Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Netflix Added 2.6 Million US Subscribers In July Despite Password-Sharing Crackdown (deadline.com) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-bet-is-paying-off dept.
According to research firm Antenna, Netflix had 2.6 million gross subscriber additions in July. "The company also saw the highest percentage of new sign-ups going to its advertising tier since the $7-a-month offering hit the market last November," reports Deadline. "About 23% of new subscribers opted for the ad tier, a gain of four percentage points over June levels." From the report: The overall July gains represented a 26% downturn from June's record-breaking numbers, but they still show momentum stretching back to the May 23 introduction of paid password sharing in the U.S. From May 24 to 27, Netflix had its four biggest single days of sign-ups in the four-and-a-half years since Antenna has began tracking its subscribers, outpacing even the 2020 Covid boom.

The new password scheme followed last fall's debut of the cheaper, ad-supported subscription tier, with the combination of the two providing a potent boost. In the second quarter ending June 30, the company reported that it doubled projections by adding 5.9 million subscribers, reaching 238.3 million worldwide.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Added 2.6 Million US Subscribers In July Despite Password-Sharing Crackdown More

Netflix Added 2.6 Million US Subscribers In July Despite Password-Sharing Crackdown

Comments Filter:

  • Despite? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2023 @06:47PM (#63807250)
    I mean, isn't that rather exactly WHY they did the password sharing crackdown? I get that some people would cancel because of the crack down, but that left a lot of people needing to subscribe themselves if they wanted to use it.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      2.6 million **GROSS* subscriber additions

      What's the net? How many people left?

      • Previous numbers showed these gains on top of their normal signup rate. Clearly their testing of this in other countries worked and they applied it here in the US and it worked just as expected. They're far from dead, despite what some claimed would result from the crackdown.

      • "What's the net? How many people left?"

        Well there are other meanings for the word gross.

        Including 144

        and fat and ugly - maybe the new subscribers are couch potatoes weighing 450 pounds.

      • 200k left according to Netflix. A drop in the bucket.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      I get that some people would cancel ...

      Why would the person paying for the account care if people could not longer free load off of them? Were they collecting money from these third parties to pay for the account?

      • Well... yeah? Why not? Or maybe they got something else in return.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        Some will do it out of spite, or because they'll switch to another provider that won't crack down on it. Others will do it because they don't actually use it themselves. There was someone else in here that mentioned their wife wanted to cancel Netflix, as they didn't use it enough themselves, but someone else was using it so they kept it. After the crackdown they didn't have a reason to hold onto it.

      • I know at least one case of people where the deal was I pay for netflix, you pay for hulu and swap passwords.

        But it is probably not many in the long run.

      • Why would the person paying for the account care if people could not longer free load off of them?

        I need only two channels, but I love my parents so I pay for four channels so that mum and dad can watch without paying (not for free, but I pay). With password crackdown, I don't need four channels. So I decide if the cost for two channels is worth it, especially if I pay for two times two channels. I _will_ cancel my 4 channels and pay for zero, one, or two times two channels.

        • Re:Despite? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2023 @08:02PM (#63807410) Homepage Journal

          Why would the person paying for the account care if people could not longer free load off of them?

          I need only two channels, but I love my parents so I pay for four channels so that mum and dad can watch without paying (not for free, but I pay). With password crackdown, I don't need four channels. So I decide if the cost for two channels is worth it, especially if I pay for two times two channels. I _will_ cancel my 4 channels and pay for zero, one, or two times two channels.

          And that's the real question that folks should be asking. Did the actual number of screens and dollars of income go up, or just the number of accounts? If they lose a four-device account and gain two ad-supported accounts, that might not even be revenue-neutral, much less revenue-positive.

          • And that's the real question that folks should be asking. Did the actual number of screens and dollars of income go up, or just the number of accounts?

            In the UK, its 11 pound for two channels and 16 pounds for four channels. So if two people quit their four channels, and add three subscriptions for two channels, Netflix just barely wins. So that is one keeping to pay for his parents, and one stopping that payment.

          • There's value to Neflix of having two accounts instead of one - primarily it means they can understand their users usage better, and can better tailor content and recommendations to them. Netflix can also "segment" their market better, and know how many real households are using them, rather than making so many approximations.

            As you say though, it may not necessarily mean more revenue per-se. I guess the thinking is that whatever revenue they do or don't get will at least be "honest".

            • Except Netflix already has (unlimited?) profiles for each account, so that everyone can manage watch lists separately and you aren't getting buried in recommendations for cartoons your kids might want to watch.

              Granted, that doesn't *directly* map to users - e.g. my girlfriend and I each have our own profiles, plus another for watching things together, but it's close enough that they're unlikely to collect appreciably better data from separate accounts.

              > I guess the thinking is that whatever revenue they

          • "If they lose a four-device account and gain two ad-supported accounts, that might not even be revenue-neutral, much less revenue-positive."

            They've cut their costs in half. The ad-supported subscription price is $7 vs. the add-free subscription price of $15.50, plus there's the revenue from the ads. It doesn't take much ad revenue to break even.

            Plus, Hulu has found that their add-supported accounts are actually worth more than ad-free.

            • >They've cut their costs in half.
              How do you figure? If there's the same number of people watching the same amount of shows, their costs are the same... plus they've added an additional (small) overhead for managing/billing/etc. more accounts.

              Their revenue may increase, but the only way to cut costs from the subscription side of the business is to reduce the number of people using it.

          • If they lose a four-device account and gain two ad-supported accounts, that might not even be revenue-neutral, much less revenue-positive.

            Actually, they'd prefer to gain two ad supported accounts as they make more money off the ads than subscription fees. And if they lose a $20 sub, but get two $15 subs out of it, that's still a gain.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by slazzy ( 864185 )
        I'm sure there were cases where one person was paying for Netflix, and other person paid for Disney+ and they both share with each other.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by shoor ( 33382 )

          Hmmm, I wonder if Netflix's move led to an uptick for Disney+ or whatever then,

      • well, and this is technically hypothetical [for Netflix], I'd pay for a Netflix acct if I could share it with my sister & father. But I don't have enough time to watch very much Netflix so it's not worth enough to me to pay for it for only myself.

    • Interesting contrast with Australia though:

      Netflix subscribers ditch streaming service in droves in Australia - after password sharing crackdown... New figures show subscriber numbers fell for the first time since Netflix's launch in Australia in 2015, suggesting a move to stop password sharing had backfired.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]

      Granted it's the Daily Mail,but the number of subscribers is a pretty simple stat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        Yeah, I saw an article from Forbes Australia talking about that. Arguably, I don't know if losing 200,000 subscribers that were sharing is better or worse for them overall. Not cracking down on it could have an impact on their licensing costs for content, for example.

    • Netflix Added 2.6 Million US Subscribers In July Despite Password-Sharing Crackdown

      Not "Dedpite," "Because"

      What did you expect, 2 or three unrelated people sharing one account, then, once Netflix cracks down on 'sharers' all three of them would just abandon Netflix? Or were two sharers going to leave and the original subscriber stays?

      The $7 option gave sharers the ability to affordable keep watching Netflix, so they signed up - just as Netflix wanted them to...

  • Netflix added 2.6M _because_ of password crackdown (Score:5, Funny)

    by thesandbender ( 911391 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2023 @06:47PM (#63807254)
    The author of the summary doesn't seem to understand this is exactly why Netflix was hoping/expecting to happen.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A lot of the previous slashdot threads have been like this: So basically a suicide plan? (Score:4, Insightful) [slashdot.org], so the summary author may be reacting to the doom-saying fraternity.

      • Exactly. So many here and elsewhere insisted that everyone would leave the platform when they cracked down. As if Netflix didn't test this in other countries first and show it resulted in significantly more paying users. Idiots acting like these massive companies don't test things out before applying them across the board.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          All forums, Slashdot very much included, attract arrogant know-it-alls, whose main talent is demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          There are voices of reason too, but the former group is tireless and unrelenting.

          Tragedy of the commons.

          Meh.

          • Do not confuse dunning-kruger with simply being a blowhard.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            All forums, Slashdot very much included, attract arrogant know-it-alls, whose main talent is demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

            I wouldn't blame it all on people who think they know everything. I think there's likely a significant amount of people who think they're normal and that most other people see things the way they do. The problem being is that no one fits in the majority group for all issues. So thinking that others will act the way you would, often leads to being wrong.
            A prime example of this, look at the most popular content on a service like YouTube. You'll find that the most popular content also has the most dislikes

  • I bailed a while back. You can only handle so much cringe before you start questioning what you're paying them for.

    • This. Netflix driven stuff is mostly B-movie grade. Dropped it a few months ago and don't miss it.

    • I used to have Netflix perpetually. Now it's just part of a rotation of streaming services to which I subscribe for a couple months, watch what I'm interested in, then unsubscribe.

    • I gave up on Netflix back in early 2021 due to the lack of new content thanks to the COVID studio lockdowns. I don't really miss it.

      In fact, it seems like they still don't have a lot of new content thanks to the writer's strike.

      • They have plenty of new content, but it's mostly dubbed foreign films with subtitles. Seen that new one from India?

        • Indeed most of the old content that is any good is also foreign-made. Unfortunately, they are being ever more successful at imposing their woke principles on foreign productions, as well.

          • Most of the world is informed and conscious of social injustice and racial inequality. Its just a few reactionary dimwits in the US who even use the word 'woke'.

      • Uh, it's a little early for the writers strike to really have an impact on streaming service offerings...I know it feels like a long time, but it takes a while to go from the first draft of the script to a finished show...

  • What they don't seem to talk about (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2023 @06:54PM (#63807272)

    What percentage of existing subscribers have dropped down to the ad-supported tier?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      Me for starters. Years of paying $22/mo and they wont let my daughter connect from her dorm room. They made her activate some on vacation option just to stream and then shut her off 2 weeks later saying its too soon to be on vacation again. That very well could be me working from the road. Fuck them. They lie. They have zero way of knowing what device is legit so they jist ban everything. One tv in my own house, from the same ip has no access. I will be ending my subscription entirely soon. Ive been a subsc

      • Pay for the sharing subscription, it's not that expensive and it's what you want to do.

        If you get standard plan ($16) and add one additional viewer no living with you ($8), you're all set.

        This webpage might help you:

        https://help.netflix.com/en/no... [netflix.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          1) a college student is still considered part of the household 2) why should i pay an extra $8 to travel for work? 3) why should my family room tv also cost me another $8 (i already said it also got banned).

      • Years of paying $22/mo and they wont let my daughter connect from her dorm room.....They have zero way of knowing what device is legit so they jist ban everything.

        Why are you complaining that they don't know? As far as I can see from your story, they do know.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          My family room tv got banned and its in the same house as all the others. Same public ip, everything. Its not per house, its per HOUSEHOLD. Im supposed to be able to stream when traveling for work too. But since they block everything I seriously doubt my roku stick is going to work from a hotel now. So no, they CANT tell if its my daighter (still my household), my family room, or me on the road vs someone in ecuador or some shit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        In your post further down you say "Its not per house, its per HOUSEHOLD." household: a house and its occupants regarded as a unit. [google.com] If your daughter is away at college, then she is not in your household. FYI: This is how subscription TV services have always been. I feel for you when working on the road, that's a legit issue.

        • In your post further down you say "Its not per house, its per HOUSEHOLD." household: a house and its occupants regarded as a unit. If your daughter is away at college, then she is not in your household.

          That's not necessarily how such determinations are conducted. A college student planning to return home is often considered to still be a household member, especially if they left the majority of their possessions in the home.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close