Slashdot Mirror
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.
If they don't improve their content of movies that were actually in the theater ads might not matter.........
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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
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.
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? (
> 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.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.