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

[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

[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.

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:

[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:

[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:

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.