Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

vulture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 491 posts

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#151

Post by cato_the_elder »

mertd wrote: post #26
petilon wrote: post #20

The reason for Netflix lost subscribers in 2022 is the same as the reason Netflix experienced a growth spurt in 2020: work from home. When people work from home, on average they gain an extra hour or more per day, because they don't have to commute. (Not to mention, the boss can't walk up behind you and catch you enjoying a movie!) Now that work from home is over, they no longer need the Netflix subscription.

Netflix losing subscribers is a false narrative. Had they not pulled out of Russia, they would have posted a net gain.

No it's not. While it's true that that suspending their service in Russia costed them 700,000 subscribers, Netflix is projecting that they will lose 2,000,000 users this quarter. [1]

[1]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#152

Post by fragmede »

sjtindell wrote: post #120
ramraj07 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is a valid point, Id argue that Netflix could have survived this - they had billions of dollars to create original content, and then they did create it, but some how screwed it all up. There’s at best 1 or 2 good show and no good movie Netflix has made in years. And anything half decent they cancel mercilessly without giving it a chance. This is not just in the US. The comparison of original content quality…

I mean I don’t know about screwed it up. You can’t expect any artist to just consistently produce pure hits. The creativity seems to come and go, the zeitgeist and the cultural context matter so much. Nobody (except, I would argue, Marvel) is able to be really consistent with their art. They were always doomed to fail producing their own content.

HBO seems to be doing fine producing their own content so I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that Netflix was doomed to fail. They didn't have the back-catalog but they had the head start in online distribution and could have bought a studio or two as they have for video games in order to seed their back-catalog.

I think a large contribution to their failure is Netflix cancelling shows after two seasons. If a show's probably gonna get cancelled before it gets a good run, why why would I bother watching it? People want easy watching, and they want a lot of it. Eg The Office, which ended up lasting nine seasons. Only Netflix knows exactly why they canceled shows, as only they have the viewer numbers, but a rumor I've heard is that after two seasons is when the production starts to get expensive because that's when a show gets traction and the production team and actors can unionize to demand more money - money that Netflix doesn't want to spend.

Unfortunately, in cancelling shows so quickly, there just aren't the shows to keep subscribers on the service - especially if subscribers have to keep picking a show to watch every two seasons. There's nothing more unsatisfying than spending an hour on Netflix trying to find something to watch only not to find anything. If they had more shows that ran nine seasons, it would be easier to justify keeping the subscription just for those shows. Two seasons just isn't enough episodes to keep watching a show and by playing penny-wise and pound-foolish, they just don't have the catalog. Which is sad, because the have a ton of good short-run shows that just needed more of a chance.

The other thing is their habit of releasing entire seasons at once. Their choice, but it's very supportive of my habit to cancel my Netflix subscription every time I run out of things to watch, and subscribe to a different service.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#153

Post by tomnipotent »

dragontamer wrote: post #145
tomnipotent wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motivation to start a subscription is irrelevant. It's what people spend their time watching that matters, and people are still watching "Bright" and "Coco" many years after release.

Netflix has lost 200,000 and expects to lose ~2-million over the next few months under its current guidance. Does it make sense, from an accounting point of view, to have "paid" for Bright in 2017 dollars and its 2017 cash-flow? Or does it make sense to pay for "Bright" with 2022 dollars? Its all accounting. But next year, when Netflix is down by 2.2 million customers, Netflix's 10k statement is going to be "paying"…

> Does it make sense, from an accounting point of view

Yes, that's the entire point of accounting. They use ASC 920 and 926 accounting standards, so that anyone familiar with GAAP can understand what they're looking at.

> Disney+ or Disney loses 90% of their value in the 1st year, so Disney's accounting will only be paying for "Turning Red" this year and next year.

Disney+ also amortizes, and expects 80% over four years on original content.

> Netflix has effectively "borrowed future money", from an accounting perspective

Except that's not the accounting perspective. Netflix spends most of its cash on content before it even airs - should they recognize those expenses against income before that content has even had a chance to start generating income? That's borrowing future revenues against current cash outlays.

That's why we have these standards, so that when combined with three-sheet accounting we can understand how the pieces come together.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#154

Post by pcurve »

harha wrote: post #28

Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…

I could be in the minority, but I'm perfectly content with just having Netflix. There's a long backlog of shows that I haven't had a chance to watch, and they keep adding new ones.

Sure it would be nice if I had HBO max, hulu, disney, apple, but honestly I don't think I'd have time for them.

How many hours of streaming video can a person possibly watch that one would find stuff on Netflix not adequate?

Or is this more about keeping up with friends and families and what they watch?

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#155

Post by r-w »

Animats wrote: post #43
coffeeblack wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you put Tesla in the list. They still grow substantially, just added two new large factories (Germany, Texas) and about to build another one (Indonesia).

Because they are a luxury car maker, a crowded sector. Tesla, to grow into its market cap, has to outsell the top automakers put together. They need something at the Toyota Corolla price point to do that.

Or a brand. Look how far branding got Apple!

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#156

Post by chihuahua »

ajmurmann wrote: post #92
harha wrote: post #28

Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…

I keep hearing this $100+ argument all the time, but do you really need all the services simultaneously? As you point out, there isn't that much to watch. So just unsubscribe for a few months, let the new content build up and safe money in the meantime.

Yeah, this is not rocket science. Subscribe to one service at a time. Switch to another service when you want to watch something different. It's not like the old days where switching from cable to satellite TV was a huge hassle.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#157

Post by creakingstairs »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #142
walrus01 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a number of people who have just gone back to torrenting everything they care about (such as For All Mankind or Foundation) and are very unlikely to ever subscribe to a 2nd, 3rd, 4th streaming service. They either picked netflix and have stayed with it at $22/mo or have changed from netflix to 1 other service like paramount+ or whatever, but the idea of paying $50-60-80 a month for more services on top of thei…

I'm seeing that a lot too. Netflix killed piracy with price and more importantly convenience. But the extreme fragmentation of the streaming market is driving people back to the torrents. They don't want to sign up somewhere for every new show that they hear about. The industry is killing itself this way. Netflix is just the first to take the hit because they have the largest market saturation.

Soon there will be some service that bundles up all the streaming services into one service. They might even call it cable :p

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#158

Post by smcnally »

loonster wrote: post #50
smcnally wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix has worked to infer predictable returns by using ratings and habits from its 222MM subscribers. They model potential market size against production and marketing costs, assess risk, and make decisions informed by all of it. Lots that can go right and wrong, but it’s a solid approach.

Except they fail in the execution. I appreciate that Netflix puts a red N on content that is Not Good.

I like The Last Kingdom a lot and have watched Russian Doll, Rise of Empires, and Roman Empire through, but tastes vary and inference is difficult.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#159

Post by creakingstairs »

pcurve wrote: post #154
harha wrote: post #28

Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…

I could be in the minority, but I'm perfectly content with just having Netflix. There's a long backlog of shows that I haven't had a chance to watch, and they keep adding new ones. Sure it would be nice if I had HBO max, hulu, disney, apple, but honestly I don't think I'd have time for them. How many hours of streaming video can a person possibly watch that one would find stuff on Netflix not adequate? Or is this mor…

> is this more about keeping up with friends and families and what they watch?

Yeah. I love discussing shows with friends and family and I’ve been finding it harder and harder to watch shows together or watch them later on our own time to discuss them later.

For example, I recently watched Pachinko and would highly recommend it but none of my friends have Apple TV so they can’t watch it (unless they pirate it)

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#160

Post by throwaway675309 »

yalogin wrote: post #86

Netflix is not dead but they focused too much on the R rated content for grown ups and relied too much on algorithms for content too. The reason why cable and free television stays PG-PG13 is that is where the bulk of the population wants to stay. Watching television really is really a family thing even with the explosion of screens. Of course they unearthed and exploited the lack of content for grown ups but it’s ob…

I don't know that I necessarily agree with this, some of the more mature shows are also simultaneously their most popular offerings. (Squid game, black mirror, the Witcher, etc.)

And I for one am glad when a show is rated TV-MA because it means that they can be more authentic and unfettered in terms of the vision for the show instead of watering it down to appeal to a broader demographic. "Television is for families" is purely your subjective anecdotal experience. There is a reason the expression is "Netflix and chill", not "Disney and chill".

Conversely, if you're not interested in yet another marvel show or movie, Star Wars or old animated movies, Disney+ is a desert.

Post reply on HN