Netflix’s Idea Of Innovation: Two Big Price Hikes In A Row
from the thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another dept
So we’ve been talking a lot about how as the streaming video market matures, it’s increasingly behaving a lot like the old, shitty cable companies the sector once disrupted. Instead of innovation and risk taking, we’re seeing endless price hikes, lower quality catalogs, strange new catalog gaps, labor issues, ethically flimsier policy positions, annoying new surcharges, and more and more arbitrary restrictions.
Enter Netflix, which says it’s once again raising prices after implementing a password sharing crackdown (aka raising prices):
“The streaming giant said in its third-quarter earnings report that its premium ad-free plan in the United States will increase by $3 per month, to $22.99, starting Wednesday. Its one-stream basic plan will rise to $11.99 in the United States.”
Over the last year or so, Netflix has made a lot of noise about how it’s cracking down on password sharing; something the company used to encourage. We’ve noted how these new restrictions are effectively double dipping, given that Netflix already limited account simultaneous streams, and already charged users more money if they want higher simultaneous stream limits.
Netflix consistently claims that their password sharing crackdown has been a smashing success. But while press outlets parrot those claims, we’ve noted they’ve provided no hard evidence proving it. And, in fact, a new survey of 18,000 people by a Wall Street research firm found that the password sharing crackdown remains in its infancy, and most users aren’t sharing passwords anyway:
“A full 77% of respondents say they only use their own account, while 8% sometimes lean on somebody else’s subscription (the report doesn’t get into why), and 14% only watch on other people’s accounts.”
The study showed that the lion’s share of folks doing the sharing (42%) are kids on their parent’s account, who probably aren’t buying their own subscriptions anytime soon. It also found that only 23% of password sharers had received warnings about their usage, suggesting Netflix is still ramping up the effort.
The study also found that most users confronted with sharing passwords would likely just leave for another service:
“MoffettNathanson’s report also suggests that most viewers busted for account borrowing will take their eyeballs elsewhere. Only 32% of people who borrowed a subscription and got blocked said they would either get their own account or already had.”
Yes, Netflix will make more money by being annoying about password sharing, though we’ve noted how many of the estimates of how much Netflix stands to make aren’t rooted in reality either.
But with organic streaming growth saturated, Wall Street’s demand for improved quarterly returns at any cost starts to nibble away at product quality and customer satisfaction. You start to see a sort of self-cannibalization. Get too pushy, and users not only flock to other subscription streaming alternatives, but free services such as YouTube and TikTok. But short term-focused investors don’t care.
Right now, subscribers clearly still see value in the prices Netflix is charging. But with Netflix executives very keen on pushing their luck and with zero financial incentive to remain disruptive and innovative, it’s just a matter of time before that luck runs out.
Filed Under: cable tv, competition, price hikes, streaming, tv, video
Companies: netflix


Comments on “Netflix’s Idea Of Innovation: Two Big Price Hikes In A Row”
They are also ignoring the hazards of that focus, a good return for a few years and then a decrease in the value of the shares they own, and little or no return on that reduced value
Re:
Let me fix that for you:
“a good return for a few years and then a” quick sale and re-ivestment in the next hot thing.
1960’s: Mom, I’m going over to Johnny’s! His folks have a color TV!
2020’s: Mom, I’m going over to Johnny’s! His folks have a Netflix subscription! Can I invite him over tomorrow to watch Paramount Plus?
Either that or naked greed
A price hike shortly after the rollout of their ‘password sharing’ crackdown? Why, it’s almost as though their efforts weren’t nearly as profitable as they’d been thinking and boasting about, leaving them scrambling to come up with a way to pad the numbers and make up for the ‘shortfall’…
Re:
In June, Netflix estimated that about 100 millions were sharing password. This month, way after the “password crackdown”, Netflix announced they’ve got 10% more users, to now around 250 millions users worldwide. So it’s about 25 millions more users, of about this 100 millions who weren’t (much) paying.
I’m sure they wanted a 50% price hike to fill the gap, but some executive had certainly said: “No, raise the price by only 20%, and wait next year for the rest”.
netflix === decrepit.wallmart
Got rid of cable 20+ years ago, used torrenting and DVDs instead. Early on we were using Netflix streaming, it was buggy but free. Eventually Netflix began to charge $8 for streaming so we canceled our DVD plan. The streaming content was a good value with an ever growing catalog so by 2010, I halted torrenting entertainment content. In the past 7 years, Netflix has become complete shit (website, content, messaging, pricing, etc) so we canceled it with extreme prejudice.
For the past 7 years, I’ve returned to my old ways of torrenting all entertainment content. It is stored locally and gives instant access to any show/movie we would ever want to watch. This is the best/most beautiful video entertainment setup I’ve ever experienced and makes TV a joy. Gone are the hours spent looking for something to watch, having shows disappear while in the middle of a season, bad content, etc. Like cable before it, the streaming industry has become a cancer to entertainment which cannot die soon enough. Netflix went from being the cutting edge of tech entertainment quality to a rundown wallmart in the poorest section of a bleak decrepit dying city. May all streaming die fast and ugly, never to be revised.
Re:
Perhaps you never noticed, but that catalog was never anywhere near the size of their DVD catalog. Some people have estimated Netflix had maybe 10 times as much stuff available on DVD, for those willing to deal with the inconvenience. It’s one reason they kept subscribing till that service was canceled just 4 weeks ago.
And the break neck speed at which the computer decides if a show is worthy or not isn’t helping them.
Shows that have a base of fans getting into a show find out 4 episodes in that its already cancelled.
Then there are beloved shows tossed in the bin forever for a tax write off, meaning fans can’t even try to get it picked up by another “network” to carry on.
I mean they buried one of the big ota 3 with peanuts to make a point they wanted to save a show and it worked… there is no reason to try to explain to NF that you love a show and want it to stay on… shareholder value matters more than if you like the content, here enjoy these 15 new cookie cutter reality shows.
Re:
You’re talking about Jericho, right? I loved the show, but I don’t remember if I ever got back around to finishing it after the nuts campaign.
The sharing part is broken
As someone that occasionally uses the family plan, it’s broken. Every week it wants to reauthorize the device. We’re close to canceling the family bit.
Their price hikes also have the additional impact of making people pay more attention to their monthly costs. I dropped Netflix for about five months this year because there wasn’t enough on there at the time for me to warrant paying the price. I’m now back on and enjoying some new releases but suspect I’ll abandon them again in the new year, particularly when new releases stall as a result of the strikes.
I got no reward from them for loyally paying month after month for years. So they’ll get no loyalty from me and I’ll drop them when convenient (and when I remember).
I expect one of their next steps will be trying to make people commit to long term contracts.
Re:
You’re still giving them money.
Re: Re:
Money isn’t loyalty.
Re: Re:
They are places I fund month after month because I want to support them. They have my loyalty until they mess it up.
With Netflix, and others, I’ll now be more choosey because they’ve made the price tip over to a point where I’m paying more attention to whether I feel I’m getting value for money.
No, it found they claimed they’d do that. When someone asks you that kind of survey question, it’s common sense to answer in a way that might convince them to act in your best interests. Even if the real answer is “I’ll probably just give in”, how would any customer possibly benefit from telling them that?
I assume Netflix has the actual statistics of how many IP addresses of new subscribers used to be associated with the account of someone else, before the sharing was blocked. If they’re smart, they’ll find common “non-convertible” cases and secretly let the sharing continue—like if blocking freeloaders in university dorms doesn’t lead to new signups. As a point of comparison, though, linear TV broadcasters are definitely not smart in this way. When I left my dorm to visit my parents over the summer, that would’ve been their opportunity to impress me while I had temporary access to cable. But it sucked worse then ever with re-runs, pre-emptions, ads, etc., so I never subscribed.
Charging more to deliver less
Between the latest price hikes and cancelation of stuff I wanted to watch I finally convinced my wife to cancel Netflix. I can live without Netflix more easily than they can live without subscribers.
As an aside if you have Kanopy you get tons of older classics and foreign films via your public library.
quarterly, Quarterly, QUARTERLY PROFITS! HOOO!
amiwrong?
I dunno
I think they’re trying to force everyone into ads.
Re:
Time to read a book…
“there are no…
There are no…
THERE ARE NO COMMERCIALS!”
~Oompa Loompa