Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Changes Its Mind, Will Keep Profiles Feature
xChange writes "I too was disappointed at Netflix's decision to remove the Profiles feature, and let them know via email and telephone. I was surprised to find the following email in my inbox today: 'You spoke, and we listened. We are keeping Profiles. Thank you for all the calls and emails telling us how important Profiles are. We are sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused. We hope the next time you hear from us we will delight, and not disappoint, you.' I thought that it sounded too good to be true, and went to their blog to confirm, finding this entry. Netflix decided to listen to its customers, and keep a feature that many of us find essential for our use of their service. I am surprised, and very pleased."
And if you should find businesses listening to their customers, be not afraid, for you are in Elysium, and already dead!
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
that it is surprising that a company listens to its customers.
While I applaud Netflix, I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers".
Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?
Thanks for fixing the issue, Netflix (really). I'm not trying to pick on you individually. I just find it hilarious when we write headlines about things that are supposed to happen. (cue Chris Rock jokes)
I was really hoping that tons of people would end their subscriptions over this. I wouldn't have to fight to receive my own rentals then. Seeing "very long wait" beside so many films in my queue is awfully annoying.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.
I.E., Netflix was never going to cancel profiles. Instead, they pretend they are going to do so, which brings attention to the fact that they offer profiles, unlike one of their competitors.
Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)
Well, what can I say, Netflix... it appears to have worked. As a Blockbuster Online subscriber, I'm thinking of changing to Netflix because of profiles, which I wasn't aware of. It turns out the advantage of Blockbuster (being able to pick up rentals/drop them off at B&M stores) hasn't been heplful to me, so maybe I'll switch over.
Good jorb on the marketing ploy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I appreciate that they kept profiles. I found them invaluable. Unfortunately, when I was told they were going away, my husband and I painstakingly moved his profile to a different account. Instead of a 3/3 = 6 account, we now have two 3 disk accounts. Damn for being so quick and efficient, I guess.
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
I was pleasantly surprised to find the same email (and submitted to Slashdot) on this. I look forward to continuing to use this feature.
Same here. I look forward to continuing to use the slashdot submit feature, too!
Bad decisions are made all the time. A lot of time, companies will listen to consumers if enough of their customers scream and holler.
Situations where you end up with bone-headed decisions get pushed through despite what the consumer thinks are places where consumers are essentially hostages anyways. For instance, Microsoft... "What? Are you just going to mass migrate all of IBM from Windows? HAH! We'd like to see you try. We'll talk to you again in a week, after you realize it's financial suicide." or "What? You're going to Linux/Mac? Who cares, we have IBM, bitch." Also, gas stations, and oil companies, "You don't want to pay $4.40 a gallon? Hah, let's see you not use gas then..."
The later really bugs me a lot... it's like every year the oil company has been saying things like "we're only making 7% profit, which is the average for a company like ours in a different business." But what they don't see is that they're making a profit in a situation where they SHOULDN'T. Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay... the only reason we still are is because we don't have a choice.
There were a bunch of large companies in IT that imploded because they weren't making money, and this happens all over the place (where companies don't have hostage consumers), so the question should be, "do you deserve to be making 7% profit even though your model is technically failing?"
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay...
The market says otherwise.
2. Announce feature will not be pulled.
You do have choices:
* Mass transit/carpool
* Bicycle/walk
* Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle
* Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.
None of those are easy, and I admit I'm mostly just paying the higher prices too, but for a long time I've known that my next car (I drive relatively little, my first new car is 10 years old and only has around 56000 miles on it) will at the very least be a hybrid...possibly a used one.
For those who have them already, the rest of us don't have an "Account Profiles" link in on our Your Account page. I guess we'll get one in a couple weeks.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Actually, that link just takes me to my account page -- I think that since they were going to cancel the feature, they removed the profiles capability from accounts that didn't already have it set up (so that people didn't start using it just before it was removed). This makes me think that this is probably a real case of backpedaling due to customer feedback, and not just a marketing ploy. If they were trying to push profiles, there'd be a big link on everyone's account page.
FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel. OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve). There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption). I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies! If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?
I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price.
There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, etc.
As I indicated in my post, if they are still buying the product then by definition they are willing to pay. It's called an inelastic demand and market forces work just fine there. Maybe you forgot that from ECON 101.
I never said that Petroleum is a free market, but rather that the GGP has an incorrect understanding of "willing to pay" (which you seem to share). Petroleum is indeed a prototypical example of an oligopoly based market. However, the reasons it is not a free market have nothing to do with whether you buy gas (i.e. elasticity) and everything to do with from whom you buy gas (i.e. oligopoly). The GGP is blaming the wrong cause which is no help to anybody.
No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.
Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Adidas could make a lot of profit (for a while) by firing most of their employees and licensing their brand for use on all kinds of things like power drinks, car air fresheners, condoms, and breath mints. This would, however, diminish the brand as well as the value of the company to the shareholders.
While value and profitability are closely linked, they are not the same thing.