The end of the streaming utopia?

Started with this:

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/netflix-loses-subscribers-q1-earnings-1235234858/

Quote :

Netflix Loses 200,000 Subscribers in Q1, Predicts Loss of 2 Million More in Q2

Netflix lost 200,000 subscribers in Q1 and expects to lose another 2 million in the current second quarter, the streamer said in its first-quarter 2022 earnings release Tuesday.

...

This marks the first time Netflix has lost subscribers during a quarter in 10 years. Netflix said that not accounting for the losses in Russia, where the streamer cut services over the countries invasion of Ukraine, it would have added 500,000 subscribers in Q1.

The streaming service previously forecast 2.5 million paid net adds in Q1, while Wall Street analysts expected Netflix to add 2.8 million new subscribers worldwide in the first quarter vs. 3.98 million in the year-earlier period, according to FactSet. So the expectation it would perform poorly compared to previous quarters was a given — the fact it actually lost subs is quite shocking. Netflix cites both increased competition and password-sharing, which the streamer is looking to monetize, as drivers of this subscriber loss.

“Would have added 500,000 subscribers” yet forecasted 2.5 million net adds. OK.

The next couple days they lost $50 billion of value in shares.

The doom-saying begins:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anatomy-of-a-netflix-crisis-has-the-bubble-burst-rj9g3jnqz

Quote :

Anatomy of a Netflix crisis: has the bubble burst?

Brand recognition is a good thing but many TV professionals are now beginning to give voice to an idea previously thought unthinkable: whether the streaming revolution has been overhyped.

According to an analysis of TV set use by industry body Thinkbox, in the UK in 2021, 80.2 per cent of viewing was for broadcaster TV (live and on demand), 12.6 per cent was subscription video on demand (the streamers, essentially), 5.9 per cent was YouTube and 1.3 per cent was DVDs.

Even if you consider viewing across all screens (so that includes your phone and laptop, where services such as YouTube and TikTok are mostly watched), traditional broadcast TV still commands 58.2 per cent of total viewing, with the streaming services at 11 per cent

“There’s been considerable hype about Netflix, often to the detriment of established broadcasters,” Matt Hill, the research and planning director of Thinkbox, tells me. “But this hype has often distorted its place in our lives. While streamers are certainly fierce competitors, broadcaster TV remains incredibly popular and lives at the heart of our culture and lives, not least because British broadcasters are experts in the British TV that audiences treasure.

Reminds me of some analysis I saw done about the time that Squid Ink or whatever was in fashion, noting that for all the hype and press and “buzz” on social media, the show had only achieved somewhere near 2 million viewers in the UK...starting to make more sense.

So far, they’ve responded by blaming inflation, deciding to enforce no password sharing, and to start offering ad plans.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown-coming-1235132170/

Quote :

Netflix Preps Bigger Password-Sharing Crackdown

“This is a big opportunity as these households are already watching Netflix and enjoying our service,” the company wrote in its letter. “Sharing likely helped fuel our growth by getting more people using and enjoying Netflix. And we’ve always tried to make sharing within a member’s household easy, with features like profiles and multiple streams. While these have been very popular, they’ve created confusion about when and how Netflix can be shared with other households.”

Netflix began to test out potential password-sharing effort last year, and this March, the company rolled out a pilot program in Costa Rica, Peru and Chile that would let users add additional members outside of their households if the company ID’ed that a password was being shared.

On Tuesday, the company left no doubt that the crackdown will expand in the near future.

“There’s a broad range of engagement when it comes to sharing households from high to occasional viewing,” the company said. “So while we won’t be able to monetize all of it right now, we believe it’s a large short- to mid-term opportunity.”

Yes we’ve all been “confused” on this point for the last decade.

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/netflix-is-considering-launching-lower-cost-ad-supported-streaming-plans-reed-hastings-says-1235236296/

Quote :

Netflix Will Launch Lower-Cost, Ad-Supported Streaming Plans, Reed Hastings Says

“I don’t think we have a lot of doubt that [the ad model] works,” Hastings said, citing Hulu and HBO Max as well as the upcoming plans from Disney+. “I’m sure we’ll just get in and figure it out — as opposed to test it and maybe do it or not do it.”

With its advertising play, Netflix can avoid wading into data-privacy pitfalls that have become problematic for some internet companies by using third-party technologies that match ads with viewers without needing access to personally identifiable information, Hastings said.

Last month, Netflix CFO Spencer Neumann signaled the streamer’s willingness to consider adopting an ad-supported tier. “It’s not like we have religion against advertising, to be clear,” Neumann said at a Morgan Stanley investment conference. While “that’s not something that’s in our plans right now,” he said, “never say never.”

So what started as a new model for tv, “dawn of a golden age” and all that will end up being...the same model as it was twenty years ago.

I’m not sure this is the end of Netflix or streaming or whatever. But the utopic ideal they tried selling us has surely gone out the window at this point?

I understand that the Netflix subscription in the UK is now £15 a month. Was about half that (or possibly less) previously ... not sure as I'm not a subscriber myself.

I think they have other issues, such as when it comes to their original content quantity seems to win out over quality. And their habit of cancelling shows (for whatever reasons) that have ran for only one or two seasons but which were clearly meant to continue must surely have disgruntled quite a few subscribers to the point of subscription cancellation.

The music was always going to stop once every single legacy media company decided they needed their own streaming platform. I suspect many more are going to fail, just because no one is going to subscribe to a dozen or more separate services.
This trend is another example of pure greed to the detriment of the convenience and experience of the end users.

Netflix produces "content" not artistry.

Shows like The Sopranos or Mad Men had to grip you and tell you something meaningful in each and every episode. Vomiting out a ten episode season designed for binging (a word which used to have a different connotation altogether) means you can have plenty of filler over substance.

Netflix Originals aren't popularised by being good, they're popularised via memes. I'm sorry, but no one is going to me Squid Game was a work of genius. Its marketing, however, was very good (degenerating kiddies' minds even further notwithstanding).

Thankfully more and more people are tuning out of the stale ideological grooming of some of these big corporates because, more than anything else, it gets boring.

But the other companies are no better. I think this is most evident in the Disney+ Marvel shows. Whilst none of the Netflix Marvel shows were timeless masterpieces, I would argue they were collectively still better than what Disney is churning out for their streaming platform. How they aren't allowed to have any sort of sharp edges to them. It's childish entertainment, aimed at making sure that nothing at all in them ever makes even a single viewer feel uncomfortable.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I understand that the Netflix subscription in the UK is now £15 a month. Was about half that (or possibly less) previously ... not sure as I'm not a subscriber myself.

I think they have other issues, such as when it comes to their original content quantity seems to win out over quality. And their habit of cancelling shows (for whatever reasons) that have ran for only one or two seasons but which were clearly meant to continue must surely have disgruntled quite a few subscribers to the point of subscription cancellation.

This is the heart of it. Nobody minded so much paying for a cheap service that had a nice catalog of established show and movies but no one wants to pay for an expensive service with more stuff than they can keep track of, much of which is novelty and/or B-grade junk.

Salomé wrote:

This trend is another example of pure greed to the detriment of the convenience and experience of the end users.

...while pretending that they are actually shifting in order to better serve the user. Yes.

I remember when Blockbuster disappeared and everyone kind of assumed it was because the end user preferred the convenience and experience of streaming. Then years later it came out that their business had been doing great, they were just saddled with too much debt and couldn’t withstand when things tightened up c. 2008.

I don’t know what the situation is with the other streamers but I know Netflix has been running on a huge amount of venture capital and things are starting to tighten again. I’d blame this for what they’re going through more so than “what the consumer wants” or equivalent rot.

CJB wrote:

Netflix produces "content" not artistry.

Shows like The Sopranos or Mad Men had to grip you and tell you something meaningful in each and every episode. Vomiting out a ten episode season designed for binging (a word which used to have a different connotation altogether) means you can have plenty of filler over substance.

Netflix Originals aren't popularised by being good, they're popularised via memes. I'm sorry, but no one is going to me Squid Game was a work of genius. Its marketing, however, was very good (degenerating kiddies' minds even further notwithstanding).

Thankfully more and more people are tuning out of the stale ideological grooming of some of these big corporates because, more than anything else, it gets boring.

They (streamers, all of them) have so much “content” as you say that there is no way enough competent people exist to produce them.

I mean the networks, cable and broadcast, used to churn out some high grade bilge to be sure and cancel real winners. But I’ve no doubt they’d win the overall quality ratio hands down.

Seems to me that twenty years ago being allowed to write an ep of TV took a lot of apprenticeship. The profession was kind of an artisanal process. Kind of like classic Hollywood was. Now they’re giving away shows like Oprah.

Had this flashed before my eyes the other day:



“A series by Niccolo Ammaniti...

“A world without adults” is just about right.

Hope the 18 people that watched it enjoyed the self-indulgent artistry worthy of the millions spent on it.

I mean Netflix just canceled Space Force after two seasons of paying Steve Carrell $1 million per episode. Never have I been around anyone talking about Space Force, let alone recommending it. This thing would have never gotten off the ground at a cable or network back in the day, or if it had they’ve wouldn’t have spent two seasons worth of that sort of dough on it.

Somerset wrote:

I mean Netflix just canceled Space Force after two seasons of paying Steve Carrell $1 million per episode. Never have I been around anyone talking about Space Force, let alone recommending it. This thing would have never gotten off the ground at a cable or network back in the day, or if it had they’ve wouldn’t have spent two seasons worth of that sort of dough on it.

We gave up on the show after just barely managing to get through the first season, and we only lasted that long because we knew the creator had done THE OFFICE and was doing UPLOAD, which we absolutely adore. But this goes to show that auteur theory is BS, because not all Hitchcock is good Hitchcock, not all of anybody's work is great.

I'm not saying something good couldn't have been done with the basic premise (but it would be WAY down on my list and that's even with me biased in favor of space shows), but the fact this attracted such talent while offering so little of interest on paper ... well that really astounded me.

Salomé wrote:

It's childish entertainment, aimed at making sure that nothing at all in them ever makes even a single viewer feel uncomfortable.

Nail on the head.

Infantilised slop for an infantilised audience.

Give the kids some meme-fodder they can regurgitate for five minutes, but don't give them anything to pause and reflect on. God forbid they may even voice displeasure on Tweeter.

Somerset wrote:

I mean Netflix just canceled Space Force after two seasons of paying Steve Carrell $1 million per episode. Never have I been around anyone talking about Space Force, let alone recommending it. This thing would have never gotten off the ground at a cable or network back in the day, or if it had they’ve wouldn’t have spent two seasons worth of that sort of dough on it.

Who'd have thought that a show whose entire creative premise boils down to "Trump bad" would actually be incredibly dull.

Their decision making process is definitely weird.
I would like to hear their reasoning for not okaying a third season of Mindhunter (which for all of its flaws was a mature and occasionally interesting show) when you see the utter dross that gets picked up and/or gets more than two seasons.

I’ve been watching 80’s shows on Amazon Prime and Hulu. I’ve also subscribed to BritBox which allowed me to watch LINE OF DUTY.

NETFLIX, when it’s been good ( The Bodyguard, The Crown) it’s been great. But in between the great stuff is a lot of low-grade filler.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2023/02/16/netflix-is-cracking-down-on-password-sharing-will-other-streaming-services-follow-suit.html

Quote :

Netflix Canada is cracking down on password sharing. Will other streaming services follow suit?

Gone are the days where one Netflix account could be shared amongst people who don’t share the same roof.

Netflix Canada began informing users earlier this month via email stating their accounts would be limited to users they lived with. This comes as the streaming service reports declining revenue, and as Netflix seeks to grow subscribers after years of relying on password sharing to build word-of-mouth for its TV series and films.

“Got home and was kicked off the family Netflix,” one user tweeted Thursday morning about the crackdown.

“Have to cancel my Netflix because they gave me 10 days notice to sign into my primary location and I am away right now,” tweeted another. “Whose idea was this?”

Of course, it was the streaming giant’s idea, and one it says was prompted by its exploration of how to address the issue of password sharing that impacts the “ability to invest in great new TV and films.”

But it’s not going over well some with subscribers, who also fear competing streaming services will follow suit and lock their loved ones out of their accounts.

Netflix’s new rules

Netflix says more than 100 million households share accounts, and began “exploring different approaches” to address the issue in Latin America over the last year.

In the coming months, Netflix users in Canada, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain will be reminded “a Netflix account is intended for one household” and members will have to set a primary location.

Under the rules, premium and standard account holders can “buy an extra member slot” for $7.99 per month each.

For that price, premium high-definition 4K subscribers — who pay $20.99 per month — can add up to two members who don’t live in their household.

Standard subscribers, who pay $16.49 per month, can add one additional member for the same additional monthly fee.

Basic plans, which cost $9.99, and ad-supported plans, which cost $5.99, will not be able to add more members.

Subscribers frustrated, cancelling plans

One TikTok user documented their conversation with a Netflix customer service agent who described the process of being asked to log in to one’s home Wi-Fi once every 31 days to prevent being locked out of their own accounts. The user, sounding frustrated during the interaction and questioning the new policy, proceeded to cancel their membership afterward.

For viewers who frequently travel or own a second home, Netflix says the account holder will have to sign in on their Netflix mobile app at least once a month while connected to the Wi-Fi at their primary location.

Subscribers who move homes within Canada may be required to update their primary location to avoid being locked out of Netflix, according to the company’s help page.

For viewers who frequently travel or own a second home, Netflix says the account holder will have to sign in on their Netflix mobile app at least once a month while connected to the Wi-Fi at their primary location.

Subscribers who move homes within Canada may be required to update their primary location to avoid being locked out of Netflix, according to the company’s help page.

For those who share one Netflix account and don’t live in the same household, Netflix said people can transfer their curated profiles to a new account and keep their recommendations, viewing history and list.

Will other streaming services follow suit?
A representative from CBC Gem said there are no plans to change its current account policy, adding premium subscribers can use their account on multiple devices, up to a maximum of five concurrent streams. Its premium accounts costs $4.99 per month, but the platform is also available for free with less features.

Crave said their policy has remained unchanged, which currently allows four concurrent streams on its $199.90 per year premium plan. Their mobile plan allows one stream at a time and costs users $99.90 per year.

Disney Plus and Prime Video did not respond to the Star’s questions about potential changes to their plans by the time of publication.