Netflix stops charging customers who never watch • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#311

Post by kerkeslager » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:40 PM UTC

If I pay for something, I want to own it. Revocable-access[1] subscription-based services are just a form of rent-seeking, and I'm deeply concerned about how this affects our society. As such, I'm not a direct customer[2] of Netflix and likely never will be.

That said, I think it's important to acknowledge when people you disagree with do good stuff--this is how we make sure that our disagreements are based on principles and logic rather than grudges.

Of the subscription services out there, it's my impression that Netflix is one of the best. They avoid a lot of dark patterns, and this latest action of not charging customers who don't watch is a very upstanding action, especially since it cuts into their profits in a really direct way.

There are still complaints I have about Netflix[3], but the real heart of the issue is that this cannot last forever. There's simply too much counter-incentive for a company to walk away from a revenue stream like this. And with a subscription business model, there's nothing to keep them honest, because Netflix has all the control.

[1] This is a term I'm basically inventing on the spot, based on something I've been thinking about lately. Physical print newspapers were subscription based but they weren't revocable-access: you received the newspaper on subscription, but once you received it, you owned it. This differs fundamentally from web-based subscriptions. With web-based subscriptions, if you let your subscription lapse, the site revokes your access to content which you previously had access to.

[2] Most people around me have Netflix subscriptions, so I end up watching a lot of Netflix with people, despite not having an account myself.

[3] a) Patterns that manipulate dopamine response. b) Glossing over credits so content creators don't get credit. c) Monopolistic practiced with regard to tethering content creation and content distribution together.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#312

Post by pm3003 » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #239

elcomet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it exists, it is not followed. In France, Le Monde (most famous daily newspaper) requires you to send a paper mail (and not a regular mail, but a registered mail, which costs around 5-10€) to cancel your subscription. Even if you subscribed on the website, for a 100% online subscription. It's really shady.

Let them come after you. Just cancel the service in the same way you signed up (send an e-mail if you've signed up online), and then stop paying them (or block the direct debits, or reverse the credit card charges). I haven't had any company that actually bothered to send it to collections (or even sue me). Only once I got a mail that I hadn't payed, and when I replied with the cancellation e-mail attached, they said…

I've had a German collection come after me for 2 years with payment notices. I had unsubscribed by mail (which they got) and some email.

They stopped last year after I wrote to them I considered I didn't own anything (a human probably read the file and dropped it).

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#313

Post by pjmorris » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:44 PM UTC

Good on them.

I spent ~five years with a Netflix subscription that I never watched. I'd joke that I ought to get a Christmas card from them, because I was one of their very best customers.

Even now, I'll flip back and forth between paying and not paying, because I only use the service occasionally. I suspect it's less hassle for them to keep people like me on the books than have us fade in and out.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#314

Post by mandeepj » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:45 PM UTC

goodside wrote: post #55

Years ago, I heard of a dating site doing the opposite of this. They normally sent periodic digests and newsletters to their users to try to increase engagement, but if a user went a certain number of months without logging into their account, but still allowed monthly fees to be charged, they were labeled as a “sleeping giant” in the database. Once in this state, they would not be contacted by the site for any reaso…

Review your credit card statements every month then you will not be a “sleeping giant” in reality also

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#315

Post by jfoster » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:50 PM UTC

econcon wrote: post #44

raiyu wrote: post #12

I always wonder when a company does this if it is completely altruistic or if something else is going on behind the scenes. Maybe notifying customers gets them to reactivate, maybe if they resubscribe later they can charge more, maybe it’s better for financial reporting and projecting subscriber counts. On the other hand it could just be a rare moment of a company doing right by the customer.

It results in more support requests. For example, often you hear angry customer who is like "can you refund me, I didn't use it this month, you can check your records" Then request is passed on to some other employee who confirms that they really didn't use their account. After that you issue refund. In most cases, you end up issuing refund either way while in some cases customer forgets but he doesn't forget he got…

Probably also significantly reduces their chargeback costs.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#316

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:53 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #171

NKosmatos wrote: post #123

I don’t understand how people leave subscription or renewal charges unchecked in their credit cards. I can understand keeping a subscription unused but still acknowledging and paying for it (for whatever personal reasons), but having a charge in your credit card without knowing what exactly it is or why, sounds a bit strange to me. Could be that I’m not rich enough and I’m still paying attention to every single €/$/£…

There's a huge inequality between those who understand finance and those who don't. You don't get rich just by working hard. You have to understand money to get ahead. But many people are essentially afraid of money.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#317

Post by gryn » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #305

elcomet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it exists, it is not followed. In France, Le Monde (most famous daily newspaper) requires you to send a paper mail (and not a regular mail, but a registered mail, which costs around 5-10€) to cancel your subscription. Even if you subscribed on the website, for a 100% online subscription. It's really shady.

> "In France, Le Monde (most famous daily newspaper) requires you to send a paper mail (and not a regular mail, but a registered mail, which costs around 5-10€) to cancel your subscription." What is it with French companies? BlueCity, the UK arm of the French "Autolib" car sharing service, had this same ridiculous "send us a letter in the post to cancel" policy. Since they charged to a credit card rather than use dir…

Yes a lot of French companies do this, I signed up for gym membership at fitness park on the internet, they had the same behavior.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#318

Post by phyzome » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:57 PM UTC

saluki wrote: post #251

ycombinete wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you capitalised “zombie users” like that? Is this a reference to something?

no, I just do that with words like cRaZy, ZoMbIe, iNsAne, oHIo for fun when messaging with friends.

These days I mostly see people use wAcKY cAPs to mock a phrase, similar to scare quotes.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#319

Post by jessaustin » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #259

saluki wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed how many SaaS users are zOmBiE uSeRs, this is from working on client SaaS apps. One had about 20% of the users paying and not even logging in for months or even a year. Props to Netflix for unsubscribing users who don't use the service.

Were those B2B SaaS? Subscriptions are a huge controlling challenge for businesses with more than a few employees. If they are easily available people will think that it's fine to keep them running, I they have to jump through hoops to get them they will try to avoid repeating the process.

Sure, businesses like to control spending, but this scenario seems backwards. If the hoops have been jumped through to get the subscription approved once, and one might need to use it again in future, why would one ever cancel it? Whereas, if subscription approvals were easy, one would be more likely to worry about spending the firm's money unnecessarily.

This is sort of like the fact that strict border controls encourage undocumented immigrants to stay once they've passed the border once.

Re: Netflix stops charging customers who never watch

#320

Post by Hello71 » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:58 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #311

If I pay for something, I want to own it. Revocable-access[1] subscription-based services are just a form of rent-seeking, and I'm deeply concerned about how this affects our society. As such, I'm not a direct customer[2] of Netflix and likely never will be. That said, I think it's important to acknowledge when people you disagree with do good stuff--this is how we make sure that our disagreements are based on princi…

> Physical print newspapers were subscription based but they weren't revocable-access: you received the newspaper on subscription, but once you received it, you owned it. This differs fundamentally from web-based subscriptions. With web-based subscriptions, if you let your subscription lapse, the site revokes your access to content which you previously had access to.

But with online subscriptions, you also gain access to historical content: if you sign up for a traditional newspaper, you don't immediately gain access to previously published papers, only those published subsequent to your subscription. Modern online subscriptions are more similar to traditional libraries, providing access to historical as well as future content. Presumably this is a major factor why Netflix and other services insist on calling their collections "libraries", despite being otherwise dissimilar. I think it's an interesting question though: would people pay for a Netflix subscription that provided irrevocable access, but only to current and future content? I would say probably not: a significant portion of the value proposition of Netflix is due to their historical content: "you can watch anything you want" (that we have), regardless of when it was published. Would you pay for this service?