Live data from Hacker News

Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

bbc.com

271–280 of 519 posts

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As for media companies with cheap offers and shady cancelation tactics, I discovered the following: I send them a cancelation by eMail citing a german court ruling that states (roughly) "If you subscribe electronically, you must be able to unsubscribe electronically". I additionally cc one or two journalists writing about consumer issues (sometimes on cancelation oh joy ) on the topics from that exact media. Works ev…

The GDPR does apply to foreign companies that trade within the EU but does not (because it cannot) apply outside of the EU’s jurisdiction.

Which basically means that if the foreign company tries to collect, sends to an EU collection agency, .... they come in jurisdiction. So they can only bark but not bite.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting charged by rhapsody.com every quarter for no apparent reason. I used their service like may be 8 years ago. They have a phone number in their merchant line which is invalid. When I filed request to void the charge to American Express, initially they declined! Then I filed appeal with angry comments and they finally voided it. It took over two months for the process. I just saw new Rhapsody charge again. T…

This was a revelation sometimes back and it was Amex (relatively new in India) but I am sure it would be same for any credit card issuer. I had a VPS in Europe that I had emailed the support to cancel about a year ago and they had replied telling me I could do it myself (listed the steps) or they'd need another confirmation from me to go ahead and cancel. I forgot about it. Got charged some 40 Euro a year later. I wa…

If the card was cancelled, where did you see the charge, did you see it on your new Amex card statement?

India did not have the OTP option, RBI made it mandatory to prevent fraud.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#274
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait you pay and they still lock your account due to inactivity?

I’ve no idea if this is still the case, but yes, that was the situation.

Sounds like a fairly straightforward contested charge on grounds of failure to provide the service they were paid for? If you couldn't access it and were locked out, they can't claim they provided the service.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#275

Reading this I kept thinking "What? What? Why would you do this?!" Less than half a percent isn't that much relatively, but those are still many millions. It'd be hard to convince me that they did it because they're nice, they have share holders who are not interested in that stuff. So what could have pressured them to do this? Regulation?

> It'd be hard to convince me that they did it because they're nice, they have share holders who are not interested in that stuff.

100%. It might have something to do with wanting more clear/precise analytics numbers. Non-active members might weigh down certain metrics in some way, so removing these members likely allows for 'fuller' analytics/measurements, which is important to their core business. Netflix is now also a very active producer of content itself, instead of it's previous business model of licensing/'renting out' others' content, so clearer and probably higher engagement metrics (once non-active memberships are removed) helps one of it's core competences.

It's purely a business move. Their blog post is PR.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#276
Could this feasibly be law? what are the potential down sides? That is a company has to stop charging for a service if the service isn't used for a specified amount of time, 12 months or so etc. Like a gym couldn't just keep charging you if their records show you never turned up.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people give money to ensure that a service is available when they need it. Netflix, as a service, takes ~10 minutes to set up. This might be the case for a software suite like CC, where you might need to download a massive amount of data, or other software where you pay annually or enter into some kind of contract, but Netflix is strictly monthly and easy to sign up for by design.

That is mostly, but not entirely true. If one's Netflix account is deactivated for more than 10 months, they lose their history, preferences and personalized results.

When I did have Netflix, the history/preference/personalized results were a detriment to my experience, as Netflix would intentionally make it harder to find what you wanted to watch and jumble things around constantly to make their content library seem bigger than it was.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#278

Wouldn't a better model be to not charge the user for that month if they haven't watched anything? So you would only pay for months where you actually watched things on Netflix, and you wouldn't find that your account was suddenly deleted. Also, maybe the title should be "Netflix will delete the accounts of customers who never watch", because that describes what Netflix will be doing more accurately.

They will be keeping the account data, so you don't need to start from scratch if you sign up again. It's more of an account freeze/deactivation than a deletion.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#279

Could this feasibly be law? what are the potential down sides? That is a company has to stop charging for a service if the service isn't used for a specified amount of time, 12 months or so etc. Like a gym couldn't just keep charging you if their records show you never turned up.

Why should the government interfere in market outcomes?

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#280
post #101
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really the only valid reason to do this is that the goodwill will help them make more money in the future. Strictly losing money with no upside in the future is in violation of the "duty of loyalty" that all corporate officers have toward shareholders.

Long term, both being, and being seen as the kind of company that doesn't needlessly abuse their customers, is in the best financial interests of a company.

Unless your customers have no choice, like Comcast, Altice, Charter, etc.
Post reply on HN