4 ms·

I'm a little tired of the rhetoric about Netflix adding ads. It's only on an entry-level account that is subsidized from the normal pricing (IIUC, correct me if

I'm a little tired of the rhetoric about Netflix adding ads. It's only on an entry-level account that is subsidized from the normal pricing (IIUC, correct me if I'm wrong). You could argue that they've artificially inflated the price of the normal plan or that it's a slippery slope, but it's not like they've forced ads on the existing plans. I think what's more interesting/concerning/insidious is hidden ad content like product placement. It's getting to the point where personalized product placement could be embedded in shows dynamically.

falsenapkin 4y ago
I would consider the Netflix UI to be ad laden for some years now with hundreds of originals shoved in your face in a non-customizable fashion and autoplaying etc. Also personalized thumbnails based on past watching behavior. You could argue that it's a good UX for most people, but for me it's always felt a bit more like user hostile marketing.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Netflix doesn't have enough content, so they resort to these tactics. All major content providers left them years ago and started their own Netflixes. So they're left with a few movies from ten years ago, a couple of recent-ish releases, and their own content.
  - wardedVibe 4y ago
    really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Are you really saying that creators shouldn’t be able to publish their own content on their own infrastructure?
      - wardedVibe 4y ago
        Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I real wish that HN wannabe lawyers would stop throwing *poly words around with no legal justification. In the streaming space in the US there is: Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video, HBO/Discovery, Paramount Plus, Peacock, STARZ, and a few other players. There is no “opoly” in streaming video.
        eskaytwo 4y ago
        That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that. They certainly have the ability to uniformly raise prices (tacit collusion) with no viable competition to enter the market and fill the gap (as even the vast sums others have thrown into it have shown how hard it is to produce good original content). This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) in this market is a big barrier to entry - which naturally leads to a small number of players. Natural monopolies and oligopolies are common - but do require closer regulatory attention to ensure desirable consumer outcomes than just letting the free market decide. It may not entirely fit all definitions, but the general economic theory and applications/implications are relevant to consider this market. The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
        scarface74 4y ago
        > That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that. The market is “content”. Netflix competes with YouTube content producers, TikTok and it even said that one of its biggest competitors is Fortnite. > This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) This goes back to YouTube. You and I may not think that YouTubers and TikTokkers are producing “decent original content”. But there is a generation that spends hours on both. Besides that, there were over 550 original series being produced last year (https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/ https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/). Competition is much fiercer for your attention than it was when you only had the three major networks producing content and everyone else buying rights to show reruns. There are bidding wars between all of the streaming services for new content from producers. Competition is more fierce than ever. The price of streaming before was never sustainable. Netflix was borrowing billions a year for years to produce and obtain content. Disney+ was never going to be profitable selling its service at the introductory price. It’s not “collusion”. Every company has to turn a profit eventually. Yes I realize that Netflix was “profitable” by GAAP standards. But it was getting deeper in debt every year.
- asiachick 4y ago
  It's not just netflix. I hate the my Google TV pops up with ads for media. My PS5 boots straight into the store. At least my Apple Tv mostly doesn't shove ads in my face though my iPhone seems try try to shove Apple Music and/or Apple TV+ at me now and then
UberFly 4y ago
I agree with your product placement comment. I feel gross when I notice it. I also wonder what happens when Netflix decides it makes way more money on people watching the ads - ie. Google initially calling ads a detriment to search quality but not being able to resist the $. I could see a day when they remove the no-ads plan.
irrational 4y ago
> It's only on an entry-level account So far. I imagine they will be expanding it over time.
- themitigating 4y ago
  HBO started broadcasting 50 years ago, charging a monthly fee for commercial free movies (often released much earlier than on cable) and tv shows. With the exception of filler ads for their own content that occurs when they need to wait for the next quarter time, ex movie ended at 12:55pm. There have been no ads
  - ghayes 4y ago
    Aren't those called "promos" since they aren't ads, specifically as they aren't paid for?
  - lozenge 4y ago
    It's the exception that proves the rule. HBO has always marketed as a premium service, while Netflix's goal is to reach every home.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      I mean, also Showtime, Starz, Cinemax... To say nothing of the fact that Hulu has maintained an "ad" and "ad-free" tier for their original programming.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
Chromecast screensavers _are_ an add for other shows in Netflix. I am paying and have no way to disable that visual pollution nonsense. Extremely exasperating when you are trying to choose something adequate for toddlers and they keep seeing flashy stuff on the screen and saying they want to watch that.
Double_a_92 4y ago
It's not about the user having to see ads. It's about Netflix trying to sell ad spots to advertisers, which might affect all (even paying) users. I.e. by getting pressured into censoring or promiting certain shows, to close the advertising deal.
vintermann 4y ago
It's not really about Netflix. The point is merely that "just because you pay them, doesn't mean you're not also a product to them". Companies love nothing more than to charge both ends of a deal. Take Spotify as another example. I pay them, along with 188 million other people. Does that mean they won't turn around and ask artists, record companies and rights-owning conglomerates for money (or rebates) for putting their stuff in front of me? Of course not. Paying them means they have some interest in pleasing me, but it's far from the only way. On the off chance that Spotify was being scrupulous about not taking payola in any form, it would be impossible for me to verify. Which is in itself a reason for them to cheat; they don't get much economic benefit from goodwill if no one can actually see them being honest. This is not a reason to not use Kagi, it's just a reminder of what forces we're up against. Kagi will need an unusual amount of transparency in everything they do, in order to stand a chance in the long term. And it IS a reason to not get warm fuzzy feelings merely from the fact that you're paying them.
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  What you say is true. However, for sure that will get out eventually. If that happens, I would then look at other search engines as well. Most people wouldn't once they get used to doing it one way, so that's all to the good for Kagi. But people like me wouldn't then use it, which is what life is about - your own personal choices. I prefer to pay for services because at least there is a slight chance that they will follow their business plan. But nothing stays the same for forever. As a consumer, we must also change to the changing environment. I'm completely weened off Google, for quite a while now, for example. I'm paying for everything that I use. But it is so little as to be laughable. For example, I use tutanota for my email, first account is free and subsequent ones are $1/month. Big whoop. $12 per year for private emails. I have a number of emails through them because I segregate all my emails - one for just friends, one for business, one for education, etc.
Gareth321 4y ago
1. Increase the price of the normal plans. 2. Create a new plan at the price of the old plan. With ads. I'm sorry, but pretending that they're not adding ads to their "regular" pricing plan is semantic at best. This isn't something they dreamed up overnight. They've been planning this for years and increasing their prices accordingly.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
> It's only on an entry-level account for now....

falsenapkin 4y ago

I would consider the Netflix UI to be ad laden for some years now with hundreds of originals shoved in your face in a non-customizable fashion and autoplaying etc. Also personalized thumbnails based on past watching behavior. You could argue that it's a good UX for most people, but for me it's always felt a bit more like user hostile marketing.

dmitriid 4y ago
Netflix doesn't have enough content, so they resort to these tactics. All major content providers left them years ago and started their own Netflixes. So they're left with a few movies from ten years ago, a couple of recent-ish releases, and their own content.
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Are you really saying that creators shouldn’t be able to publish their own content on their own infrastructure?
    - wardedVibe 4y ago
      Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        I real wish that HN wannabe lawyers would stop throwing *poly words around with no legal justification. In the streaming space in the US there is: Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video, HBO/Discovery, Paramount Plus, Peacock, STARZ, and a few other players. There is no “opoly” in streaming video.
        eskaytwo 4y ago
        That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that. They certainly have the ability to uniformly raise prices (tacit collusion) with no viable competition to enter the market and fill the gap (as even the vast sums others have thrown into it have shown how hard it is to produce good original content). This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) in this market is a big barrier to entry - which naturally leads to a small number of players. Natural monopolies and oligopolies are common - but do require closer regulatory attention to ensure desirable consumer outcomes than just letting the free market decide. It may not entirely fit all definitions, but the general economic theory and applications/implications are relevant to consider this market. The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
        scarface74 4y ago
        > That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that. The market is “content”. Netflix competes with YouTube content producers, TikTok and it even said that one of its biggest competitors is Fortnite. > This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) This goes back to YouTube. You and I may not think that YouTubers and TikTokkers are producing “decent original content”. But there is a generation that spends hours on both. Besides that, there were over 550 original series being produced last year (https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/ https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/). Competition is much fiercer for your attention than it was when you only had the three major networks producing content and everyone else buying rights to show reruns. There are bidding wars between all of the streaming services for new content from producers. Competition is more fierce than ever. The price of streaming before was never sustainable. Netflix was borrowing billions a year for years to produce and obtain content. Disney+ was never going to be profitable selling its service at the introductory price. It’s not “collusion”. Every company has to turn a profit eventually. Yes I realize that Netflix was “profitable” by GAAP standards. But it was getting deeper in debt every year.
asiachick 4y ago
It's not just netflix. I hate the my Google TV pops up with ads for media. My PS5 boots straight into the store. At least my Apple Tv mostly doesn't shove ads in my face though my iPhone seems try try to shove Apple Music and/or Apple TV+ at me now and then

UberFly 4y ago

I agree with your product placement comment. I feel gross when I notice it. I also wonder what happens when Netflix decides it makes way more money on people watching the ads - ie. Google initially calling ads a detriment to search quality but not being able to resist the $. I could see a day when they remove the no-ads plan.

irrational 4y ago

> It's only on an entry-level account So far. I imagine they will be expanding it over time.

themitigating 4y ago
HBO started broadcasting 50 years ago, charging a monthly fee for commercial free movies (often released much earlier than on cable) and tv shows. With the exception of filler ads for their own content that occurs when they need to wait for the next quarter time, ex movie ended at 12:55pm. There have been no ads
- ghayes 4y ago
  Aren't those called "promos" since they aren't ads, specifically as they aren't paid for?
- lozenge 4y ago
  It's the exception that proves the rule. HBO has always marketed as a premium service, while Netflix's goal is to reach every home.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I mean, also Showtime, Starz, Cinemax... To say nothing of the fact that Hulu has maintained an "ad" and "ad-free" tier for their original programming.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

Chromecast screensavers _are_ an add for other shows in Netflix. I am paying and have no way to disable that visual pollution nonsense. Extremely exasperating when you are trying to choose something adequate for toddlers and they keep seeing flashy stuff on the screen and saying they want to watch that.

Double_a_92 4y ago

It's not about the user having to see ads. It's about Netflix trying to sell ad spots to advertisers, which might affect all (even paying) users. I.e. by getting pressured into censoring or promiting certain shows, to close the advertising deal.

vintermann 4y ago

It's not really about Netflix. The point is merely that "just because you pay them, doesn't mean you're not also a product to them". Companies love nothing more than to charge both ends of a deal. Take Spotify as another example. I pay them, along with 188 million other people. Does that mean they won't turn around and ask artists, record companies and rights-owning conglomerates for money (or rebates) for putting their stuff in front of me? Of course not. Paying them means they have some interest in pleasing me, but it's far from the only way. On the off chance that Spotify was being scrupulous about not taking payola in any form, it would be impossible for me to verify. Which is in itself a reason for them to cheat; they don't get much economic benefit from goodwill if no one can actually see them being honest. This is not a reason to not use Kagi, it's just a reminder of what forces we're up against. Kagi will need an unusual amount of transparency in everything they do, in order to stand a chance in the long term. And it IS a reason to not get warm fuzzy feelings merely from the fact that you're paying them.

FrontierPsych 4y ago
What you say is true. However, for sure that will get out eventually. If that happens, I would then look at other search engines as well. Most people wouldn't once they get used to doing it one way, so that's all to the good for Kagi. But people like me wouldn't then use it, which is what life is about - your own personal choices. I prefer to pay for services because at least there is a slight chance that they will follow their business plan. But nothing stays the same for forever. As a consumer, we must also change to the changing environment. I'm completely weened off Google, for quite a while now, for example. I'm paying for everything that I use. But it is so little as to be laughable. For example, I use tutanota for my email, first account is free and subsequent ones are $1/month. Big whoop. $12 per year for private emails. I have a number of emails through them because I segregate all my emails - one for just friends, one for business, one for education, etc.

Gareth321 4y ago

1. Increase the price of the normal plans. 2. Create a new plan at the price of the old plan. With ads. I'm sorry, but pretending that they're not adding ads to their "regular" pricing plan is semantic at best. This isn't something they dreamed up overnight. They've been planning this for years and increasing their prices accordingly.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

> It's only on an entry-level account for now....