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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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:

[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:

[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]

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:

[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:

[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:

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.