing it's likely to be cancelled forthwith. Such as with The Irregulars.