• Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    2 years ago

    We should all know that Netflix’s method of “throwing money at the wall and hope one of the shows becomes a hit, cancel immediately after a season if it doesn’t work out” is completely unsustainable at this point, as this kind of dehumanizing disposablilty of production is the exact " industry disruptive" approach to expect from a bunch of arrogant Silicon Valley techbros, so this cost increase should not come as a surprise.

    Many long running shows have had pretty bad first seasons, “Parks and Rec”, the US version of “The Office”, and “The Simpsons” comes to mind, and these shows would never have even gotten off the ground if Netflix was running them, because as with all industries, it takes a while for people to find their footing and get to know each other to work together effectively.

    The real sad part is, the industry that has copied Netflix’s “disruptive” approach are now finding out that the emperor has no clothes and are desperately trying to pass the cost off to anybody else for their own survival, which is why it is more important than ever to fight for the dignities of the people who worked on your favorite shows for your entertainment.

    • Metatronz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      I could very well be mistaken and please correct me if I am. I remember reading that canning a show before season 3 or so was a way of getting around union costs that kick in for a ‘longer’ running show. A very anti labor strategy designed to cash in quickly then drop it so Netflix wouldn’t have to share the wealth.

      • asyncrosaurus@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I thought it was a balance between new shows getting better engagement than old shows, and contracts lasting 3 seasons, which required re-negotiations in favor of the talent. Basically a business model hyper-focused on subscriber growth metrics instead of subscriber retention.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Actually, I don’t think they care about retention at all, because to the industry retention = stagnation. They only care about new subscribers because that “shows” growth. They much prefer hearing “We increased subscriber counts by 10%!” over “We kept 100% of subscribers YoY!”

  • Number1SummerJam@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    When will the greed stop? At what point will these corporations realize that the average American is completely stretched thin financially and will have to cease unnecessary expenses? They’re all just shooting themselves in the foot.

      • CosmoNova@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        It‘s laughable to expect corporations to act against their only purpose. As soon as a company sells shares it takes the route of infinite growth which is impossible. First they grow their user base and once they start to inevitably stagnate, they start milking their costumers, shaving off features and laying off workers in order to grow their income. It is really the only way for them to remain existent when the market is saturated. They cannot stay in business when they make billions a year when these billions aren‘t even more billions than last year. You can‘t attract new investors that way and therefore cannot continue to exist. Enshittyfication only just started. It cannot possibly get better when they can‘t expand their user base, only worse. They know they will self destruct eventually, but that doesn‘t matter as long as shareholders get their piece of the cake and jump ship to sink the next one. Just being a massively profitable company is bad business if you‘re not growing. That‘s the state of capitalism we‘re in.

        • kinsnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          As soon as a company sells shares it takes the route of infinite growth which is impossible

          yeah, the stock market makes that a company that is stable and generates a reliable income each year is seen as bad, but a company that has large grow in obviously unsustainable speed, which doesn’t have plans on how to ever become profitable is good (i am not specifically taking about netflix here)

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Incorrect.

        It will stop when our species exterminates itself out of greed.

        Climate change will probably only thin our numbers by the billions as a result of of the owner’s greed, but then they want to profit off AI, and CRISPR, and innumerable other potentially profitable means to our self-extinction.

        The greed will stop when all the humans are dead almost certainly by our own hands, and humans are actively working to accomplish this.

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 years ago

      As consolidation continues corporations do not need to compete on prices as there are no alternatives. Yes people will pirate but they’ve already lobbied vendors to embrace DRM and governments to make it illegal so that makes it as annoying as possible.

      • Carobu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Are we reading the same thing? Netflix has more competition now than it ever has. When Netflix had cheaper prices when it has no competition than it does now. Piracy has been making a huge resurgence as well.

        • query@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          “More competition” meaning less access, people having to pay for multiple different services instead of having it in one place.

          The competition should be about having the best platform, not exclusive content. There’s no reason why the same show couldn’t be on two different platforms. And available globally. Practically, all you really need is more local servers for where there’s more traffic.

        • AProfessional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          When Netflix started they entered the market as a licensor of content from studios to be distributed as part of a streaming service.

          This possibility largely no longer exists. All of the studios have bought out competition, stopped licensing a lot of their popular content, and now release their content themselves. This means there is little competition in the film distribution market for streaming, beyond PayPerView.

    • Fribbtastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      As long as people pay for it and they make massive profits through it.

      I mean, look at the last situation in which netflix addressed account sharing. Their user number actually increased because of it from what I have read.

      Those people that can’t afford it will most likely switch to a less expensive tier and then probably see ads. I have seen that recently with my father who wasn’t even bothered or annoyed by the constant ads while watching a single episode.

    • Ado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      We keep saying this but they keep profiting more and more every time lol. Remember when everyone on reddit was gonna quit Netflix for the password sharing block? Ya, their users increased afterwards.

  • TheDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’ve been a Netflix customer for over 20 years. The recent password crackdown and constant price gouging led me to cancel their service yesterday. Yo Ho MF’ers.

    • Archer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      I canceled just after the CEO said that paid customers could be getting ads. Knew that was the beginning of the end

  • Arethusa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Sounds like Netflix is panicking and scrambling. The frequency of their subscription hikes increases and increases. Perhaps they think they can price hike their way out of the dissatisfaction they have delivered to subscribers. Keep trying Netflix, find that magic subscription price point that will surely cover for all the subscribers you’re shedding with your idiocy and will definitely not hasten your arrival to 0% revenue. Increasing that price won’t lose you more subscribers right? Of course not. Burn Netflix burn.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      More like they took on a shitload of very low interest debt back when the fed rate was 0%. Now that the fed rate is 5.5%, they can’t just roll over the loans and have to start paying them back.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Thanks for reminding me that I haven’t even watched Netflix in a minute. I cancelled it. Fuck them.

  • boatsnhos931@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 years ago

    Argh matey, I’d rather walk the plank than pay those greedy pigs! Tis the high seas for me landlubbers!!!

    • Remavas@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      pigs in plural, yes. How many streaming services are there now? I lost track a couple of years ago.

  • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    it’s amazing that they think people are going to continue to pay them at these prices for no content

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some people seem to believe the customers are suckers who will eternally take the price hikes, but even the most gullible fool still doesn’t have infinite money. At some point they’ll have to cut something or the bank will cut it for them.

      Well, back to the seas it seems. It was fun while it lasted. One might as well pay for a VPN instead.

      • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m sure they did the math they’ve calculated that the increases will offset the loss is subscribers. From the article it looked like the royalties will increase so less subscribers paying more is even more profitable.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          It wouldn’t be the first time companies precisely calculate next quarter earnings and fail to account for the long term survival of their business.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The customers are suckers who will take a lot. Look up skylink satellite tv provider, and their “always free” tier that’s currently 6,90€ a month.

        They gave it for free just around the time analog tv was being decomissioned. And after they’ve captured the large userbase, who couldn’t switch back, they pulled the trigger.

      • tahoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, this is exactly like the Reddit and Twitter situation. No matter how bad it gets, people don’t care. If they’re used to something, they’ll rather put up with the new bad stuff than changing their habits.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Every time Netflix changes anything, people freak out and say they’re gonna lose all their subscribers.

      And every time, Netflix makes more money than before, because they have awesome data analysis and have a very good idea of how many subscribers will leave and how much more money they’ll make from the remainder.

      I remember when they lost like 4% of their subscribers a few years back and everyone was all doom and gloom, but they’d raised their rates like 15%

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I keep hearing people say this no content thing. Meanwhile I just went through Castlevania, one piece, sweet tooth and Kingdom this past week and there’s like 30 shows and movies on my cue

      • Gabu@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        You enjoyed the garbage fire that was Castlevania? Don’t get me wrong, the first season was good enough, but then the writing quickly devolved into a 10 year-old’s edgy fanfic, and the animation quality dropped off a cliff.

        If only Konami gave the green light to a japanese studio like Madhouse.

        • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Lol if it’s not a 10/10 it’s “a garbage fire” to you guys. Not everything needs to be a masterpiece

          • Gabu@lemmy.worldBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            When you have one of the best franchises in the world to draw your story from, it better be 10/10, yes

  • dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Oh god, I can’t find it now but before the whole crackdown on shared accounts someone tried to argue with me that it was worth it. As cutting account sharing would allow Netflix to keep their current prices to undercut competition. I actually bet them that that would not be the case and Netflix would still hike the prices again. I wish I could find them just to say “I told you”.