4 ms·

Should just let me subscribe to individual shows for less. Then at least you'd still have a subscriber. As it stands now I've canceled most of my streaming subs

Should just let me subscribe to individual shows for less. Then at least you'd still have a subscriber. As it stands now I've canceled most of my streaming subscriptions as each only has one or two shows I'd like to watch, and individually each show isn't worth the full sub price to me. The barrier to ease of consumption for a decent price is what Netflix originally solved, that's broken down now. I'm thoroughly considering going back to the high seas.

CJefferson 3y ago
I don’t think individual show subscriptions don’t make financial sense. For Netflix the costs when everyone is subscribed to all their shows, or everyone is subscribed to one show, are basically the same.
- ianbutler 3y ago
  If your double negative was intentional then ignore the below: That's fine, I'm not asking what's best for Netflix. I'm asking what's best for me as a consumer of Netflix. They obviously don't have to meet my arbitrary requirements, but I also don't have to subscribe, and have not been subscribed for some time now. I suspect technical people like myself will just go back to piracy while normal folks get squeezed. It's almost worse than cable at this point.
  - CJefferson 3y ago
    Sorry, double negative wasn't intentional. I don't think individual show subscriptions would give you a cheaper price -- I don't see any way that's the result. If there are 10 shows that cost $100 each to make, and 100 customers all pay for all shows, then that $10 per subscription. If the same 100 customers split into 10 groups, and each group wants one show, then everyone still has to pay $10 to get that show made. The overheads of providing you 10 shows vs 1 show aren't really significant in the big picture, as far as I understand.
    - ianbutler 3y ago
      Ah I think I see what you're saying. The overall group dynamics work out such that to make the distribution economically viable I'd still wind up paying the same. Now that I'm thinking through your lens my way might even result in preventing anything other than what is defined by the majority as mainstream programming from being released. Largely because I doubt shows have anything close to an even distribution of watchers so certain genres would naturally be oversubscribed. I wonder if this is really pointing out to separating the business model for new content versus old content. I very rarely watch a new show, there's so much existing good media, in that case I'm not trying to pay for creation of the show, I'm just trying to pay to have the media available to me, so that's bandwidth, delivery and hosting of said content, versus the continued production of said content.

CJefferson 3y ago

I don’t think individual show subscriptions don’t make financial sense. For Netflix the costs when everyone is subscribed to all their shows, or everyone is subscribed to one show, are basically the same.

ianbutler 3y ago
If your double negative was intentional then ignore the below: That's fine, I'm not asking what's best for Netflix. I'm asking what's best for me as a consumer of Netflix. They obviously don't have to meet my arbitrary requirements, but I also don't have to subscribe, and have not been subscribed for some time now. I suspect technical people like myself will just go back to piracy while normal folks get squeezed. It's almost worse than cable at this point.
- CJefferson 3y ago
  Sorry, double negative wasn't intentional. I don't think individual show subscriptions would give you a cheaper price -- I don't see any way that's the result. If there are 10 shows that cost $100 each to make, and 100 customers all pay for all shows, then that $10 per subscription. If the same 100 customers split into 10 groups, and each group wants one show, then everyone still has to pay $10 to get that show made. The overheads of providing you 10 shows vs 1 show aren't really significant in the big picture, as far as I understand.
  - ianbutler 3y ago
    Ah I think I see what you're saying. The overall group dynamics work out such that to make the distribution economically viable I'd still wind up paying the same. Now that I'm thinking through your lens my way might even result in preventing anything other than what is defined by the majority as mainstream programming from being released. Largely because I doubt shows have anything close to an even distribution of watchers so certain genres would naturally be oversubscribed. I wonder if this is really pointing out to separating the business model for new content versus old content. I very rarely watch a new show, there's so much existing good media, in that case I'm not trying to pay for creation of the show, I'm just trying to pay to have the media available to me, so that's bandwidth, delivery and hosting of said content, versus the continued production of said content.