Thinking of dropping Netflix

It is still the best deal in entertainment period! QUIT YER BITCHIN!

I drpped them. Their utter arrogance in the way they announced this pissed me off. I've been a customer of theirs since 2000. They want to raise the price a bit to cover increased expenses? Fine. They want to raise it 60% and let me find out about in a news story because they want to discourage me from getting disks from them? I will comply. No more disks for me. I'll pay more somewhere else and be happy.

z31maniac wrote: Dr. Boost, I and others have outlined why the price is going up. Studio's are demanding more and more money for movies, TV shows, etc. Also the dramatic increase in the use of streaming has increased the AMOUNT of bandwidth they need to maintain, also a cost increase.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
From the New York Times: "
there's only one problem with that analysis: According to Netflix, it's wrong. The new studio contracts have nothing to do with the price change. In fact, Netflix swears up and down that higher costs of doing business have nothing to do with the price hike."
Netflix's blog offers this:

"Why the changes? Last November, when we launched our $7.99 unlimited streaming plan, DVDs by mail was treated as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan. At the time, we didn't anticipate offering DVD only plans. Since then we have realized that there is still a very large continuing demand for DVDs both from our existing members as well as non-members. Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs. Creating an unlimited DVDs by mail plan (no streaming) at our lowest price ever, $7.99, does make sense and will ensure a long life for our DVDs by mail offering."

And for all you that think we're bitching, riddle me this. The unlimited pricing is staying the same but they are removing titles from that list. The cost of discs (and handling, packaging etc.) is expensive so they raise the cost 60%. They didn't realize it was expensive until now? Now, if they offered say, streaming of ALL their titles for $20, and if you want discs it would be more, that'd be fine. But to jack the price of one part of the service by such a huge amount, then reduce the other part of the service is just crappy. I'm not whining, I'm just lamenting that a once great service is now only good. There are other good services out there and I'll be checking them out.

I remember an article in Wired years ago (now there's an example of something downhill, but that's another story) about how Netflix made money on a customer as long as they ordered less than something like four discs a month. More than that, and it was a loss. This was years and years ago, before the streaming. But it could simply be that people are ordering more discs than before and the existing price is untenable. Whatever, it's their choice to set their costs and my choice to pay them. It's still cheaper than going to see one movie a month in the theatre.

DrBoost wrote: Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? From the New York Times: "

The best quote from that article

Want to know the worst part? He's right. PCWorld.com has a nice summary of Netflix alternatives. There's Amazon Prime (no DVDs by mail, small streaming selection). Blockbuster by Mail (pricier mailed DVDs, no free streaming at all). Hulu Plus (no DVDs at all). Redbox (no streaming, pay by the day). In other words, even at $16, Netflix still gives you more than anyone else. So whether we like it or not, whether we can explain it or not, Netflix has indeed killed the best entertainment deal on the Web. Mr. Swasey has it half right: it's gone from an extreme terrific value - to an average one.

And the 60% figure depends on the package you already use.

Since we use, 2 discs out + Blu-Ray + streaming, our cost is only going up 25%.

$5 a month is completely insignificant to us. That doesn't even buy enough gas to get me to work, FOR ONE DAY A MONTH.

It's really just the internet has provided us all a forum to complain about everything.

Especially if you're diligent about sending discs back, you could potentially watch as many as 30 movies per month, PLUS whatever you can stream.

WHAT A RIP OFF!!!!!!!

Lets look at this logically minimum wage is what like 7.00 or 8 dollars an hour in the US. So even people that work for minimum wage at like McDonalds or something only have to work an average of what an extra 2 min a day to afford the increase. Hell just watch one less movie a month and work and it evens it out. That is well worth it if you ask me. Now everyone can stop bitching about it.
Just for instance if we lived in India I would be pissed. My virtual assistant makes 40.00 a week. She has a reason to get mad if the price of whatever filx they have there goes up (maybe bollyflix). Here not so much.

I see reading comprehension isn't everyones strong point. Nobody here is complaining about the amount. It's the percentage that seems quite out of line, and the lack of an explanation. Yes, they have the right no jack prices up 500% of they want. I have the right not to continue with the service.
I'm not even saying I'm going to ditch them because it is still a good deal. But customer service is important to me. If they jack the price up and remove things from the streaming list (they have done that, just look at my que) then I call that bad customer service.
Oh and Z31, $5 in diesel takes me about 350 miles

Dr. B, I really thought your was quite straight forward, and basic capitalism.

You were unhappy with the customer service which offered a huge price increase without any good explanation, and you intended to take your dollars elsewhere.

I also thought my response was pretty basic, "Me too".

Since that moment there sure do seem to be a lot of people griping and trying to convince us we are wrong.

Perhaps they are secret agents of NetFlix.

I think your right SVreX.
I'm sure if GRM added a hefty monthly charge to this forum, then started decontenting the magazine and moved those parts to this new pay forum they'd be delighted. Yeah, I know, not the EXACT same thing but same idea. Either way, there were just some of us that were lamenting this change and stating that we may, or in some cases already have, taken our business elsewhere. Nobody thinks Netflix should be non-profit, nobody says they can't handle the $6 more per month, heck, I don't even think we've said it's not a good deal. Some folks just don't read the post in detail. They skim to get the cliff's notes and whine.

I was a bit pissed about the increase until I put it into perspective. I have the 1 disk out+ blueray+ unlimited streaming. So my total per month is $10 the new monthy few will be $15. $5 dollars more. Near me the cost of one person going to the movies non-matinee is over $10 FOR ONE PERSON.

Now add popcorn at ~8 to $10 per person.......and this is for a regular size popcorn, that probaby costs the theater about 25 cents. Add $5 for a soda, that the theater only pays a couple of cents for the cup....the actual soda is vertually free and you are over $20 to have one person see one movie and eat a dollars worth of popcorn one time. Most times now you also get commercials with the trailers before the movie starts, then sometimes you get the movies giving you a stupid quilt trip about buying or viewing pirated movies, that make it seem you are taking the food out of the mouths of the children in the film industry.............nice. Then you go home and notice that the oscars are on TV and see all the hype of what stupid actors are wearing and how much the clothes cost, but of course the actors can afford it because they are paid Millions of dollars for their hard work.........really?

My point here is leading to the fact that the movie industry ....every aspect of it is so rediculously overpriced that netflix is an unbelieveable bargain in comparison. It seems nobody rants about the cost of going to the movies constantly going up to the point of rediculous, but if netflix raises the price of the service they provide, by the cost of half of what it costs for one person to see one movie ONCE. When you are watching (and likely more then one person is watching at the same time) likely a minimum of 8 movies a month, it makes your rant sound a bit silly. Additionally you do know that you can go to your local library and check out movies for free any time you like right....

For me Netflix is a godsend during these rough times, I watch about 8 or so movies a month on disk, but I watch about 15 or 20 movies a month on my computer or PS3, and my kids know how to use netflix on the Wii and they watch at least 10 or more movies a month that way as well. That is a lot of viewing for my $10 or now $15 a month.

I think I 'll keep the service. Chris Rummel

Rum, good points all. And I've thought about them all. We go to the library to get movies regularly. Again, and again, and again. It's not the $5, $6, or $X dollars it went up. It's that 60% or so is outrageous and the lack of explanation has me doubting the customer service or commitment to satisfaction. And I don't complain about the cost of going to the movies cuz I don't go for that reason. See, I used to love to go to the movies. The prices went up so I built a home-theater and now I have Netflix. Same scenario here. Netflix has raised the price and displayed poor customer service. This prompts me to look at other options. I may stay with Netflix (because it is a good deal) or I may not.

And seeing movie stars and athletes paid that much while a teacher struggles to top 60K after a decade of service is sad. But that's another thread where I'd be called a whiner for not bending over and taking whatever life tries to house in my back-side.

DrBoost wrote: And seeing movie stars and athletes paid that much while a teacher struggles to top 60K after a decade of service is sad.

That teacher should move to a better district and maybe get a masters degree if he/she does not already have one.

The world is full of "well heck, that's less than a 6 pack so of course I will do it" type of deals. Just because the increase is a small $ value doesn't mean it is insignificant. Netflix may still be a good deal compared to the competitors, but it is a worse deal than it used to be so of course it will tick people off.

JoeyM wrote:

DrBoost wrote: Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? From the New York Times: "

The best quote from that article

Want to know the worst part? He's right. PCWorld.com has a nice summary of Netflix alternatives. There's Amazon Prime (no DVDs by mail, small streaming selection). Blockbuster by Mail (pricier mailed DVDs, no free streaming at all). Hulu Plus (no DVDs at all). Redbox (no streaming, pay by the day). In other words, even at $16, Netflix still gives you more than anyone else. So whether we like it or not, whether we can explain it or not, Netflix has indeed killed the best entertainment deal on the Web. Mr. Swasey has it half right: it's gone from an extreme terrific value - to an average one.

The article is inaccurate. Blockbuster is not pricier.

xd wrote: That teacher should move to a better district and maybe get a masters degree if he/she does not already have one.

In all honesty, one of the many reasons I feel no shame in dl'ing older movies is because actors salaries are beyond ridiculous. I mean, I find entertainment an extremely important part of my life, but not enough that someone gets paid 10 MILLIONS dollars for a movie (and quite frankly, there are only about 10 movies a year I feel I can justify paying to go to a movie theatre for). While I am all for free market/capitalism, I see what has been happening to movie profits lately as a correction, and am glad it is happening. Maybe an actor will "only" earn $1 million for a movie, and $500k for advertising for companies.

The reason a single movie ticket is $14 nowadays ain't because it costs anymore to run the theatre!

MrJoshua wrote: The world is full of "well heck, that's less than a 6 pack so of course I will do it" type of deals. Just because the increase is a small $ value doesn't mean it is insignificant. Netflix may still be a good deal compared to the competitors, but it is a worse deal than it used to be so of course it will tick people off.

Or we just the think the level of outrage being shown seems a touch over the top.

SVreX wrote: Since that moment there sure do seem to be a lot of people griping and trying to convince us we are wrong.

I see you're new to the internet, welcome!

The other week I was contemplating dropping my 1 DVD out, and streaming. We hardly ever use it. The DVD will get here and sit for a week until there's a night where she's not too tired to watch a movie and I'm not too tired to watch a movie. With OnDemand, I hardly ever use the streaming.

When I got the notice, it helped to make up my mind. If we used it more often, it would still be a hell of a deal though.

Rumnhammer wrote: My point here is leading to the fact that the movie industry ....every aspect of it is so rediculously overpriced that netflix is an unbelieveable bargain in comparison.

I know this is going to sound a bit weird, but NetFlix (and other electronic media outlets) is part of the reason movies are overpriced.

My cousin is the president of one of the major networks. His job is developing marketing plans for feature length releases worldwide.

The lifespan of a movie in initial theatrical release is only a couple of weeks. The fact is that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to make money on a movie that might cost $150M in 2 or 3 weeks.

So, the income stream is developed over an extended period. It's like a big pie chart- some revenues from initial theatrical, some from initial foreign release, cable release, DVD, network release, etc. etc. There are dozens of revenue streams developed for every movie.

The most important part of this is the timing. The revenue plan for a major movie release needs to be about 15 years long in order to make a profit from the enormous initial outlay. 15 years.

To put that in perspective, some movies which were designed to have a 15 year revenue stream nearing the end of their lifespan were initially released before there was a functional method of getting them through the internet. A lot has changed.

What has happened is that the time period has been compressed. Through the various electronic options (both legal and illegal), the expectations of consumers is that they can have it ALL right NOW.

The studios can't make money on this. They've bumped prices as a temporary fix, but it won't solve the problem long term.

Some of the solutions my cousin is looking at are ones that most of us will truly be unhappy with. He recently told me that it is very possible within 10 years that the quality of studio releases will need to begin to look an awful lot like Baliwood productions.

He has to deal with unions, ridiculously complicated distribution chains, and MANY other factors we don't consider.

I'm not whining on his behalf or Hollywood's, but it's a pretty complicated system.

Bottom line- the studios WILL make profits. Consumers WILL have to compromise on their expectations. Either quality will slip, or the timeframe will be forced (through tougher enforcement of copyrights, legal efforts, etc.)

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

1. Don't like it.
2. If it means the streaming content improves, I'm cool with that. We are notoriously bad about returning disks, so I'll probably just drop that part.

DILYSI Dave wrote: 2. If it means the streaming content improves, I'm cool with that. We are notoriously bad about returning disks, so I'll probably just drop that part.

So far my list of "stuff that used to be on streaming but now isn't" is grown way faster than my "stuff that I can stream now that I couldn't before."

SVreX wrote: I'm not whining on his behalf or Hollywood's, but it's a pretty complicated system.

Tell me the cost to produce a current blockbuster such as "transformers" vs a blockbuster from the 90's, such as The Shawshank Redemption, or, for a movie that used cutting edge CGI at the time, the original Matrix. Factor in inflation, everything.

The fact is, movie producers have made movies more expensive, but they haven't gotten "better". Some of the best movies ever made require nothing besides a couple of people, some fill in actors, and sections of buildings/cities to roam around in. The Thomas Crowne Affair is another brilliant movie that's budget was not insane. Hell, look at The Lincoln Lawyer (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=lincolnlawyer.htm). In just over three months, it has turned a profit. Hollywood is full of E36 M3.

More good stories, less over the top theatricals. The personnel (relatively speaking) are cheap, and should be leveraged to the max, rather than having explosions every 5 seconds. We have an amazing set/backdrop to use; it's called the world around us. Not everything has to have $100million worth of CGI. FFS, look at The Dark Night. berkeleying INSANE. Oh sorry, that's domestic number's I am quoting. For a $185mil production budget, the dark night grossed OVER $1bil worldwide.

Sorry, I am pretty passionate about movies in the sense I love to watch. What they are spewing is absolute bullE36 M3.

Nobody runs a business based on blockbusters.

Those are exceptions, not the rule.

But it is a mistake to simplify the whole thing to blame those blankety-blank movie producers.

15 year revenue stream is a long standing industry standard. It's gone, because consumers have made it go away.

You don't have to like it, but the industry is going to go through some major changes.