74% of Netflix Subscribers Would Rather Cancel Their Subscription Than See Ads (allflicks.net)

An anonymous reader writes: AllFlicks conducted a survey of more than 1,200 people on Reddit, asking them a series of questions regarding ads on Netflix. "Would you rather pay more for Netflix or see advertisements while you stream?" they asked. Of more than 1,200 respondents, an incredible 90% said they'd prefer a price hike to ads. "The sweet spot appears to be $1-2 [more], which 57% of respondents chose as their upper bound. A further 22% said they could go as high as $2-3 more, and less than a quarter were willing to go higher." The next question they asked: "If Netflix started showing ads, would you cancel your subscription?" Nearly 74% said they'd be done with Netflix if ads debuted on the service. AllFlicks writes, "Netflix's users are sending the service a pretty clear message: if the service starts selling ads, customers would consider leaving." In early May, CordCutting.com crunched some numbers and found that each Netflix subscriber saves themselves about 158.5 hours of commercials per year.

Comments

Content

[NetNed]

If they don't improve their content of movies that were actually in the theater ads might not matter.........

Re:Content

[butchersong]

Their strategy is original content and older back catalog stuff you might have in the past seen on stations like TBS. I think that is working. It would be suicidal of them to implement ads though. They have to have observed what happened once Hulu offered ad free service -usage skyrocketed.

Re:Content

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, I'm ready to cancel because I've pretty much watched everything they have that I want to watch (in just a few months, for a few hours a week). This is in Canada.

Search for any good movie on there and you'll get no results or "related" C movies. For example, try "Casablanca" or "Superman". How can a service call itself "Netflix" when they have not even got the old classics and cheesy standbys. Netflix? More like Net-crappy-shit-you-don't-want-to-watch-ix.

I'm not interested in their "hot babes in jail" series or other crap.

YouTube has more and better content. Sorry Netflix.

Re:Content

[JackieBrown]

There was an article a few weeks back that they will be getting all new disney, marve, lucasfilm, and-pixar movies
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

And they have pretty amazing TV content

Re:Content

[pr0t0]

This is why I have the Blu-Ray disc option. A lot of their original content is fantastic, but the back catalog of streaming content is a steaming pile of crap. The first run theater content is generally only available on disc though. It seems antiquated, but it works. Eventually the current distribution model for first-run films will change...hopefully in my lifetime.

Re:Content

[Things_falling_apart]

I did cancel my subscription as I couldn't find anything else I wanted to watch, I'm also in Canada. I like their business model, but I went two months without watching anything. I am not going to pay for a service I like to support but am not using use.

Re:Content

[Gr8Apes]

The first run theater content is generally only available on disc though. It seems antiquated, but it works.

How cute. Until streaming comes anywhere near BD quality, I will continue with discs. I would rather not watch blocky blurred stuttering video with crappy audio.

Re:Content

[Bartles]

Hello, it's not 2008 anymore.

Re: Content

[thundercattt]

I cancelled my Netflix too because the content locked into Canada. It was rarely updated, and once they started the VPN witch hunt. I just cancelled it and went back to torrents. Teaches me to want to pay for things.

Re:Content

[rahvin112]

You are wrong. They will license anything they can that's being offered at reasonable prices. There are studio's that refuse to license anything and there are others that offer it at such a high price that it's economically impossible for Netflix to license the material. They've moved to producing their own content to act as a counter this licensing problem.

Personally I'd like to see congress make licensing compulsory if the content is owned by a internet provider (ie cable or telephone company). Many of these companies are the ones that are refusing to provide licenses because they are using it to actively harm the competition Netflix provides. These actions are anti-competitive and harm the free market. Until there is compulsory licensing at a fixed price regardless of size the market will remain broken and Netflix can only develop their own content to use as leverage in these deals.

Re:Content

[Darinbob]

That's not the strategy, that's just what they can get. The newer movies are being held back because the owners don't want to give up streaming rights or are trying to get more money from Netflix. That's why you may not find some movies on Netflix even though their sequels are available. Netflix would show everything if they could.

Re:Content

[Darinbob]

Youtube doesn't have the content legally though. Early on Netflix had a lot of stuff (at least in US) because it was new and no one thought it would go anywhere or would just be a side-channel. Then when those licenses came up for renewal the attitudes had changed and the content owners either realized they were sitting on a gold mine and wanted their own streaming service, or they saw Netflix cutting deeply into their cable business, and so were reluctant to let Netflix have as much as they used to. If cable companies had their way there would be no third party streaming which would be forbidden by criminal law and a roving truck full of bat wielding enforcers.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

Ha ha?

At the lowest end was a file encoded with a bitrate of 235 kbps, which would work even on very slow connections, but also only deliver a resolution of 320 by 240 pixels. Somewhere in the middle was a 1750 kbps file for a resolution of 1280 by 720, and the best quality was a 5800 kbps version for a great-looking 1080p experience.

You do realize that's lower than AT&T and FIOS HD bitrates and about equal to TW, none of which are claimed to have even good picture quality? 5800kbps is half of a DVDs bitrate and below most of the audio bitrates I use for my digital library. Then again, you're probably watching this on a phone or tablet in mono. Their "new improved" compression tech not withstanding, the video and sound quality of these streams is noticeably lower than what I generally watch. There's a reason I have OTA DVRs working (better than double that bitrate)

Re:Content

[Gr8Apes]

You'd think so with the quality of streaming video.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

I'm fully hardwired and running on Gb. There's no issues with my players, they stream my much higher bitrate digital library just fine. You cannot squeeze better quality video out of something that's highly compressed. You have the option of dropping detail, lines, or (partial) frames. The latter I suspect causes the stuttering I object to, it's almost like watching interlaced video with small rapid movements blurring on screen.

Re: Content

[Darinbob]

You mean that BBC yanked permission. Netflix would have those shows if they were allowed to have them. It's not like Netflix is dropping programs voluntarily just to piss of customers. Blame the parties which are responsible.

Re:Content

[Darinbob]

The way the content owners want it is that you get a subscription with every single content owner. Right now you can get first run films by paying $5-$20 to stream them (temporarily only). They don't want some cheap ass cord cutter to pay $10 to get hundreds of first run movies, instead these guys want you to go back to paying $100/month for basic cable service and another $10-20 for each movie channel.

Blu-ray and dvd right now cost way too much for what you get, only worth it for kids movies where you know the kids will watch the same thing twenty times in a row wihtout getting bored, but not worth it to watch the movie only once.

Re:Content

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not really up to them. Individual content owners want to take as much money from you as possible.

So they are all dividing into their own $10 channels- or selling their content for higher prices to other online services.

Personally, if netflix put in ads, I'd be done tho.

I just saw Dramaworld on Netflix- a very good 4ish hours of my life.

Re:Content

[Deep Esophagus]

It would be suicidal of them to implement ads though.

Some of us are old enough to remember when the whole point of cable TV was that by paying a fixed fee every month, we were spared the annoyance of ads.

It'll come. Sooner or later, probably sooner, streaming content will be just as ad-choked and invasive as broadcast TV and cable/dish services.

Re:Content

[pjbgravely]

Then how come non of the 70's and 80's movies I like are no where to be found. I have to buy DVD's if I want to see them. All I can ever find to watch are indie documentaries.

I recently was telling some friends about a great 80's movie I found. They asked if it was on Netflix and I had to say, no it is a good movie. It isn't on Prime either.

Re: Content

[jofas]

Oh, good quote: Variety.com. Why? Why not just quote Netflix itself? https://help.netflix.com/en/no...
First, calm down. No need to get all butthurt about not having access to fiber. Second: No, I watch on a variety of devices ranging from a 1080P display down to an Android phone. Third: Video compression has evolved VERY much past 1999 DVD MPEG2 CBR streams. VBR and quantization *alone* are miles ahead of what you're talking about. Fourth: Video compression used for streaming doesn't work the same way as video file compression. How the file itself is encoded is important, but not as important as how client-server negotiation dynamically changes the stream to suit its current bandwidth conditions. Fourth: The specs quoted for HD (by netflix or variety) are WAY high. Just look at your bandwidth usage while a 1080 stream is going. No where near 5Mbps, more like 800-900 Kbps. Thats because most movies/shows are not michael Bay explosion festivals with high dynamic range and screen movement.
Even on McDonald's and Startbucks shitty throttled wifi, Netflix is watchable. True, it might be dropping to 720p, but there is NO way McDonalds is providing me with 5Mbps.
I understand the pain of shitty service, but once you discover stuff like Kodi with premium sources to fill in the gaps where Netflix can't help, you'll notice your bandwidth may not be all as bad as you think. I now only maintain a tiny number of movies in my library, and they're only ones I can't really find anywhere to stream.

Re: Content

[jofas]

Also: Mono? who broadcasts video with Mono audio???? no one, that's who.

Re:Content

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. They will license anything they can that's being offered at reasonable prices. There are studio's that refuse to license anything and there are others that offer it at such a high price that it's economically impossible for Netflix to license the material. They've moved to producing their own content to act as a counter this licensing problem.

I think you have gotten that utterly wrong.

Own content is a unique selling point that gives them an edge over their competitors - the only competive edge! If Netflix would only show content licensed from other studios, they would essentially have the same catalogue as their competitors, and become a commodity that could easily be replaced by another streaming service.

The streaming market is moving towards content that's unique to each service, with the large backlog catalogue being just an "extra".

Re: Content

[squiggleslash]

5800kbps is half of a DVDs bitrate

Not in practice, no. This might be why you're having problems believing that modern streaming is any good.

10Mbps is the maximum bitrate of DVD, not the average. Generally the average is around 3-4Mbps (if it wasn't, you wouldn't see any single layer single sided DVDs containing more than 80 minutes of content...)

But it doesn't stop there. That 3Mbps stream doesn't just include the video, it includes the audio. And on most DVDs, that's the core 5.1 stream in DTS (either 768kbps or 1.44Mbps) and/or DD (around 384kbps), plus the Spanish version (usually at least 384kbps), plus the director's commentary. So around 1-2Mbps of that 3-4Mbps (up to half!) is audio - and mostly redundant audio!

And the video... well, the video is compressed using MPEG 2 on a DVD. And MPEG 2 is difficult to optimize. Just look at the supposedly black background on the closing credits for example,

Now, with streaming, they've changed the codec to H.264 for the video, which addresses more causes of artifacts than MPEG 2. It obviously depends on the content, but bit for bit, the general consensus is that you can easily get equivalent or better quality out of H.264 over MPEG2 for half the bitrate.

And with streaming, they're only streaming one audio channel. They only need to stream one, as they already know which one you're going to listen to. So instead of including 1-2Mbps of audio in the stream, they only need to include 384kbps (less if you're listening in bi-speaker stereo.)

All of which means that they can go for a much lower streaming speed than you'd expect based upon extrapolating DVD video rates, and achieve much, much, higher quality.

I'm not going to argue that it's Blu-ray quality: when streaming, there's obviously the risk that your available bandwidth will drop and force the video to pause (Vudu) or drop to a lower quality (Amazon), but I would argue that, when I've watched videos without temporary bandwidth problems on, for example, Vudu (which doesn't implement dynamic bandwidth/streaming quality), the quality is good enough that 99% of people will never be able to tell the difference. It's a shame the Roku doesn't contain a hard disk, as it would be nice to tell the system what movie you want to watch, go off and make something to eat, come back, and watch it, knowing there's no risk of temporary bandwidth issues causing problems.

Re: Content

[IMightB]

No kidding, I have/had g/n/ac wireless but when I recently redid my low voltage wiring to include 48 ports of cat6. And wired my entertainment center. My Netflix quality went way up and the load times went was at down

Re: Content

[jofas]

Try again. My last 4 phones had stereo speakers. My tablet has stereo speakers.

But even besides this, providers RARELY broadcast in mono audio.

Re:Content

[doggo]

There's a "hot babes in jail" series? Oh, maybe you mean OITNB. That's just women in jail. It's pretty good actually.

Re:Content

[doggo]

This is the biggest betrayal of modern media. Offer no ads, for a price, then renege on the deal. Cable TV, Public Radio, Public Television, and now streaming services.

More of American business pushing the profit envelope. It's not enough to make a profit, you gotta extort every fucking penny you possibly can out of consumers. Break promises, lie, cheat, steal.

And consumers continue to put up with it.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

Ok, so you are a snowflake, and actually listen to tinny stereo. I have 7.2.4. The audio stream alone requires the full streaming bandwidth of Netflix. I'm not sure anything I say can convince you of what you're missing.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

blah blah blah.

Oh, good quote: Variety.com

It was the first thing that popped up on google, and was more informative than Netflix.

Now, here's some interesting things about video compression. MPEG4 is about 4 times better than MPEG2 for a similar quality picture. If you think what you watch is different based on whether it's streamed or comes from a file... well, as I say below in another response to you, there's nothing I can say that will convince you of what you're missing.

Finally - it's not a bandwidth thing. I exceed all Netflix's requirements by far with low latency to boot. My problem isn't with bandwidth, but the quality of the streams themselves. It's like listening to FM radio, many will be ok with the quality because they don't know any better.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

Ie - The way DVB/IPTV works it will usually result in a 10Mbit stream to be much lower quality than a stream encoded for unicast-delivery.

Good general description of IPTV. FYI: AT&T's streams are no more than 7Mbps, at least as of last year. OTA streams for the same stations range between 9 and 15 Mbps. They have visibly better PQ, even on my crappy secondary LED set.

Re:Content

[rtb61]

Having done exactly that, I can tell you now, when ever I hear a commercial, it sounds like it is screaming at me, real fingernail chalk board stuff. You must get used to it as a child because after a few years away from it, it sounds truly awful, nothing does more to piss me off. I heard a KFC commercial, it was annoying but I still felt like some chicken, I heard it again and I was put right off chicken, I heard it yet again and I dropped out of you tube and avoided KFC for months (hard to tell how many I simply stopped going there). Don't know what it is about the sound of many commercials but once you become unaccustomed to them, they are truly off putting (unless they are polite, informative and quiet, generally only government announcements). So no radio or free to air TV and only limited youtube with mute switched on prior to starting the video, just to make sure.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

5800kbps is half of a DVDs bitrate

Not in practice, no. This might be why you're having problems believing that modern streaming is any good.

No, I base my views on actual comparisons that I've done personally, on multiple sets I own. HD Streaming isn't any good. It's better than SD streaming as there is inherently more detail on screen, but compared to 1080p BD quality with x-HD sound, streaming is just a pale shade of what you could be experiencing.

I'm not going to argue that it's Blu-ray quality: when streaming, there's obviously the risk that your available bandwidth will drop and force the video to pause (Vudu) or drop to a lower quality (Amazon), but I would argue that, when I've watched videos without temporary bandwidth problems on, for example, Vudu (which doesn't implement dynamic bandwidth/streaming quality), the quality is good enough that 99% of people will never be able to tell the difference. It's a shame the Roku doesn't contain a hard disk, as it would be nice to tell the system what movie you want to watch, go off and make something to eat, come back, and watch it, knowing there's no risk of temporary bandwidth issues causing problems.

And there's the rub, if I'm going to watch something, I'd prefer to watch it in its best form, not some pale shade of itself. And you're probably right, 99% of those happy with streaming will never be able to tell the difference. It likely has to do with their eyesight. (This is not a slam, just an observation of nature) There are, for instance, quite a few people that were perfectly happy with 60Hz CRT monitors back in the days that those were in use. For me, seeing the scan line going across the screen was torture. It's why I always paid more for the higher scan rate monitors. I found that 76Hz was the minimum for me. Others were happy with 70 or 72Hz. Essentially, what that means is some people are far more sensitive to screen timing effects, and why LED ghosting / motion blur bothers some of us so much we can't watch those sets at all. My "crappy" LED is a 240Hz set, and I can still see it ghosting on certain material when I have it on. I own it because I missed the Kuros when my old set died and good plasmas were temporarily unavailable.

Re:Content

[shaitand]

"You are wrong. They will license anything they can that's being offered at reasonable prices."

There is a the rub. How you define "reasonable prices" is how they determine what grade of content they will have. The fact is that the quality of Netflix content has steadily dropped over time while the price has increased.

The question is not would I rather pay more or see ads. The question is why should I do either when Netflix offers less than it did when I agreed to pay what I'm paying now ad free.

Re:Content

[shaitand]

There are a couple babes but mostly just women. It's okay if there is nothing good on. House of cards is the only Netflix original I've seen that is really good.

Re:Content

[shaitand]

Their TV content is mediocre at best. They are missing seasons and episodes in a seemingly random way.

Re:Content

[AmiMoJo]

Then people will go back to torrents... Don't underestimate how much they despise ads and time wasting. People used to post episodes of Mythbusters with all the filler cut out (about 10 minutes remained of a 23 minute show) and they were immensely popular.

Netflix, like MP3 music stores, only win against piracy because they offer a better or at least equivalent product. As soon as they offer something worse people will abandon them.

Re:Content

[shaitand]

I think you need to look at your ISP. I view on 120 inch screen and compression artifacts are extremely visible. Netflix does just fine on my 75/75 FIOS link which is something I can't say about cable. Either your link is slow, your ISP is throttling, or there is some overloaded link/device between you and Netflix servers.

As for streams in general I can stream full bluray quality video, including audio streams, from my Plex server on four tv's at once all day long.

Re: Content

[AmiMoJo]

The BBC has started up it's own online streaming rental service now. It's disguised as a shop but you can't actually buy anything, all you get are streaming rights until the inevitable day they shut it down. The prices are hilarious too, several times as much as a physical disc from Amazon.

Re:Content

[angel'o'sphere]

Because they are under copyright and the streaming services have to buy the rights first?
Wow, that was easy ...

Check youtube. Plenty of old school movies there.

Re:Content

[Gr8Apes]

same ISP and service. :)

Re: Content

[Darinbob]

Ugh, Doctor Who is on Amazon Prime, the wannabe sucky streaming service. Oh well, I hear they're thinking of a month-to-month service, so I can wait a couple years, sub for one month and binge it all, wait another couple of years...

Re:Content

[NigelTheFrog]

It'll come. Sooner or later, probably sooner, streaming content will be just as ad-choked and invasive as broadcast TV and cable/dish services.

and Hulu, unless you pay more.

Re: Content

[jofas]

Man, you're negative.

Well, I guess if UHD or 4K with 7.4.2 surround is what you crave, than yes, Netflix isn't there yet.

Without meaning offense, may I presume you don't subscribe to Netflix?

Re:Content

[shaitand]

Ah, maybe you are using that terrible router they give you? It was a hassle but I got them enable Ethernet and set up a bridge that provides network access on the cable line for the guide and PPV. Extremely reliable but it confuses the cable guys to no end if they come out for any reason.

I use a Juniper SRX firewall as my home router and tossed the wifi router they provided. For the network access for media devices I use wired 1g links, wireless doesn't really seem to keep up well. Most likely because wired is 1g/1g on every port whereas the wireless bandwidth is shared between all devices and reduced by other wifi networks which is a big issue in cities. You can pretty much ignore the "connection speed" reported by PCs it's just the max negotiated speed and doesn't mean things are actually running at that speed all the time. I do have a wireless router thrown on a vlan to provide wifi access to other devices of course.

Re:Content

[Coren22]

Blame your ISP, that isn't a Netflix issue.

Re: Content

[Coren22]

As above, that issue is not Netflix, that is your ISP. Netflix looks like a Bluray on my TV running through the Tivo as a player on Verizon FiOS 75/75Mbit, so if you have those issues on your Gb, your ISP is intentionally throttling Netflix to decrease your experience with them and shift you to their offerings.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

Negative? Not at all. If you're driving a solid late model Toyota, Lexus, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, whatever, and someone says "here is a brand new Yugo, you should drive it and love it because I think it's great" I would bet you wouldn't. I have numerous issues with Netflix's service, and yes I used to be a subscriber, as well as Hulu, Vudu and a couple of others. I've tried them, they didn't live up to the hype. The picture quality is lacking, the audio is unquestionably inferior, and there are other issues as well, ranging from lack of sufficient buffering to deal with latency when their servers get loaded to degraded streams to the selection of content to the viewing experience itself.

Now, if you want to argue that the picture/audio is as good as cable, and possibly some of the IPTV content, you would have a point. But in no way does it come anywhere near BD quality or even OTA. It's as crappy a stream as they can make it and have it be accepted as great by the 80%. OK, maybe 85%. There's a reason people still buy movies to own for their own library or rent, and at least for some it's because watching it in other ways just isn't a pleasure.

And 4K doesn't do a thing for me yet, I'm waiting to see a properly calibrated OLED 4K HDR system before deciding on whether I'll buy one to replace my plasma. Since the plasma's still fine, there's no reason to replace it unless I gain something out of it. Just more pixels on screen isn't going to win me over. Since we're having this discussion, you'd probably hate my TV, for not being bright enough and having colors "pop" like you see in the stores, and the people will look "soft" because they're not in a super bright overly contrasted cartoon of a picture. Visit the AVSForums and ask whether you should keep your ZT60 in Vivid mode. You'll get some interesting responses. No offense meant, just stating that we appear to have entirely different expectations for our movie watching experiences. Our definitions of quality as related to video and audio are also likely vastly different.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

My provider is Verizon FiOS.

Re:Content

[Gr8Apes]

I do use their new gateway router, it seems fine performance wise. I routinely pass multiple large files with better than 5MB/s average speeds the holdup is the other end, most are on slower pipes than me or have slow spinning target disks. Essentially, for streaming to replace my video library, I require at least the same picture quality, full surround plus Dolby Atmos / DTS-X when those are available for a movie, and I'd like them available all the time when I wish to see them. Streaming just isn't there and won't be, as long as the current distribution deals continue. It's not financially feasible for anyone but the content rights holders to offer up that type of service. There's a reason Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc are creating their own content. The more of that you watch, the better financially off those services are because they're not paying fees for other shows.

Re:Content

[CauseBy]

For sure. I canceled my subscription three or four years ago when I thought their content selection had gone downhill quite a ways. I'm not into big-time Hollywood movies, I enjoy a certian niche of show, and there was lots for me to watch for a while. Then it started disappearing. Discs in my queue were just not there anymore. Some would appear on the side-queue for unavailable titles, some wouldn't. When my queue got short and I couldn't find anything in the library to watch I stopped service.

I don't have a hell of a lot of time to watch videos anyway. I don't have cable and don't own a TV because of advertisements. If Netflix started showing ads I would not even begin to consider subscribing. What the hell are you paying $$ for if they are also showing you ads? When I open my wallet the entire point is to not see ads.

Re: Content

[Coren22]

You have gigabit (as you say above) from FiOS? Funny, the fastest I have ever seen advertised is 300 Mb.

I would suggest you look into why your connection is shitty than.

Re: Content

[jofas]

Point taken. I suppose I'm coming from years of media management that simply wore me down. I enjoy quality as well, but the truth is that I'm the only one in our family who cares. If streaming gives me back hours a week, then streaming it is. I do suggest you seek out some 4k demos in good av stores, I think there may still be something to impress you. Good luck on your multemedia journey.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

No - internally I'm running Gb. I can only get 500/500. :(

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

My connection is fine, the streams are shitty. When you smash the tomato to slide it under the door, you can't get a tomato out the other side.

Re: Content

[Gr8Apes]

My media management is minimal at this point. In the time it takes to spin up a BD disk in a player, I'm already migrating it to my HTPC, sans all the forced advertisements etc. And then I don't think about it while I continue doing whatever I was doing.

A simple truth:

[olsmeister]

If someone pays for a service, they will not want to see commercials. No need for focus groups, surveys, marketing research, or high priced consultants. Frame my first sentence and hang it in your lobby Netflix.

Re:A simple truth:

[Nutria]

People forget that when cable was first offered the big selling point was there were no ads

As someone who was alive and old enough to have paid attention... no .

The selling points were:
clear reception in all weather, and
more channels.

Re:A simple truth:

[93 Escort Wagon]

If someone pays for a service, they will not want to see commercials.

Yup, exactly.

We had tried Hulu Plus a few years back, and the commercials drove us nuts - we cancelled within two months. It wasn't until they created an ad-free tier that we even considered going back.

And frankly, with Netflix dropping more and more of their third-party content, we're seriously considering dropping Netflix streaming anyway - in which case, commercial-free Hulu Plus would be the only streaming service we subscribe to (we've also got HBO Go, but HBO is included for free as part of our Limited Basic cable subscription for some odd reason - I wouldn't pay $15/month for HBO NOW).

Re:A simple truth:

[DogDude]

Cable TV and movie theaters prove your statement to be wrong. People frequently pay for a service AND see commercials.

Re:A simple truth:

[Grishnakh]

People keep paying for cable TV. People keep buying magazines and newspapers. People keep going to pro sporting events. Ads everywhere.

Those aren't the same people as Netflix subscribers. Some businesses are simply more successful at getting suckers as customers than others. Netflix is not the type of business that will do well only catering to suckers, unlike people who go to ball games and subscribe to cable TV.

Re:A simple truth:

[StormReaver]

Yep. I would consider it for exactly the length of time it took to click on the "Delete Account" link.

Re:A simple truth:

[zlives]

not to mention actual content.

Re:A simple truth:

[suutar]

but they don't _want_ to (except maybe movie previews), they just put up with it.

Re:A simple truth:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I agree wholeheartedly as an individual. But the number of people who are willing to do so is staggering. Just look at the apps that use ads + dollars as their revenue.

Re:A simple truth:

[Dunbal]

Plenty of people "bat an eye" or are you just not aware of all the cable cutting going on? The cable companies have screwed themselves out of their own market. Ain't nobody going to pay $100+ a month for the opportunity to watch Die Hard every other night on every fucking channel.

Re:A simple truth:

[CrankyFool]

It's worth noting, BTW, that Netflix didn't sponsor this study. Mostly because everyone at Netflix already knows how toxic ads would be to the brand.

Signed,
a geek who works for Netflix

Re:A simple truth:

[Obfuscant]

Except the cable companies aren't selling you the content, they're selling the delivery. You're paying for the delivery of ESPN or a broadcast channel; it's ESPN and the broadcast channel that are showing you the ads. Considering the history and original purpose of cable TV, it's a bit silly to expect them to strip the ads from the broadcast channels just so you don't get ads while you're paying for the "service". Or to strip ads from any of the content providers, for that matter. I'm not sure anyone would rather see dead air in place of the ads they'd have to take out. Some might, but most of them would then complain about the long periods of blank screen. "We're paying for the show, not three minutes of black!"

Yes, there are cable ads inserted into the delivery, called "local avails" ("time available for local ads"). But they're not changing the amount of ads you get, they're covering up an ad that the content provider would have been showing you anyway.

Re:A simple truth:

[Bartles]

Try 19 minutes.

Re:A simple truth:

[Obfuscant]

not to mention actual content.

No, the original reason for cable television systems wasn't for "actual content". It was for better reception of the existing broadcast television signals. MATV (master antenna) and CATV (community antenna) were two early acronyms. People who lived in dense apartment buildings had a hard time getting a good signal; the landlord (or tenants) would pay for a "community antenna" on the roof to deliver the RF signal to their indoor sets. Or a rural community would do the same thing for the residents.

It wasn't until someone got the bright idea of distributing content via satellite (and the costs became reasonable) that "cable TV" started selling distribution of non-broadcast content. Ted Turner and TBS was one of the pioneers, and all he did was distribute a satellite feed of his WTBS independent station in Atlanta. And yes, you got to see the Atlanta ads, until they got national advertiser's attention and could sell ads that replaced them in the national feed.

Anyone who claims that "cable TV was created to sell ad-free content" is ignoring all the history prior to HBO. It would be like trying to explain to someone why all of the area codes used to have either 0 or 1 as the middle digit. Or to people who have never read the RFC for mailboxes what all the valid characters are in an email address, and they assume since they've never seen a '+' or a '!' in one that those certainly must be illegal.

Re:A simple truth:

[ElectricHellKnight]

I thought I was the only who noticed this. It seemed like, for a few months at least, they were running Die Hard constantly. Normal TV-MA Die Hard, awful censored TV-14 Die Hard ("Yippie ki-yay mothercrusher"), Spanish Die Hard. At one point, I actually Googled to see if Bruce Willis or someone had died. This was before Alan Rickman's death, but they ran even more Die Hard after that.

Funny thing is, I usually ended up watching it because it was the best thing on. Now I can recite the entire script with uncanny ability.

Re:A simple truth:

[Reeses]

Cable TV was "invented" to service a town in Pennsylvania that lived in the valley between two mountains that blocked terrestrial broadcast TV signals. Someone had the bright idea to put antennae at the top of each mountain to capture the signals, combine the channels to provide a consolidated feed to the town and charge people for the convenience/service.

Everything else was added on afterwards.

Re:A simple truth:

[Hognoxious]

If Hulu Plus has commercials, what did you have to sign up to to get did of them - Hulu Doubleplus?

And if so does ordinary Hulu have anything other than commercials?

I'm sure some people would actually watch it in any case.

Re: A simple truth:

[thundercattt]

I agree. YouTube is starting to be like that. If I put on a 30 min kids show from YouTube, you end up with an ad every 10 minutes. I stopped using YouTube for that reason.

Re:A simple truth:

[Hognoxious]

Many moons ago, I was on the road in a hotel on a public holiday, worn out from the week before. I don't recall which historical epic I watched or whether it was TCM or HBO, but I was that bored I timed it and yeah, it came out to about a third ads.

Re:A simple truth:

[Kjella]

If someone pays for a service, they will not want to see commercials. No need for focus groups, surveys, marketing research, or high priced consultants. Frame my first sentence and hang it in your lobby Netflix.

Well duh, users don't want to see ads when they don't pay either. If you take a survey of people using ad blockers you can get a lot of other fringe reasons but mainly it's because they don't like watching ads. Faster load times, less bandwidth consumption, less chance of getting hacked by malware ads and so on are just gravy. All other things being equal, users never want to see ads. So the question is, what are you getting in return?

The question is very negatively laden for the customer, if Netflix wants to raise revenue how can they milk you for more money. A more reasonable and pro-consumer question would be how much cheaper an ad-supported tier would have to be. Like $2 off, $5 off, free, "not even if it's free". I'm sure you have both extremes, those who'll never pay a premium or subscription for ad free anything and those who'll pay any amount to opt out of ads. And I'm sure there's some stuck in the middle who'd like to do the latter but can only go part of the way and would settle for some kind of hybrid tier.

As long as people are offered more choices, I'm cool with that. Nothing keeps Netflix from doing all the models. It's a bit more annoying when you don't have choices like ads at the cinema, there is no premium tier without them so they can effectively choose to have it their way no matter what. And if Netflix did the same, yeah I'm sure many would cancel, though people usually bring out the hyperbole in surveys. But if they did an either-or and let people choose, users could decide for themselves.

Re:A simple truth:

[zlives]

my comment was explicitly about HBO and Showtime.

Re:A simple truth:

[mattack2]

...and people are ignoring that the newspaper (yes some of us still read them) and magazines have ads in them too.

Also, as someone who really really hates ads in general (one exception is for movie previews, if the DVD lets me watch them AFTER I watch the movie, instead of forcing them on me before), for the few podcasts that I listen to that do "live read" commercials, I almost never try to skip them, because they're sometimes funny and clearly go off script.. Yet whenever they have a 'regular' commercial break, I usually skip it (unfortunately some podcast's breaks are short enough that it's hard to skip).

Re:A simple truth:

[93 Escort Wagon]

If Hulu Plus has commercials, what did you have to sign up to to get did of them - Hulu Doubleplus?

Hulu Doubleplusgood

Re:A simple truth:

[Mr D from 63]

It's worth noting, BTW, that Netflix didn't sponsor this study. Mostly because everyone at Netflix already knows how toxic ads would be to the brand.

Bingo! Netflix has already figured out how to be successful, and part of that is not having ads. They don't have any plans to move to ads. And we already know that people prefer to not have ads. What a waste of time.

Re:A simple truth:

[Darinbob]

There's often just one or two things tying people to the old clumsy methods that cost too much and come with awful customer service. Some people are addicted to sports and they can't imagine dropping that and going only with broadcast sports even with all the money it would save them. Some need to see that one show that isn't streaming anywhere yet. Some don't have good internet service available. Etc. When I cut the cord it was great. A few shows I could not easily get, or I had to wait a year to see compared to when it was on cable, but that was worth the added benefits I got.

Magazines and newspapers though, those ads are acceptable. They're not in your face, they don't come with malware attached, some are actually pretty useful if they come with coupons, and they're far more likely to be of interest to the reader than the randomized internet ads. If web ads acted like print ads there'd be no need for ad blockers.

Re:A simple truth:

[Darinbob]

Yes and no. You did not get the same shows on cable, you got different shows. If you had cable access to your local broadcast channels via cable then you also got the advertisements on those channels. If you got remote stations offered locally (TBS) then you got the ads that came with those channels. While the early cable-only channels didn't have commercials, it wasn't really a selling point as I think most subscribers just assumed that naturally there'd be no advertisements or that they'd only show in between programs (European style) the same way we treat movie theaters.

The prices for cable really are a result of basically having a monopoly service. In most locales you get a choice of 1 cable company only with an option to get satellite if your landlord allows or you're willing to pay for the installation (not that difficult really but I think some people are put off by it though). The cable companies also bundle service - you get a discount if you get cable, internet, and phone all from the same place. I've heard a lot of people bitch about Comcast who admit that they stick with it because of a perceived discount Probably $10-20 accounts for infrastructure costs, $20 for the basic non-premium content, and the rest is markup. And cable does not want to give up that markup and so are doing what it takes to either diminish streaming services or get their own foot in the door.

Re:A simple truth:

[Darinbob]

Some people are dropping, and they are in the minority. But it's enough of them that cable is worried and the licensing for streaming services is getting more restrictive. Most people stick wtih cable because there's a few things they still want that they can't get elsewhere (and it's hard to give up your addictions) or they think that their crappy internet won't hack it (borrowing a Chromecast is great for trying it out).

Re:A simple truth:

[Darinbob]

Netflix doesn't drop voluntarily, it's just that they can't get the licenses to everything. Hulu can't keep all its programming either. Ie, when Doctor Who was dropped, it was dropped from everything (probably in preparation for some BBC streaming service), and if a movie rights are currently held by Starz then you won't be able to get it on Netflix or Hulu either. I never bothered with Hulu because all the shows I wanted were on Netflix already, and Netflix tends to have more movies.

Re:A simple truth:

[Darinbob]

Oh, can you tell your bosses to get rid of that silly feature where a program starts playing before I hit play? I just want to read the show's description without the music and video starting. Oh and no auto-playing videos for featured programs either, not even than Pee-Wee Herman thing. Other than that, I like it, just don't such up my bandwidth until I'm ready to watch.

Re:A simple truth:

[jafac]

If someone pays for a service, they will not want to see commercials.

Yeah; and any MBA stuffed suits out there who doubt this very simple fact? Please swallow a shotgun. Nobody ever wanted to pay to see ads. Nobody ever will. Just take your ads and fuck right off please.

Re: A simple truth:

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. YouTube is starting to be like that. If I put on a 30 min kids show from YouTube, you end up with an ad every 10 minutes. I stopped using YouTube for that reason.

But why? I don't understand this either-or stance of yours.

Run uBlock Origin or Adblock Plus and you'll forget that Youtube ever had ads. Seriously, they just don't exist. There's no placeholders. There's no pause. There's nothing. There's just constant uninterrupted video that you chose to watch. It's the only sane way to experience Youtube.

Re:A simple truth:

[Gonarat]

The Lehigh Valley (Allentown/Bethlehem) had one of the first Cable Companies -- Service Electric, founded around 1948 if I remember correctly. The Lehigh Valley had a hard time receiving signals from Philly, New York City, or Scranton/Wilkes Barre because of the mountains, so antennas were put on top of the mountain(s) and the signals from NYC, Philly, and Scranton/Wilkes Barre were re-transmitted. When we first got cable (around 1970) that is all it was. Then around late 1972 or early 1973 Service Electric started offering a new pay service - Home Box Office. A special box was required to receive it because it was placed on a cable channel between channels 6 and 7 (some TVs could had tuners that could receive HBO). A few years later, they began scrambling HBO, and added Cinemax, PRISM, and The Disney Channel (the original version) -- all scrambled. By the late 70's news channels (the forerunners to CNN) began appearing, and by the 80's Nickelodeon, MTV, and other channels began appearing, all on the new cable channels. The pay channels (HBO, Skinamax, PRISM, etc.) were commercial free, but the other "premium" channels always had commercials, but not in the quantities that we have them today.

Re:A simple truth:

[TheRaven64]

And cinema attendance has been dropping steadily for a decade, to the extent that my local cinema just installed much larger and more comfortable chairs and decreased their total capacity to about a quarter to try to get people to go back: when it was built, they were often close to capacity, now they don't even fill up all of the seats when they have far fewer.

Re:A simple truth:

[Cro Magnon]

Commercials weren't the only reason I quit going to the movies, but they were the straw that broke this caveman's back.

Re:A simple truth:

[Richard Dick Head]

If you're watching Fox News (or Faux News if you're so inclined), try 30 minutes per hour.

Re:A simple truth:

[modecx]

When the local movie theaters began showing 30 minutes of previews and commercials after the listed start time of the movie, I told the management in no uncertain terms that they'd lost a customer, and that they would never again see my ass in their seats.

Want to show ads before the start time? Right, whatever. I'll suffer them. I'll even put up with a few two or three previews before the movie, since that's kind of a cue for people to sit down and shut up. 30 minutes of this nonsense after the lights dim? They can fuck right off!

I've been to precisely one movie since then, and it was a special screening to which my friend got free tickets. It only reaffirmed my resolve. Maybe I'll try another movie in another ten years, if the industry survives that long.

Re:A simple truth:

[Cro Magnon]

awful censored TV-14 Die Hard ("Yippie ki-yay mothercrusher")

Don't get me started on that! I watched that abomination, and it seemed like every other word was some voiceover that didn't even sound remotely like Willis.

Era of 10 second ads

[Archangel Michael]

In this age, commercials are also "content", one that nobody cares for. If I see an ad, for more than 5 or 10 seconds, it is too long. Especially if it one I've seen a couple dozen times already. I already know your product, and showing me another 24 times this week isn't going to help you sell it to me. In all likelihood, it is gonna piss me off, and i'll choose your competitor's or generic version.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[LesFerg]

To be fair, at least once every 10 years I have seen a clever advertisement which has made me think, hey, that was well done, good on you guys, Imma buy some of your product.

The rest of the ads produced usually make me determined to not purchase the product tho.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[93 Escort Wagon]

Don't worry, you'll be seeing BlipVerts soon enough...

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Archangel Michael]

Um, no they don't "need" to track me. They can advertise a broad range of products and services, perhaps have a 1000 or more in queue and that way, I only see their advert once every 1000 clicks, with a daily refresh rate of 1%, I could go years without seeing a duplicate. There are more than 1000 products and services out there, aren't there?

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[sconeu]

[head explodes -- literally]

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Hognoxious]

The rest of the ads produced usually make me determined to not purchase the product tho.

I think I read something once that said that even if you consciously think that, subconsciously it might still work.

Then again, I might have just read something that made me think that.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[93 Escort Wagon]

Someone who remembers Max Headroom!!!

That show took darn near forever to come out on DVD - but I own it!

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[hoborg1]

That is basically what they do, it's just that McDonald's bought 500 of those slots and Hyundai filled the remaining 500.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Darinbob]

Well as a data point, I have seen many many Chrysler ads and have never purchased one. I have also never purchased any feminine hygeine products even if I do want to feel fresh all day. For laundry detergent I choose whichever one is on sale that day. I'm more swayed by the looks of the products in the store than I am by the ads.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[dave420]

It seems you don't have any idea how any of this works.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Drethon]

I did enjoy the Dos Equis commercials. I'm hoping they will still be good with the new actor.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[ausekilis]

What we really need is a pandora-like way to vote up or down on ads. True, there's going to be those people that simply vote every ad down, but I think some sort of system that could send a clear message "this ad sucks... bad" could be helpful to everybody. Consumers get a voice, advertisers get feedback on what definitely doesn't work.

There are a few ads that are funny once or twice. After the 10th time (in a row) they simply need to be voted off the island. Others are just plain terrible to begin with and should be tied to a chair and beaten with hammers.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Cro Magnon]

Depends on how much it annoyed me. Some ads make me go "Ugh" but then I forget about them. I might subconsciously buy some of that crap. Other ads make me go "Arrggghhhh!!!!!" and drive me to chopping up my TV with an axe! I don't forget those ads, and I consciously avoid that product.

Re:Era of 10 second ads

[Hognoxious]

Other ads make me go "Arrggghhhh!!!!!" and drive me to chopping up my TV with an axe!

Google's going to bombard you with ads for TVs and axes now. Maybe anger management courses too.

And a few bucks more for missing content

[DoofusOfDeath]

Netflix is also starting to cut it close as far as not offering me enough content to be useful.

Back in the old days, before they had competition, I could pretty much count on them having episodes of any older TV show I care about, and also lots of anime I hadn't yet seen (English-dubbed "Bleach", "Freezing", "M*A*S*H", etc.)

But lately, they're in the habit of dropping some of those shows, or at least of failing to carry recent seasons.

I'd gladly pay a few more bucks per month for them to remedy that.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[quantaman]

Netflix is also starting to cut it close as far as not offering me enough content to be useful.

Back in the old days, before they had competition, I could pretty much count on them having episodes of any older TV show I care about, and also lots of anime I hadn't yet seen (English-dubbed "Bleach", "Freezing", "M*A*S*H", etc.)

But lately, they're in the habit of dropping some of those shows, or at least of failing to carry recent seasons.

I'd gladly pay a few more bucks per month for them to remedy that.

I doubt it would help.

Netflix isn't missing a comprehensive library because of a mild price hike, they're missing that library because exclusive content is more valuable than comprehensive content.

As much as Netflix wants that show to round out their library another provider wants it more so they can be the exclusive source.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[H3lldr0p]

It may not be the company's fault.

We already know that the cable companies are trying to get rid of them. I'm certain they're trying to keep NetFlix from getting any more content before they do. There's plenty of interest in and resistance from Hollywood studios as well. They don't want to give everything away and probably want to grab it back as soon as possible so they don't lose out on DVD sales.

And then there's that Disney coup that's probably sticking in someone's craw thanks to the back-catalog access. Maybe Disney saw the future and maybe Disney saw the dollars. Could be a bit of both.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[CaptnCrud]

Losing the BBC shows was a bit of a let down too (I need my reddwarf...guess I have to buy them all...). To be fair the online selection has gotten better...the thing is fewer and fewer people are using the disc service, which has much more content available.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[butchersong]

Pretty much. As old content providers enter the market with their own streaming services they want more money and are less inclined to license content to other providers that are now considered real competitors. I'm not sure where this will go. Maybe all content providers will end up with a single large wholesale marketplace where all content creators are and every series and movie is available for x price per stream and region locks become a thing of the past... Yeah, seems more likely we're going to start seeing serious fragmentation of content.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[phoenix_rizzen]

The worst is when you find an older show, start watching it, really get into it, and then realise they only have Season 1, or the first couple of Seasons, but not the rest. :( Sometimes, you might get lucky, and find the later seasons on another streaming service, but usually you have to resort to torrents to find the rest of the show.

I'm okay with Netflix not having current TV shows in their streaming catalog, or not having the current season. But for a show that's been off the air for awhile, only having the beginning is worse than not having it at all.

Especially for kids shows!

Re: And a few bucks more for missing content

[Anonymous Coward]

>If i has prime for the streaming alone if cancel immediately.

I hope you're already in the ER for that stroke.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[SeaFox]

...I could pretty much count on them having episodes of any older TV show I care about, and also lots of anime I hadn't yet seen (English-dubbed "Bleach", "Freezing", "M*A*S*H", etc.).

Hulu has also recently dropped the vast majority of their anime catalog. As someone who had pre-paid for his subscription through November 2017, I'm a little miffed. Might put it "on-hold" to preserve the months and come back when something shows up there I want to watch.

Seems lots of providers are trying to do more original content to avoid having to license things, but miss that the third-party content and older series freely available to see still is what drives lots of people to subscribe to their service to start with.

Re: And a few bucks more for missing content

[thundercattt]

I thought it was just me noticing that. I had bookmarked shows I could watch 100 times. Suddenly, they started disappearing, and being replaced with their own content shows.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[rahvin112]

Disney doesn't own a cable company. Almost everything licensed to Netflix is stuff that's not owned by a cable company (or other television provider). Almost without exception all the cable company owned content is not available to license by Netflix, they refuse to license at any price. Netflix would happily pay to license if they let them at a reasonable price.

This is a deliberate anti-competitive move by the cable companies and I would be surprised if they colluded together before doing it. Congress should mandate compulsory licensing for content owned by a television provider.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[Darinbob]

Netflix can only show content that it has access too. If they could show more programs then they would. They're not cutting back on recent movies in order to focus on original programming, but because they are denied reasonable access to the recent movies.

Not just streaming services, even some cable/satellite offerings run into the negotiation headaches with content providers and they play a game of chicken to see who blinks first; where you sometimes end up with some major channels being dropped completely from the cable lineup.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[Darinbob]

It should be good money for Disney. Cable companies do not show the back catalog. Flip through the cable channels and really there's not much content overall compared to a streaming service. Even on the Disney Channel itself you can't see Cinderella every week, probably not even every year. So there's a ton of content that Disney has that isn't earning it any money.

Now it's true that the streaming services aren't necessarily paying the high prices that major content producers want, but since no one else is paying some of them will license the stuff to be streamed. Other content companies just won't accept that though and are trying to get their own streaming services to compete, often at a higher price than the customers really want. Ie, people used to paying $15/month for added HBO access on cable probably don't mind $15/month for streaming, but I suspect they could get a lot more cord cutting customers if they dropped that price a bit instead of sticking with cable pricing (after all you can get Game Of Thrones on Netflix DVD service cheaper than subbing to HBO, which is the only thing worth paying for on HBO).

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[Darinbob]

That stuff may or may not come back. I haven't heard whether or not BBC is going with their own streaming service, which I suspect would be a huge hit as BBC America is practically the best cable channel in the US. On the other hand all the streaming services got hit by this, not just Netflix.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect Example of this for you and whomever else: The TV show Eureka ran for 5 seasons, and was connected to two other shows: Warehouse 13 and Alphas. Eureka was 5 seasons, WH13 was 4 regular seasons and then a 6-episode 'wrap it up' bit final season. I never watched Alphas but mentioned it for completeness sake.

On Netflix, Eureka had all 5 seasons, and then WH13 had the first 3 seasons.

Time passes.

Netflix removes Eureka and doesn't update WH13, still 3 seasons.

More time passes.

Netflix brings back Eureka, but only season 1, and cuts off WH13 to just the first season.

See. %$^* like that is why people pirate. Much easier, quicker, and you don't have to worry about the show suddenly vanishing before you finish watching or next season is suddenly gone and you only have 2 episodes to go or something.

Re:And a few bucks more for missing content

[Cro Magnon]

I've even seen shows with partial seasons on NF. Maybe they have Episode 1, 2 ,5 8, and 10. Annoying!

I absolutely agree....

[Early Six Digit UID]

I agree with the masses here, if I get outside ads, I'm done. However, they do have ads in a manner of speaking. Netflix has implemented a horrible auto-play feature on whatever show they're featuring. It's usually very loud and hard to skip without being really quick. One night I was watching a fairly quiet show. I paused it and fell asleep in the living room. However many hours later, after the Roku version of Netflix decided it was time to return to the Netflix home screen, the Fuller House promo began playing in all of its almost-clipping loud glory. I wish I had a video of me jumping out of the recliner and diving at the stereo system. So yeah, I want *no* ads. Ads for your own content, especially auto-playing ads count. I'm looking at you too, SiriusXM. Commercial-free my behind.

Re:I absolutely agree....

[sims 2]

Why did you chose a roku over any of the other streaming sticks/boxes that don't have ads on the home screen?

I did buy a roku 3 voice but sold it shortly after I bought it because I found out it had ads.

Re:I absolutely agree....

[Early Six Digit UID]

Those aren't that intrusive. A stationary sidebar ad on the home screen doesn't really bother me. Commercials or banner ads would cross the line.

Re:I absolutely agree....

[mattack2]

Ads for your own content, especially auto-playing ads count. I'm looking at you too, SiriusXM.

Hell, this is true for HBO, too.

Start an On Demand episode of "Silicon Valley" for example, and I have to FF through a bit.. ARGH.

The surest way to win an audience in a new...

[Irick]

... broadcast medium is to remove ads.

Cable TV did it, Satellite radio did it, and the IP media services are doing it.

The question is, now that they have an audience are they willing to finally listen to them and what seems to draw them to their medium, or are we going to repeat ourselves again?

Re:The surest way to win an audience in a new...

[Hognoxious]

Cable TV did it, Satellite radio did it

surely you're joking. cable tv has ads

I wouldn't expect someone who can't find the shift key to understand subtleties like tenses.

Re:The surest way to win an audience in a new...

[bluefoxlucid]

I've thought this about the general Internet, too. I've often proposed a thought experiment about Facebook charging $1/year and having no ads (seriously, it's like 1.65 billion users; that's revenue equivalent to 1/38 of Warren Buffet's net worth, every year), and people often gripe that nobody would buy it (I think this is a case of the customer not knowing what he wants--they bought What'sApp).

I've also thought about a delivery method for shared paywall access akin to Spotify for the Internet: you pay $10/month and all partnered sites cross-check via OAUTH2; the site gets a valid log-in and no tracking information, while the service gets to notate what you access. All site operators receive a share of that $10/month weighted based on their viewership per day. No more WSJ/NYT paywalls.

We like to think a lot of things about business profit, and the truth is businesses are expensive to run and make little profit (even Comcast makes barely over 10% as a 5-year running average; the Adidas shoe company makes 4% as a 10-year average, and takes as much as a 7% loss every 2-3 years). I know running a Web site to support 1 user does *not* cost $10/month; the entire DigitalOcean server to service 50,000 requests per second costs $6/month with backups. I don't know the cost of content generation; however, I've seen news teams of 26 people managing national and regional *Web* content, handling big projects for campaigns, and so forth, and they make a good $60k or more each--that's over $1.5 million. At $10/month per user, that's 13 million viewers required to support the jobs of not even 30 people. WSJ has 2.4 million and USA Today has 1.7 million subscribers, and WSJ laid off ~40 employees in 2014, so chew on that for a while.

Adverts = slow death

[AmiMoJo]

I think Netflix knows that once internet services introduce ads they usually suffer a slow, lingering death. A few survive, like YouTube, but for the most part people just move on to some other platform that hasn't started double-dipping yet.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[nitehawk214]

I think in this case it would be a rather abrupt death by the end of the next fiscal quarter.

Hell, I already left Netflix due to lack of content. (Though I might go back for the Marvel original series that I have been told are good.)

Re:Adverts = slow death

[LesFerg]

(Though I might go back for the Marvel original series that I have been told are good.)

They are ok but very short seasons. Sadly in NZ we get even less content than elsewhere.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Netflix knows that once internet services introduce ads they usually suffer a slow, lingering death. A few survive, like YouTube, but for the most part people just move on to some other platform that hasn't started double-dipping yet.

Ad Blockers are so effective on YouTube that it was years before I even knew they had ads before the videos.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[FunkSoulBrother]

YouTube has ads? I've seriously never seen one, unless you are counting annotations on top of the videos?

It DOES seem to 'forget' my annotation settings like once a month, though.

Re: Adverts = slow death

[thundercattt]

YouTube has started. If you find a video that's say half hour. Every 10 minutes you get an ad.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[Darinbob]

Where did you go to instead? No tv at all, or back to the cable overlords? Amazon is a sucky service, Hulu's in the same boat as Netflix but with ads, pirating is illegal, so that leaves no general purpose streaming...

Re:Adverts = slow death

[Darinbob]

Adblock on the web is very effective on Youtube. Not so effective on a Smart TV or TV+streaming device. I put a adblock-lite type program on my router but it doesn't work against Youtube. Next time I'm really annoyed I'm going to try a heavyweight ad blocker and see if it works. It's a lot more effort on a router, and you have to keep it up to date, but dammit I don't want to sit through 30 seconds of crap before the 10 second video.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[Darinbob]

It didn't start with video ads though as I recall, as in "you can skip this ad in 10 seconds" sort of thing. The ads it had were ads that you could ignore.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[nitehawk214]

Are the seasons short because there are no filler episodes? If so this is great, one of the things holding me back is I don't really have the spare time to watch 50 hours of TV.

Re:Adverts = slow death

[nitehawk214]

I am stuck with the cable overlords due to the fact that the NHL doesn't actually want fans to watch their games. There is no legal way to stream hockey games, and no way to illegal stream them either, for that matter.

In general there just are not that many shows i have to watch. I would like to cut the cord and save some money, but considering the NHL team I watch played in the last game of the season, and the fake hockey olympics coming this fall (the World Cup bullshit that I will probably end up watching), hockey is nearly a year-round sport.

I spend more time on Youtube than I ever do with TV or netflix. Different content, of course, but enough to keep me entertained.

We know better

[penguinoid]

It starts with a little unobtrusive thing on the side, and before you know it you're watching 10 minutes of unskippable ads. It's like cancer -- it's got to be stopped early, before it spreads.

Re:We know better

[Darinbob]

I disagree on the analogy. There may be a cure for cancer someday.

Duh

[bmk67]

I pay for Netflix specifically because it's an ad-free alternative to other non-torrent sources.

The day they start airing ads is the day I cancel.

Re:Duh

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ads are why I left Hulu. I watched Faking It on MTV online, and they cram in 6 ads every 5 minutes. Yey for free TV.

Re:Duh

[Darinbob]

I watched the last couple seasons of Big Bang Theory on the computer because they won't stream it anywhere else. And becuase I'm not a subscriber they want to show ads at the normal break. But with adblock and noscript, the ads rarely show up and I only get a couple second pause instead. The couple of times when ads did show up they were amazingly annoying non-skippable things.

(And if you subscribe to CBS, you go from a measly 5 available episodes up to a whopping *7* available episodes!)

Already cancelled

[sTERNKERN]

The content was very poor, so I decided to use SmartFlix to make the best use of it. Since they made it impossible to use SmartFlix any longer I cancelled both subscriptions. Simply does not worth the money.

It's just talk

[swm]

AllFlicks conducted a survey...90% said...

Until Netflix actually starts showing ads, it's just talk.

If Netflix does start showing ads, then people either will or will not cancel.
That is true market data, which is very cool.

Market data is difficult to acquire and valuable to have.
If Netflix does this experiment, they probably won't be posting the results on Slashdot.

Re:It's just talk

[suutar]

no, they'll be posting it in the next quarter's SEC filings :)

Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[raymorris]

Some people make it a point to arrive at a movie theater early enough to see the "previews" aka ads . TV has multiple commercial breaks in the middle of the show. On my web sites, "related links" come at the end, after you're done with the content. These are very different in terms of how much I value avoiding them. I'd pay a much higher price spread to avoid ads interrupting a show than ads at the end, which I can so easily ignore.

Netflix also the menu and guide screens. A banner ad there is much less objectionable than a video preroll. Also better than a preroll is one-second audio like "Welcome to Mythbusters, brought to you by Shapeways."

I couldn't begin to put a price on avoiding ads until you tell me what kind of ad you're talking about.

Ps - yet another variable is what is advertised. If Mythbusters had ads for for other similar shows and for hobbyist 3D printers, that would be less objectionable than ads for Enzyte Male Enhancement, because I might actually be INTERESTED in 20 seconds of information about a new hobby-grade 3D printer.

Re:Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[TapeCutter]

I couldn't begin to put a price on avoiding ads until you tell me what kind of ad you're talking about.

Exactly, I don't have an ideological hatred of advertising but it certainly pisses me off when someone interrupts what I am doing to shove toenail fungus in my face. Here in Oz we have the ABC, it's a public broadcaster very similar to the BBC, there are no ads just promos for their own shows and the promos only appear between shows. Watching a show like Graham Norton on the ABC is a pure joy, but as soon as it becomes popular the commercial stations will buy the rights and completely fuck the show by cutting people off mid-sentence every 10min to sell you toothpaste and tampons.

Without ads a good talk show draws you into the conversation, it almost feels like you're sitting on the couch with them. Inserting the ads spoils the spell, ironically just as it starts to take hold. The show deteriorates into something like a series of disjointed youtube clips, the magic has been ruined. I return to the ABC and await the next brief period of TV entertainment that occurs between when a show is new, and when it's popular.

Re:Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Previews aren't really the same thing as an ad, though they're somewhat similar. Most (read: all) people hate those stupid fucking commercials they play now before movies. Fuck you Coca Cola. You don't need to advertise shit. We all already know who you are and what you sell.

Re:Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[swb]

But those pre-movie commercials are getting kind annoying.

When I was a kid, we used to pray for previews at the theater -- most didn't show them or only showed 1-2 at select evening shows. If you got to the movie before it started, at best you got to stare at kaleidoscope/lava lamp images on the screen and listen to Musak or just stare at the blank screen.

Then there was a transition period where there were a fair number of previews. Then they added advertising for the snack bar. Then they added slide shows before the movie with ads and dumb trivia.

And now we have a full-on TV show before the movie, with behind the scenes advertorials, long-form commercials, music videos. And then you get a solid 10 minutes of theater promotion, safety info, snack bar ads, a couple of actual TV commercials and a ton of previews. It's like the actual movie starts 20 minutes after the movie start time. I've eaten my snacks and need a piss before the damn thing even gets going.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[Darinbob]

For all the vaunted ability to track customers, advertisers are utterly clueless about how to make use of it and show advertisements that might actually be useful. Any marketing exec who put an ad for My Little Pony action figures during the NBA finals would be fired immediately, yet that's the sort of thing you see with web ads. Ad blockers were invented on the web because the web ads are the stupidest and most annoying things ever (even without the malware attached).

Re:Ads in the middle are far worse than at the end

[jafac]

I do have an ideological hatred of ads:
It is a unilateral renegotiation of terms. When they want to increase the length of ads, they do it. You get no say. When they want to increase the volume, they do it, you get no say. When they increase the (fucking annoying as hell and insulting) repetition, they do it, you get no say. FUCK ALL THAT. I pay a price to see a show, you show me the fucking show at that set price and that's that. That's the deal. You don't get to alter the terms of the deal, or I fucking shut off your media. Period.

That's what I hate about ads.

There is a set-dollar-amount that any ad is worth, because an advertiser pays for that. I want my cut, and I want it to be a stated term, up front. No changing it later, after the fact. I pay my bills, those fuckers need to pay theirs.

One business model at a time please

[cahuenga]

If you wish to stream ad supported content, fine. But don't expect me to pay for the service AND be forced to watch ads.

This is exactly why I axed Hulu.

Market research 101

[Hognoxious]

74% of Netflix Subscribers Say That They Would Rather Cancel Their Subscription Than See Ads

FTFY.

Re:Market research 101

[the_Bionic_lemming]

No, you broke it. I have no problems cutting the cord a second time and would be off Netflix in a heart beat the moment they start serving ads.

Re:Market research 101

[Hognoxious]

74% of Netflix Subscribers Say That They Don't Know The Fucking Difference Between Anecdotes And Data Because They Watch Mind-Numbing Shit All The Time.

Better?

would be off Netflix in a heart beat

Future unreal conditional. So not a statement of actual historical fact, then.

Re:Market research 101

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Yep, I love it when grammar nazis get their own spunk in the eye. thanks for noting it :).

Re: Market research 101

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Yup.

Re:Market research 101

[bloodhawk]

With a model like netflixes I think the reality is most probably would cancel. I know I would, netflix is ok content wise but not amazing, being Ad Free is actually the main selling reason myself and a lot of other people keep it.

Re:Market research 101

[Hognoxious]

It's a statement about a possible future.

In other words, just big talk. He won't, of course. He'll put up with it - just until the end of the current season of $foo, to see how it ends - by which time there'll be reruns of $bar, and in ten years he'll still be with them.

As former UK P.M. Neil Kinnock said: "If everyone who said ''I'm never coming back here!'' actually followed through on it most businesses would close within a fortnight."

Re:Market research 101

[the_Bionic_lemming]

No, I will. It's not just talk.

But you're not worth continuing the conversation, stopped many years ago responding to five year olds going "Nuh uh".

Re:What's the point...

[Nutria]

The convenience of watching what you want, when you want.

I would drop both my subscriptions immediately

[cfalcon]

I hate and despise advertisements and everything about them. I block ads everywhere, and I try hard to avoid subscription services that have advertisements.

If Netflix added advertisements, I'd drop both the subscriptions I pay for (myself and a family member) immediately, and I'd never look back. Netflix is set up as the place you can go to pay with dollars instead of evil ass advertisements. If they lose that, fuck'em.

Re:I would drop both my subscriptions immediately

[Oligonicella]

I don't mind ads if I'm not paying cash. If I'm paying cash and they start showing ads, I'll quit paying case. It's a bifurcation.

Re:I would drop both my subscriptions immediately

[wardrich86]

I think they'd be okay if they only played them at the beginning or end of a show - they give you a perfect time to grab a snack and/or hit the can, though. I find it interesting how many people are against ads on there. Shit, you could even do some push-ups or get active while they're on to break up your couch-slumping time. Just because they're on, it doesn't mean you have to sit there and acknowledge them.

If they want to encourage people to watch the ads, they could even add in a pub-style trivia game with questions at the bottom, and each account could get its own score to stack up against a global/local scoreboard.

For me, the problem is when they play almost as many ads as they play TV Shows, or when the ads interrupt the show.

Re:Why can't they make movies any more?

[Austerity Empowers]

- they won't even let reviewers see the movie its so bad.

Sounds like they gave themselves a 0 star rating and decided to save critics the time. How nice of them.

The sad part is people will still go see it, even though clearly even the producers know its a turd.

Paying for ads

[BigBuckHunter]

I'd consider watching ads on Netflix if I were paid to do so... For example, If Netflix payed me $14.99 a month, I'd be happy with that. Price hike? Canceled. Paying for the privilege of watching commercials? Canceled.

Re:Paying for ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd consider watching ads on Netflix if I were paid to do so... For example, If Netflix payed me $14.99 a month, I'd be happy with that.

$14.99 is way more than how much Netflix costs a month. So Netflix should pay you for watching their content? Self-entitled much?

Re:Paying for ads

[suutar]

I doubt Netflix would do it, but the mere fact that someone's balance point for "I want the content including ads more than I want X dollars" has a negative X is not inherently ridiculous.

Re:Paying for ads

[Darinbob]

Definitely you should not pay the same price and see ads. Reduce the price and ads become more acceptable. Ie, the newspaper has an ad for all the sales at the local grocery store and some coupons - awesome, I can save money, that's a good use of advertising. Charging me to see the ad or cutting into my bandwidth cap, then that sucks. Everyone acts like advertisements are so amazingly effective and that so much money is made from ads, but if that's true then I expect to get a kickback from the ads (coupons, discounts, etc). If it's already free then your ad is just annoying the hell out of me and I'll go somewhere else.

Re:Paying for ads

[bloodhawk]

Not really sure that is self entitled. It isn't about how much their service costs, it is about how much your time is worth. For me I would tell them to take a flying fuck at $14.99 a month as my time is worth far more than that. For me the number would be mor ein the order of $100-$200 a month, not demanding it, merely stating if they want me to watch ads in their content that is what it would cost them.

So, are they losing money?

[evolutionary]

If not, why do they want to either increase costs or add ads?

Re:So, are they losing money?

[robinsonne]

To increase profits. A company these days can't be satisfied with a 20% margin, you've got to push to 25%. After your customers get used to that, push it up higher. Higher!

I have Netflix to address my guilt

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I have Netflix to address my guilt over pirate streaming all kinds of other stuff, like movies, GoT, etc. (With Netflix at least I'm paying for SOMETHING.) But since I stream mainly to avoid commercials, if Netflix went there too I'd probably fall back into 90%+ streaming again. (I almost went there already when they pulled Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica in the same year - what's a geek to watch legally?)

Ad creep

[Anonymous Coward]

The original 1960's Star Trek ran approximately 50 minutes per episode sans ads (just checked). Current 1 hour shows run about 43 minutes.

The newer the show, the more ads they pack in. Netflix and pirate, the only solution.

Re:Ad creep

[Cro Magnon]

Once I watched a Gillian's Island rerun, and they'd chopped part of it to make room for the extra ads.

Hulu offers No Ads for a 50% fee markup

[Quantus347]

I dont know about Cancelling my Netflix, but I can tell you that I am one of the many, many Hulu subscribers that is willing to pay a 50% markup to my per month cost just to avoid Commercials ($11.99 vs $7.99).

Though in the case of Hulu it's not actually 100% Commercial Free. Certain shows start with a disclaimer that states "Due to streaming rights, the following is not included in our No Commercials plan and will play with a commercial before and after the show." But we are talking about seven very specific shows, and the commercial is usually 60 seconds or less (plus I always skip the one after the show). Per the current Hulu FAQ the exempt shows currently are: Grey’s Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl, and How To Get Away With Murder. Still a vast improvement overall and one I'm willing to pay the up-charge for.

If Netflix ever introduces commercials, I anticipate they'd include some sort of No Commercials Premium account as well. Though Hulu started with Commercials and added the "upgrade" later; Netflix will be going in the other direction which will cause more uproar. The only way I see them getting away with it would be to offer the Account with Commercials at a lower cost than current subscriptions (as a way to attract new customers) and keep the current subscription price for No Commercials (at least at first). Granted I could be wrong, there was not near the subscriber exodus I would have expected when they split the streaming and the DVD-By-Mail services to separate accounts, effectively doubling the cost subscribers had to pay to get the same level of service.

Re:Hulu offers No Ads for a 50% fee markup

[Darinbob]

Hmm,no ads for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on Netflix. I wonder how good Hulu's negotiators are...

Re:Hulu offers No Ads for a 50% fee markup

[Quantus347]

Netflix only gets complete seasons, and often only in the fall just before the new season begins airing, so you are most of a year behind. Hulu gets each episode the morning after they air.

Re:Hulu offers No Ads for a 50% fee markup

[Darinbob]

Which is fine with me, I like having the full season I just wish they'd release it a bit earlier than waiting until the start of the next season. The stuff Hulu advertises are shows I'd never watch anyway, like stuff from the big broadcast channels.

Re:Hulu offers No Ads for a 50% fee markup

[Quantus347]

Fair enough. Ive always had the impression that Netflix gets the seasons around the same time that the DVD box-set hits the market, which may account for some of the delay. The other part, Im sure, is to drum up added interest in the show's inbound season by getting people hooked with the past episode.

Ads might be okay

[wardrich86]

Toss in an ad or two between episodes - I need time to pee/grab a snack, that'd be the perfect time to do it.

Re:Ads might be okay

[mschwanke97402]

That's where it starts down the slippery slope. Much like where PBS is today. Just wait. In the olden days there were a total of 4 minutes of ads, station ID, etc. and 26 minutes of show. Now you might see 18-22 minutes with network logos and animated ad graphics during the show.

Re:Ads might be okay

[wardrich86]

That's a bummer - I grew up with PBS as a kid, but haven't really watched it since. Have they gone from pledging to fully-fledged adverts now?

Re:Ads might be okay

[Darinbob]

No. They have some ads after the shows, I've not seen one in the middle of any shows so far. Before the shows you only have a few mentions of commercial sponsors and not full advertisements. Pledge breaks are the only exceptions, and that's only twice a year.

The ads themselves aren't the worst of it

[Carcass666]

The ads are bad enough, but it's the stupid behaviors that get put in to make sure that you are forced to watch the ads (think VOD from cable companies that disallow fast forwarding). Watch something half-way through and want to resume it later? Not only will you have to watch the ads, but you will also have to sit through the content you have already watched. This move will cripple the user experience and drive users to other means to watch their movies online.

Commercials on NetFlix?

[mschwanke97402]

If there is no ad-free option then I will cancel. My DVR is for skipping commercials, my NetFlix and Hulu-Plus Ad-Free ditto, I'd rather watch a soccer match than watch TV with up to 1/3 advertisements.

TV Content

[ranton]

I rarely watch any movies on Netflix. For quite some time the only relevant content for me is binge watching TV shows. And it would probably take lifetimes to get through all of them. Well, if I didn't have Amazon Prime and Hulu also I might get through the Netflix TV shows quicker.

Re:TV Content

[Darinbob]

Even with movies it would take me a lifetime. I haven't watched all the old movies yet, so if the new movies take a year or two to show up then that's ok with me. Though at some point it may be useful to get the DVD subscription to Netflix because some shows will NEVER stream on anything other than the content owner's service (Game of Thrones will never stream on anything but HBO, Big Bang Theory will never stream on anything other than the laughable CBS service, etc).

The value I get from $10/month is so great compared to having my old satellite service, and amazingly awesome compared to Comcast, that I have no complaints at all. Sure I don't get all the stuff I want, which I never had with cable/satellite anyway, but it's not that big a deal. Better picture, better cost, better selection, no advertisements, plus an option to get more stuff on the side from another service if I ever get bored.

Re:TV Content

[TheCastro1689]

HBO content is available on Amazon Prime.

The economics strongly favour pay per view.

[fizzup]

Television advertisements sell for about 2.5 cents per impression, and there are about 40 impression slots available in a one-hour show. Each airing of a show makes about a dollar per viewer in advertising revenue.

An episode on iTunes (admittedly not the cheapest way to watch tv on demand) is about two to four bucks, of which Apple keeps some - maybe around 30%. That means the content producer walks away with somewhere between $1.40 and $2.80 per viewer. More than for ad-supported shows!

As a viewer, I have to figure out what twenty minutes is worth to me. It's not easy, but for most people an hour is worth at least $15, which makes 20 minutes worth five bucks. Even at the prices iTunes charges, it's more attractive than watching ads.

At ten bucks a month, Netflix is a steal. Part of their catalogue is reruns, but part of what I watched on cable/broadcast was reruns as well. I do not think I save 160-odd hours a year. Maybe some people do though. Paying a dollar or two per hour saved is a tremendous bargain.

Online ads shouldn't be so repetitive.

[CaptRespect]

I'd much rather pay extra than see ads. Also, I don't understand why internet ads need to be so repetitive either, they should be smarter. It's not TV or radio. You can track how many times I've seen your ad and probably know more about me than TV. Yet time again on you tube or whereverI see the same ads over and over. If I saw it already 2 times do I really need to watch it again?

Valid survey

[Registered Coward v2]

How valid is the survey and sample selection methodology? Are Reddit users typical of Netflix users? Just because they have a subscription doesn't necessarily mean they are a representative sample; given they self select into Reddit. While I would not pay for Netflix if they added commercials that doesn't mean 90% would cancel their subscription. I could see a free with ads or pay for no ads model so users could self select and Netflix could tailor ads based on what they know about the user.

Let me retitle that for you ...

[Wrath0fb0b]

74% of Netflix Subscribers who are Reddit members and respond to surveys would [something something].

How is it that a community dedicated to Science(TM) would ignore the massive sampling bias here? The survey tells you absolutely nothing about Netflix subscribers at all unless you also make the assertion that the sub-population that are also Reddit members is representative of the group as a whole.

Or do we collectively fail to turn our skeptical demand-for-rigor brain when we see a survey or article that we support? (

Re:Let me retitle that for you ...

[Nunya666]

Or do we collectively fail to turn our skeptical demand-for-rigor brain when we see a survey or article that we support? (

Most of humanity does that.

That's why surveys are so influential. Anyone with common sense knows they're biased, but since common sense is so rare, surveys continue to influence the masses.

Re:Let me retitle that for you ...

[ripvlan]

breaking news "computer geeks don't want to see ads" (says creator of adblock) -- although I think it is a universal sentiment.

You are so right. While the results are probably transitive the percentages might not be accurate.

I think of Netflix like, say HBO. I pay for ad-free content. Although HBO on cable has mini-ads prior to each show - advertising other HBO shows - which could be viewed as a service to customers "hey - check out these other great shows that you are paying for." I know Netflix was testing this out for small populations of users. But in the world of set-top streaming boxes where we view on-demand I'm not sure that model works the same. When the programing is schedule based you do need to let consumers know that Sports is on at 10PM. On-demand you scroll through content looking for Sports (now!).

They need to maintain engagement otherwise consumers believe there's nothing worth watching and discontinue service.

Re:Are you just a complete moron?

[Bengie]

Ad revenue is not cable channel's only revenue. Haven't you heard about the multi-hundred million dollar contracts cable companies like Comcast and Verizon have to pay places like Fox and Weather channel to rebroadcast their content. Ad revenue seems to go to your cable provider, to whom you already pay to access the channels.

Re:Are you just a complete moron?

[Jack9]

> The stations on cable TV were always existing TV stations like WGN or TBS.

Hilarious. There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them since everyone way on over-the-air transmitted by hardline or stuck with rabbit ears. WGN...TBS....those didn't exist alongside the Z-channel (1980s representing). What you mean by cable is a product of the last few decades where almost all signal is now carried by cable. The premium involved in that is now considered, incorrectly, part of the cost of transmission. The fact that it's not over-the-air should give you pause. It's now carried by cable, whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+no+commercials)

You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet. Asking to prove the sky is blue, is transparently juvenile and ineffective at making a point (maybe it isn't blue?).

> You are a complete idiot. If I am wrong, cite some proof for your extremely stupid assertion.

This is about history, not some nebulous deductive assertion. It's very clear you aren't smart enough to make a basic observation without exploding into part and parcel nonsequitors....probably insults people throw at you, with proper context. Please let your guardian review your posts, in the future.

Re:Are you just a complete moron?

[Obfuscant]

There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them

Hilarious. Original cable systems distributed analog signals that were tuned by something called a "tuner" that every TV had built in. You needed no specialty hardware. It wasn't until the premium services came along much later that cable companies needed a system to limit what people could watch. For a long time they used simple traps to notch out the premium channels, and your television tuner was still the way you accessed them. As more and more channels became premium physical traps became a management issue. That's when scrambling became the norm.

Sometimes it was as simple as an interfering signal embedded in the channel so your TV couldn't tune it properly, and the "cable box" had a filter in it that could be switched in and out to remove the interference, or the company used a trap to do that.

Another scrambling system was sync inversion, and the descrambler was simple device that detected the inverted sync signal and replaced it with the correct one. I used to have one of the "remote head" cable boxes that actually had a five pin connector between the channel selector and the electronics. One of the wires was the "enable descrambler" signal, and it was pretty easy to insert a switch in the line to enable the scrambled channels.

As the number of channels increased, there became a requirement for a box that allowed a TV to receive a channel from in between 6 and 7. And then TV manufacturers started making tuners that were cable-ready so you didn't need the box to do that.

But to claim that original cable systems required users to have special hardware is just wrong. The only "special" thing about them was that usually the broadcast channel would not appear on the same cable channel to avoid ingress issues. It takes very little ingress to create an obvious ghost (or rolling sync bars if the cable headend has a timebase corrector on the channel) if you have broadcast channel 7 on cable channel 7.

whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that

No. Cable was originally intended to carry broadcast signals to people who either couldn't get them very well to start with, or who wanted to see stations from further away than they could get with a reasonable antenna of their own.

It wasn't until the satellite services started popping up that cable turned into a cable-distribution of satellite services medium. Even then, the presence of ads was determined not by the cable company but by the content provider -- so any cable company that promised "no ads" was promising something they could not deliver. It's patently obvious that they couldn't remove the ads from the broadcast content they were delivering, so why anyone believed any "no ads" claim is beyond imagination.

You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet.

To think that "cable TV" started with satellite-distributed content is demonstrating a lack of historical knowledge.

Umm no...

[nedlohs]

"74% of Netflix Subscribers" != "74% reddit specific survey takers".

Re: Ads in the middle are far worse than at the en

[raymorris]

> The person that invented pop-up ads should have been imprisoned and tortured for life for the trillion headaches it has plagued society with.

I happened to be around at that time. I knew the people who were likely the first to use popups, within the first few sites anyway. I think the first person who used popups probably wouldn't have, had they known where it would end up. Not that it would have mattered, Xpics and certain other companies would have gotten the ball rolling.

Do you want shit or piss?

[s3cr3to]

Do you want shit or piss?
Two fucking choices that I will not pay for.

12 minutes when I timed it

[raymorris]

> It's like the actual movie starts 20 minutes after the movie start time.

At my theater, the movie starts twelve minutes after the published time. I show ten minutes after the published time, two minutes before the movie. This is helpful to know when you look at the listings and there is a showing that is "about to start" and it looks like you can;t get there on time.

I would cancel if they started with ads!

[Comen]

This is me for sure, I have paid for a Netflix account for years before I started using it.
I felt it was worth it to support a company that I thought was changing the way we watched media and the way we pay for video entertainment, and really they have! But if they started commercials I am out, that is the main thing I love about Netflix. I am so sick of the dumb commercials on TV and being bombarded with ads on everything, I love the fact I can just sit and watch shows until I am done without interruption. It may be hard to Netflix to resist ads, it is not just ads either, they have a database about what type of media you like to watch and that would make buyers pay much more for ads based on what you like I am sure. But if they cross the line I will cancel just to show them I mean it.

The excitement of cable television

[paiute]

Remember when they ran a cable into your house and there were not going to be any ads on the programs because you were already paying for the signal? Yeah, that happened.

Me too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll drop if they make me pay for ads.

So ADS=BAD but DRM=GOOD

[the_pouar]

How are ads worse than DRM? At least ads don't cripple the video.

Prerequisite question

[Rick Zeman]

"If you're not sharing someone else's Netflix password, would you...."

Internet Ads

[kartaron]

Amazing how different this is from internet browsing where, except for page breaking and popup/popunder ads, ads are mostly ignored. Web presence of content providers of news or non video content have to force paid patronage by blocking content. I think if they did it clever enough, say they stick star wars movies on the top of action lists when a new star wars comes out... or attach a commercial for the new ghostbusters to the other ghostbuster movies... Trailers in front of movies...Commercials for New seasons of CSI recommended on CSI fans lists... That could work. Not like Hulu where is just spams crappy internet ads every five minutes.

Re:Do they still send discs by mail?

[Darinbob]

Amazon has a very limied access to content overall though. And chances are if it's in high demand then you'll see a surcharge above the normal Prime membership.

Re:What's the point...

[bloodhawk]

Not sure their has ever been any point in my life ever where what I wanted to see was Ads. I will happily pay a little extra to never see an Ad ever, I will also happily unsubscribe if forced to have Ads. I unsubscribed from my satelite TV and I don't watch free to air, both because of Ads, netflix could happily join those ranks.

Counter example:

[Otis_INF]

News papers, magazines etc... They're subscription based, you pay for them, but you still are confronted with a tremendous amount of ads.

Wait what

[codeButcher]

I'm one of those people that doesn't own a TV set. Never have since I left my parents' home. I do like reading, and watch the occasional movie (on my computer on disk, due to bandwidth limitations in my specific circumstances).

That said, when I visited a friend in the US last year with regular TV viewing, I found that the commercials were much more entertaining than the shows. The photography was beautiful, the sound clear, the acting actually sort-of believable, and best of all, that patronizing brain-numbing annoyance ran for a much shorter time. (And no, I didn't buy any of those advertised medications while over there.)

Why one would want less of that and more of the other is beyond me.

Pick a revenue source and stick with it.

[sabbede]

Either you sell ads XOR you sell a subscription. That's how the media market works.

Pre-roll or interstitial?

[ThatsNotPudding]

Pre-roll would be bad enough, but if they're talking about sticking commercials within the program / movie, well... bye. My Breaking Bad and (ironically) Mad Men watches would have been ruined by commercials. They take you out of a lovingly-crafted story, THAT'S why people despise commercials, FFS.

Fool me once: Cable TV

[AnalogDiehard]

I'm old enough to remember when most of the channels on Cable TV had few or no commercials. I was more than happy to pay $$$ to get away from the marketing junk on ABC/CBS/NBC back then. Then the ads started creeping in and getting more frequent. Then cable news outlets started showing ads disguised as "news stories". Then the "ticker ads" started rolling in the margins during programs. Then a 90 minute movie stretched to three hours with commercials every ten minutes.

The ads were so intrusive that I pulled the plug back in 2000. While staying at some hotels while traveling I found cable TV to be utterly worthless to watch so I'm not missing much.

The abuse of ads soured my experience enough that I refuse to pay $$$ for any media that shows ads. I will cancel any service with no hesitation. Ads on DVD with fast forward or skip disabled get played with the sound off and I leave the room to do something else until the main menu of the feature movie is displayed. The marketers pushed too far and I'm sick of ads.

It's another reason why I enjoy traveling by train anymore - I'm tired of the billboards on the highway (trucks trailers included), tired of the marketing in airports, tired of the ads played on the screen in my face on the seat of the plane.

Re:Why can't they make movies any more?

[beastofburdon]

I know, I just have to see for myself... possibly on a pirate site.