Netflix's Subscriber Growth Stalls (bbc.co.uk)

Netflix shares plunged by more than 14% on Monday, after the firm reported disappointing subscriber growth. While the entertainment service added 5.2 million subscribers last quarter, it forecasted a growth of 6.2 million. BBC reports: Investors are worried about Netflix's growth potential in the face of increased competition from tech giants such as Apple, YouTube and Amazon, as well as traditional firms, which have started to invest more in online streaming. Disney, for example, plans to launch its own streaming service and stop licensing some of its material to Netflix.

In a letter to investors, Netflix called it a "strong but not stellar quarter," ending with about 130 million subscribers globally. The firm added just 670,000 subscribers in the U.S. -- far short of the more than one million it added in the second quarter of 2017. It added 4.5 million subscribers internationally, fewer than the two most recent quarters but up 8% year-on-year. However, it said its finances were strong. The company reported $3.9 billion in quarterly revenue, up 40% compared to the second quarter of 2017. Profits totaled $384.3 million, almost six times the figure during the same period a year ago.

Comments

The Decline?

[beheaderaswp]

It doesn't help that Netflix has been dumping content as well. Time magazine noted a reduction in titles of about one third in 2016.

Pickings are pretty thin. And they've cancelled some good originals. Seems to me that quality of programming is king in that market. Dumping popular content is a mistake.

Re:The Decline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumping? No! Not renewing licenses on bargain bin fodder the "owners" decide to massively increase licencing costs for at the end of the contract: oh yes.

Re:The Decline?

[thegarbz]

Who is at fault is entirely irrelevant to the end user. They only care about what their $10/m get. Increasingly it's a very shitty movie library with traditional cable level programming and in house shows tossed in.

Netflix wanted to end the cable companies, instead it became one.

Re:The Decline?

[The-Ixian]

Uh.... aren't you forgetting to include a very important element here?

Netflix doesn't have commercials. Period.

That is reason enough for me to have Netflix alone and no other streaming media nor cable nor satellite subscriptions.

I would rather find a back catalog of an old series that I have never seen before and binge on that for several months than to try to watch new content with ads.

My feeling is that it will eventually come to Netflix anyway.... and it always does seem that way.... in any case, I can't miss what I never had.

Re:The Decline?

[Kielistic]

Except the auto-play trailers for whatever they are pushing at the time. I have to keep my TV on mute until I find what I want to watch. And that can sometimes take a long time with what little content they have left.

Re:The Decline?

[barc0001]

If you think that's bad, try using some DVDs with their unskippable commercials and warnings for 5 minutes before you can watch what you want... Netflix is still a massive improvement over most other forms of consumption of media.

Re:The Decline?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Hulu doesn't have commercials if you don't want them. I suppose you could say Amazon Prime Video has commercials, but you can skip them immediately so they don't really count.

I ran out of old content to watch on Netflix maybe a year ago. It didn't help that they lost quite a few shows I watch and didn't have some of the others to begin with. For someone like me it probably makes sense to cancel my subscription and then only sign up for a month twice a year to catch up the few things I would want to see.

Re:The Decline?

[Darinbob]

Don't blame Netflix for this. Content owners have gotten very stingy about streaming their content, often deciding that they want a bigger piece of the pie and try to start their own streaming service.

Re:The Decline?

[Darinbob]

No, it's better than a cable company.

Re:The Decline?

[Darinbob]

Look at it this way. People used to pay $75 a month ore more for less content and choice than Netflix has for $10 a month. If Netflix doesn't have enough for some people, they can add a $10/month for Hulu and another $10/month for Amazon and another $10/month for HBO and still be spending less money than they did for cable. I get the impression that if Netflix provided the service for free (with no ads) that some people would still complain.

Re:The Decline?

[Darinbob]

Netflix lost the content, but not because it didn't want that content anymore. Too many services are trying to get exclusive content, too many content owners want to have their own streaming services, and other content owners seeing that Netflix is a hit are increasing their prices. Remember content owners play the same games at times with cable and satellite operators, raising prices and threatening to withold all the content until one side or the other blinks.

Some of Netflix content is mediocre, but some of it is really great.

You CAN today pay a little more for content you want - subscribe to more than one streaming service! No one streaming service has everything or will ever have everything. And paying for two streaming services is still massively cheaper than getting even a basic cable subscription (assuming you have internet separately).

Re:The Decline?

[The-Ixian]

Hulu doesn't have commercials for *some* content and only if you pay extra.

The sad thing is that even when you pay for the "Commercial free" service, you get commercials on some of the new network shows.... That just tells me that Hulu is priming the pump for graduated commercial insertion....

As for Amazon.... I guess I would rather not give them any more money than I need to...

Re:The Decline?

[thegarbz]

Uh.... aren't you forgetting to include a very important element here?

Netflix doesn't have commercials. Period.

No I'm not. The jesus channel doesn't have commercials either. 24/7 nothing but jesus. Doesn't make me want to watch it though.

Re:The Decline?

[Bengie]

I don't see how caving in to monopolistic demands will help Netflix's case. Can't have your cake at eat it to. Either you drop the the content or you turn into cable.

Re:The Decline?

[Shirley Marquez]

The Jesus channel doesn't have programming. It's a commercial 24/7.

Re:The Decline?

[Shirley Marquez]

Hulu has an inside track on network TV programs because it's owned by some of them. How high they set the fees doesn't matter; the networks are just moving money from one pocket to another.

Re:The Decline?

[KingBenny]

i would consider an aggregated service that gets me all the series I want to see, not all the series THEY provide but YO-ho hi and low netflix will make only the same amount of billions next year as it did this year ? ring the alarm ! tell your mothers to start breeding, the planet trembles, the economy is at stake ! shoot one in the ballpark for the hometeam jeezes ... what a disaster, what has the world come to :p

Won't be dead until it adds ads

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Netflix won't be dead until it adds ads. If it ever goes there, my family will probably just let the 50% of viewing we do off of grey sources slide up to 100% (again).

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[Lanthanide]

Does referring to it as "grey sources" make you feel better about the piracy you engage in?

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[NormalVisual]

Does referring to it as "grey sources" make you feel better about the piracy you engage in?

Does referring to it as "piracy" make you feel better about the theft (actual deprivation of something) that excessive copyright terms commits upon society?

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[stealth_finger]

Does referring to it as "grey sources" make you feel better about the piracy you engage in?

Why would anyone feel bad about piracy?

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[Oswald McWeany]

Does referring to it as "grey sources" make you feel better about the piracy you engage in?

Does referring to it as "piracy" make you feel better about the theft (actual deprivation of something) that excessive copyright terms commits upon society?

Does calling it society make you feel better about the cess pit of human misery that is humanity? :p

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[Srin Tuar]

I always feel dirty when paying for copyright content - which I would only do because it is massively easier, convenient, higher quality, and very cheap. But I always feel like a sellout - supporting the cesspit of holly wood and their advertisers and propagandists. Not supporting the pirates, and providing some torrent hosting makes you feel bad that you arent helping good people out. Being forced back to piracy at least you know you are being more morally pure even if it is a hassle.

Re:Won't be dead until it adds ads

[ConceptJunkie]

Does referring to it as "grey sources" make you feel better about the piracy you engage in?

Does referring to it as "piracy" make you feel better about the theft (actual deprivation of something) that excessive copyright terms commits upon society?

Does calling it society make you feel better about the cess pit of human misery that is humanity? :p

Does calling it a "cess pit of human misery" make you feel better about not being able to get a job with a master's degree in Folklore and Mythology, and your girlfriend leaving you for a guy that plays the saxophone?

(p.s. Not attacking you personally, I just thought it was funny.)

The meaning of the word stall

[Anonymous Coward]

The increased subscribers by 5.5 million instead of 6.5 million. That's hardly stalling.

Re: The meaning of the word stall

[reanjr]

When your car stalls, it continues to roll forward.

Re: The meaning of the word stall

[Oswald McWeany]

When your bathroom stalls....

Re: The meaning of the word stall

[reanjr]

As long as you can recover from the stall before you hit elevation 0, you're good.

Eleven mentions of Microsoft ..

[najajomo]

Since did slashdot become a giant advertising hoarding and stop posting real technology stories. Eleven mentions of Microsoft on the front page of the Microsoft slashdot. Followed by mentions of Netflix, D-Wave, Samsung, Roku, Apple, National Geographic, Uber, Amazon. "Jeff Bezos is the richest person in modern history". If I want to salivate over rich people I could read about it in Forbes Magazine :]

Re:Eleven mentions of Microsoft ..

[Oswald McWeany]

Since did slashdot become a giant advertising hoarding

I've been on Slashdot for about 15 years or so (don't let the UID fool you, I lost the password to the original user ID I created) - as long as I've been on Slashdot people have been complaining that Slashdot is "advertising" or "going downhill" or "becoming more uncivil" or "not news that matters"... etc.

Maybe it was a beacon of humanity and a light in our troubled times before I joined- but it's been "bad" a long time.

Re:Eleven mentions of Microsoft ..

[swb]

There was a tipping point some years ago where it got less techy and more marketing/politics influenced.

Given the gyrations in ownership, management, staff and user base it seems remarkably stable, though.

Re:Eleven mentions of Microsoft ..

[Oswald McWeany]

Isnt that why we return?

I return because I'm a creature of habit more than any other reason, but I do generally enjoy Slashdot, be it the geekyside or the more mainstream side.

i can't answer for the op, but for me yes

[aepervius]

Since 100% of the stuff I get from grey source are *not* available at ALL in my country due to geolocation market restriction, the argument of lost sale does not even hold. I normal buy/license anything i watch, but company which decide my region should not be allowed to buy it ? Fuck them.

Re:i can't answer for the op, but for me yes

[Bradmont]

the argument of lost sale does not even hold.

To play devil's advocate, it sort of does, because if you didn't have access to unpaid-for content, you would likely watch something else, which you would have to pay for. So the specific publisher might not lose out, but the industry as a whole might.

Re:i can't answer for the op, but for me yes

[Oswald McWeany]

the argument of lost sale does not even hold.

To play devil's advocate, it sort of does, because if you didn't have access to unpaid-for content, you would likely watch something else, which you would have to pay for. So the specific publisher might not lose out, but the industry as a whole might.

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate... He might not. Case in point "me" almost 20 years ago. I move into an apartment; my friend says "plug your TV into the cable jack, sometimes they never turn it off from the previous user".

I plug TV co-ax into wall... VOILA I have CABLE TV. Never intended to have cable- or pay for it, but by a stroke of luck, I have it... for fweeeee.

  One year later, I get home from work one day... static... every channel... static... they had finally turned off the cable to my apartment. Did I then go out and order cable? Dish? some other TV service? No, I just stopped watching much TV and relied solely on over-the-air. So when they turned my cable off I didn't suddenly start paying someone something. TBH, there were very few shows I watched- TV was usually just on in the background whilst I played on the computer, or played on my cheap crappy Service-Merchandise clearance pool table. (I miss Service-Merchandise)

OP's comment about grey-area could correspond to my cable-in-the-apartment days. If I didn't have it, he just wouldn't watch as much TV.

Re: i can't answer for the op, but for me yes

[DontBeAMoran]

You're confusing piracy (copyright infringement) with theft (depriving the owner of its goods).

Look to CBS

[Layth]

CBS spent around 8 million dollars an episode for their star trek series.. and then didn't even put it on TV.
You've got to be a private subscriber and stream it because they know that live tv is not the future.

Instead of paying for 700 channels you don't watch people will subscribe to 4-5 different streaming services that interest them.

Re:Look to CBS

[thegarbz]

Instead of paying for 700 channels you don't watch people will subscribe to 4-5 different streaming services that interest them.

For now maybe. However look at the trend. The market is fragmenting at increasing rate, the content is reducing, and the prices are rising. People jumped on the streaming bandwagon because they got sick of having their wallets emptied by the cable guy, however trends are not looking good. We're beginning to question if it is worth keeping Netflix now. If Amazon Prime TV gets better that will make the decision even easier.

Re:Look to CBS

[Layth]

True it's fragmenting but I don't mind paying $10 each to 7 different services.
If they're spending millions of dollars per episode of hit content then I am getting my moneys worth and loving the ride. Otherwise you cancel one service and watch the others. That's the beauty of the fragmentation you only pay for what you want.

Re:Look to CBS

[thegarbz]

That's the beauty of the fragmentation you only pay for what you want.

No that's the downside of fragmentation. You pay more for what you want. Right now I pay Netflix for what I want at $12. When Disney start their streaming service and Netflix's library is forced to remove all Starwars and Marvel movies do you think I'll be able to get Netflix and Disney both for $6 each, or do you think I'll suddenly be $24 out of pocket?

Re:Look to CBS

[houghi]

4-5 channels is still 40-50 dollaroos per month. Cable seems the cheaper option if you compare it. In Belgium I would pay 25.90 for 75 or 83 channels (depends on what page on their website you are) So if I where inclined to choose between the two if money is the only parameter. The issue is that the reason people wll pay more is becasue there is no other way to legally watch those shows.

I have no tv since around 5-10 years or so and I absolutely do not miss it. And I do call Netflix and the like TV.

Re:Look to CBS

[Oswald McWeany]

CBS spent around 8 million dollars an episode for their star trek series.. and then didn't even put it on TV.
You've got to be a private subscriber and stream it because they know that live tv is not the future.

Instead of paying for 700 channels you don't watch people will subscribe to 4-5 different streaming services that interest them.

I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.

Re:Look to CBS

[Megane]

In the US, ESPN has a sweet deal to be put in all but the basic tier of cable networks. Any sports beyond ESPN is usually on a special, extra-cost sports package. And then there are still league-specific channels that require you to have the sports package before you can add them. Very few games are on the free OTA channels.

It's so nice that I don't care about sportsball. Except for the part where afternoon sports games on the OTA channels invariably run overtime and screw up the schedule of what my DVR was set to record. Handegg always runs beyond its time slot, often by more than 30 minutes. And sometimes they still want to run the post-game show for its full half hour.

Re:Look to CBS

[Layth]

The amazing prices for content that existed at the dawn of home video streaming cannot last.
You'll sound ridiculous if you lament them.

I'm talking about comparing to cable not comparing to some specialized base case scenario of netflix.

Re:Look to CBS

[pnutjam]

There's plenty of people who don't want disney, they are subsidizing you currently. Less subsidized content is a win. Pay what you want, pirate, or go without.

Re:Look to CBS

[ConceptJunkie]

I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.

That and the fact that their new Star Trek show is garbage.

Re:Look to CBS

[barc0001]

> CBS spent around 8 million dollars an episode for their star trek series.. and then didn't even put it on TV.

In the US, perhaps. Around the world, lots of channels had it on. Space in Canada for example. Ironically in the UK, Australia and most of Europe, it's on Netflix. So much for CBS All Access getting international traction it would seem.

Re:Look to CBS

[Oswald McWeany]

I refuse to pay for CBS out of principle. I don't want to support the fragmentation of online streaming. I'd rather go without than steadily pay more and more until my streaming costs are higher than what cable used to be.

That and the fact that their new Star Trek show is garbage.

Not seen it unfortunately. Strangely, the Orville on Fox is a lot better than I expected it to be. I can live with that as my "new Trek".

Re:Look to CBS

[sexconker]

All-you-can-eat and new content is not sustainable.

If a show / movie is successful, everyone involved in production (from actors to set dressers) want more $$$. Costs skyrocket for sequels to hit movies and future seasons of hit shows.

With current streaming platforms, show popularity doesn't bring more money. Your hit content needs to constantly drive growth and maintain subscriptions to justify its own rising costs. Once everyone that even remotely cares has a Netflix account, there's no room to grow, and successful shows with rising costs will be cancelled.

You need some way to monetize views if you want to support creating new content. If that means ads, I'm out. If that means limiting the number of hours you can watch, I'm probably still in. If that means paying a premium for certain shows, I'm probably out for those shows (YOUTUBE RED LOL). If it means paying a premium to remove ads, I may still be in.

I currently have Amazon and Netflix, but may drop Netflix, or do the juggle where I have it for a couple months out of the year then kill it off.

Re:Look to CBS

[Layth]

I highly recommend it. Discovery plays more like a movie than a tv show it's awesome.
If you're really cheap you can sign up for free and then cancel 6 days later without paying for the series.

Re:Look to CBS

[knorthern knight]

> Space in Canada

That's a premium cable sci-fi-themed channel. By the time you buy basic cable, plus the necessary premium package, plus rent the cable box, you're looking at approx $70/month. CBS All Access is $5.99 month in Canada, but does not have the new Trek.

Re:Look to CBS

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm glad you like it. I watched the first episode and thought it was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

Re:Look to CBS

[thegarbz]

No you talked about fragmentation being good. It's not. Not for Netflix. Not for cable companies. Not for services that overlap the two. The problem with fragmentation is purely economics. More people want a share of profits while existing people want to keep profits.

I also take issue with your comment about prices not lasting. They existed in the first place providing that the business was viable. Don't normalise corporate greed, fight it.

Re:Look to CBS

[thegarbz]

See my other comment about fragmentation. With each case of fragmentation comes an increasing number of middle men wanting some money for their imaginary property.
Paying specifically for what we want is literally the single most expensive way we will ever consume media.

Re:Look to CBS

[pnutjam]

The fragmentation is being driven by the same greed that drove mandated subsidies. If the choice is watching Disney and paying for Disney, ESPN, Disney jr, Disney 2, Disney XD, ESPN 8 (the Ocho), and Disney XXX; or paying a bit more to just get Disney, I'll go with fragmentation every day.

Unfortunately, the choice is more likely to be paying $100 to Comcast who pays $5 for all those channels, or paying $10 to Disney streaming. That's were you opt out and use alternate methods.

Dilution of content

[CRC'99]

When are these dickheads going to realise that the more they dilute the market into more and more service providers, the fewer subscribers everyone will have.

I'm sure they'd love a market where you pay $19.95/mo each to Disney, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube Red, etc etc etc.

The reality is, people might pick one or two - and that's it. Then you get people like me that won't buy any - just because the companies keep dividing up their content and I don't want to pay for each small slice.

Re: Dilution of content

[The-Ixian]

I agree....

I work a normal eight hours, go for a bike ride or walk, cook dinner and maybe have an hour to kill before bed which I usually spend tinkering on my computer, reading, cleaning, doing laundry or watching a show on Netflix.

In many countries - they don't even try

[GeLeTo]

In my country Netflix has minuscule share compared to HBO Go. Why? Because their subtitles are a complete joke - almost all of them are machine translated. Compare that to HBO Go where all movies have perfect subtitles and the children movies are dubbed.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[thegarbz]

Depends on the source of the content. Netflix machine translate for content that doesn't have official translations. For Netflix's own content they are actually incredibly good with languages.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[GeLeTo]

No, there are no proper subtitles for Netflix's own content, for instance "Stranger Things" was machine translated when I checked last year. Also, there are no official translations for small countries - the local distributors handle the translations and I doubt they would be eager to share them with Netflix. And the machine translation is so bad, it's offending - Google Translate does a much better job. Even for their website - nothing apart from the landing page is translated. There's no advertisement too, most people do not know Netflix even exists. While GOT is airing there are HBO/Go adds everywhere - on buses, buildings and local websites.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[thegarbz]

No, there are no proper subtitles for Netflix's own content

You speak in absolutes. As someone who is seeking medical treatment for my sedentary TV based lifestyle I have not witnessed what you described. And I am in a small country, my language has 23million native speakers in the world. Likewise German translations seem to work quite well too.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[houghi]

Are these on the Netflix shows, or on other shows and tv? Because if others, that is how they get them.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[Whorhay]

Narcos is a funny counter example. I heard a lot of swearing that was toned down a lot in the subtitles. Sometimes a whole string of epitaphs would get turned into a one or two word insult.

Re:In many countries - they don't even try

[pnutjam]

I love Netflix's subtitles, but I watch in English.

I did notice a strange disconnect between the subtitles and actual spoken words on "The Rain", which was probably not filmed in English. I can see how that might be annoying, especially if it's a constant issue.

Oh noes! Steady growth! Therefore decline!

[Anonymous Coward]

They still added five million new subscribers. Less than "forecast", but it's still not bad. It means they're getting at least forty million dollahs a month extra in revenue. Quite a distance from actual decline. First the growth has to go negative before they'll actually start losing customers. But it's still positive, it just isn't growing as much as the professional wishful thinkers were wishing for. The growth of the growth (IOW the second derivative of revenue) has dropped to zero, but, you know, that's only bad for VCs who're trying to max their valuations. It's not bad for the company as a whole. They're still growing.

What they do with content I have no idea, I'm not a subscriber. Buy some stock, go to the stockholder meetings and petition in favour of your favourite "originals."

Re:Oh noes! Steady growth! Therefore decline!

[mrbester]

Quite. But the "pluck a number out of our asses" so-called analysts won't get any blowback from this.

"We forecast this much growth, see, here's the math. That reality doesn't match up is entirely the fault of someone paid less than us and they should be fired."

Re:Oh noes! Steady growth! Therefore decline!

[butchersong]

They do have some problems around their original content. It is... let's say alienating for a significant percentage of the fly over states but yeah this is just typical wall street bullshit. It's not enough that you are profitable and growing, providing for your employees and their families... no you've got to constantly jump to the tune of the hungry share holders who have no real interest in your company and see it only as another thing to buy one day and sell the next. I swear... I've always been a pretty staunch libertarian / republican type but I'm starting to think it very difficult to have publically traded companies and have a system that doesn't tilt precariously toward evil.

Re:Oh noes! Steady growth! Therefore decline!

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Less than forecast is always bad. Companies plan around those numbers and if they don't materialize it might mean some things are going to have to be cut.

Re:*Rate* of growth

[reboot246]

It could be that the market is nearly saturated. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc. are going to have a harder time getting new subscribers simply because there are fewer and fewer new subscribers to be had.

Remember that there are millions of people who don't have internet service and millions more who don't have internet service that's good enough to stream video. Plus, there is a (small?) segment of the population who don't want to stream.

Netflix is getting political

[NaCh0]

Netflix teaming up with Obama is an easy way to alienate half of America.

I was talking with a few guys at the office with high school aged kids. They said youtube has replaced tv/movie/netflix programming in their houses.

Combine that with an ever shrinking library of content and the decline of Netflix is easy to predict.

Re:Netflix is getting political

[Anonymous Coward]

Go woke, go broke.

Re:Netflix is getting political

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to agree that youtube has probably consumed a vast majority of tv viewing hours. There is plenty of quality content being posted on there. Once you explore and find the channels posting said quality content and subscribe to said channels you'll shortly notice that you are getting notifications for more content then you have hours to ever consume it all

That is the case that has happened with me. I cut the cable cord cause I was barely watching it vs youtube content. I put up an antenna to pull in OTA ATSC for the big 4 networks and live news covers for when/if I need it. Being a floridian keeping access to the news coverage is useful during hurricane season. A plus of OTA is still being able to receive news so long as you have a source of power. After hurricane Irma last year I was without power for a week other than limited generator power. The cable network including cable internet was completely dead 6 hours or so after we lost power when the batteries in the road side cabinets went flat. Cable didn't come back until the power came back.

Re: Netflix is getting political

[Kjella]

YouTube may be eating into the total screen time but that weâ(TM)ll stop seeing scripted movies and TV series seems unlikely, vloggers /streamers etc. is more like the extreme version of reality TV where you make super cheap content that only needs a few clicks to pay for it. What I do hope is that Netflix, YouTube etc. drives a stake through the heart of the cable TV model, your Internet connection is just a conduit and you can get any content from anywhere. And I hope - though this seems less likely due to DRM - that eventually itâ(TM)ll be more like a plug-in service, one player but many providers. Itâ(TM)s kinda circling back to the cable channel model, if you want the Disney channel you subscibe to that. Except on-demand and online.

Re: Netflix is getting political

[butchersong]

I guess it depends on the viewer. My youtube feed is mostly long form content on history, philosophy and current events. The production value may be "cheap" but it's almost completely displaced my TV viewing which was mostly fluff fictional content.

Re:Netflix is getting political

[butchersong]

It's the typical reward system employed by lobbyists after a politician leaves office. Since he was the president the numbers are pretty high. The Obamas are getting deals in the upper 10s to 100s of millions of dollars. In this case they're being paid to be "producers" of TV content. Both parties do this but it just seems like the money laundering equivalent of access and public policy.

Re:Netflix is getting political

[drsquare]

I'd imagine the sorts of Americans who wouldn't subscribe to Netflix because they broadcast a President who had the audacity to be black wouldn't be subscribing anyway because it requires electricity and the Internet. If they start pandering to people like you there'd be all sorts of stuff they couldn't show because it had minorities in it or strong female characters.

You'll just have to wait until there's a streaming service aimed at rednecks and incels.

They turned a profit didn't they?

[Torp]

The stupid obsession with growth at all costs...

However, their market share will drop sharply when all the other idiots launch their own streaming service since, as it's been said before, people will subscribe to one or two at most.

I don't get it.

[Ecuador]

I don't get it. If you have a finite population, I would expect the growth RATE to be higher at first and lower as the market gets saturated. Why would anyone expect the growth to accelerate when OVER 50% of households had Netflix from last year? The global subscriber base is not that saturated, so there was an 8% growth year to year, which doesn't sound bad either - I mean you always expect to get the easiest chunk of customers first anyway, growth rate should slow down later on.
14% price drop because you didn't expect the minority of the population who are Netflix hold-outs to suddenly sign up? That's retarded.

Re:I don't get it.

[hcs_$reboot]

No, some smart people make forecasts, of which one variable is: population.

Re:I don't get it.

[misexistentialist]

14% drop is not much when the stock increased like 140% in a year. It's the buying that's retarded

Re:I don't get it.

[houghi]

Yes, you will get a slower grow rate. The question is when. What will happen is that it will start slow, will go faster, flatten out and then go slower.

All understandable and logical. But WHEN will it flatten out? And how fast?

Re:I don't get it.

[greenwow]

Plus at least among my friends, nearly all of them that have an Internet connection fast enough to stream video already have Netflix. There's simply not that much room for growth.

Stalls?!?

[jpaine619]

You geniuses sure have an odd definition of "stalls". I'd think adding 5.2 million subscribers would count as growth..

Who the fuck writes these headlines? Fucking clickbait...

Re:Stalls?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Present day everything is about metrics and word play. A company misses it's 'target' and it is seen as a negative. A company can be 100% profitable, it says that it will increase it's profit % by a certain amount. It then ends up missing the self defined target about but still increases it's profit margin(also recall that it was already profitable), and investors pull out.

It's insane. If your 'metrics' aren't increasing by your specified amounts then you are dying, even if you are still growing!

You then also have word play like the US government uses where they say 'budget cuts' but what they really mean is the budget isn't growing MORE than the specified amount. You could give a government the same amount of money in 2019 that you gave it in 2018, adjusted upward accounting for inflation, and all the politicians that like that project will proclaim you are cutting that projects budget. Just because the budget didn't grow more than inflation.

They also see tax cuts as a budget minus. As if you were spending the money on something. Who runs their finances like that? They start with a number they would have had if they didn't give the tax cut then take the tax cut amount of money and drop it off and act like it was a spending line item. Wrong! You start with the amount of money you actually get, not the fantasy amount of money you want. Else every month when I do my finances I would have to drop off 10 million dollars from my 'starting point' because my boss 'cut' my pay.

Re:Stalls?!?

[jpaine619]

No.. No it does NOT. They added 5.2 MILLION subscribers... They added the population of the greater Los Angeles Metro Area....

Only an idiot would count that as a stall..

Re:Fixed that car analogy for you

[hcs_$reboot]

When your car stalls, acceleration from the motor drops to zero, so your velocity will drop due to rolling and other resistance. Eventually the car will stop.

Except if you are on a descent. And Netflix is!

What? Despite the multi "free months"?

[hcs_$reboot]

After Netflix blocked most VPNs on the planet, I gave them a stop. Then, after some time, I received, again, a free-month offer! And this, before Netflix publishes their subscribers count. If this is not to increase temporarily the number of subscribers ...

Ugh

[sad_]

shares dropped by 14%, fourteen!
and for what, actually turning up decent growth numbers.
i don't see Apple's stock falling because their screw ups in India.

Re:Explore titles related to "subscriber growth"

[hcs_$reboot]

+1 for that, and for "too much VPN blocking"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It had to occur at some point...

[QuietLagoon]

... Netflix's growth was not sustainable. The last price increase, the availability of content elsewhere and the diminishing breadth of their content have tapped the brakes on growth. The question now becomes, when will Netflix's subscriber sign-up rate go negative, i.e., loss more than they gain each month?

Re:It had to occur at some point...

[The-Ixian]

Ok. I am all for calling out BS on the "missed goal is a loss" but 130 million is still "only" 1/3rd the population of the USA alone let alone the 7+ billion population of the world....

So, I think there is plenty of growth opportunity here...

Re:It had to occur at some point...

[QuietLagoon]

...So, I think there is plenty of growth opportunity here......

Why do you think that much more than 1/3 of the US population should be on Netflix? The number of alternatives for streaming is increasing nearly monthly, and content providers are raising the cost of content to Netflix. Will Netflix's original content be able to carry the load of retaining more than 1/3 the US population?

Re:It had to occur at some point...

[Quirkz]

The average household size is 2.58 people, so that's a lot closer to "everyone has it" than only 1/3 of the market.

Hysterical investors

[OneHundredAndTen]

On this news, investors reacted as they are wont to do: hysterically. No wonder we have market collapses every so often, with investors reacting like neurotic sheep.

God buying opportunity

[gurps_npc]

Netflix has done incredibly well ever since it's creation. It is still profitable, even beating it's estimates for this quarter.

The problem is that it's rate of growth has slowed. Not surprisingly for a company that has done so well for so long. So it's only going to grow at maybe 15-20% a year, rather than 30% a year.

Still a great company, that is expanding and will continue to do well. It's best year may be behind it, but it's good years are still better than most other companies.

Buy now, when it is cheaper and everyone else is panicking.

(Yes, I do own the stock - or rather long term call options on it. I bought them this morning.)

You don't need to subscribe to everything at once

[Layth]

For a mere $10 a month you can watch all the shows created for one streaming network in january and then get this...
You can cancel your subscription and sign up for a different network, and then watch those shows on a different network too!

Would you like to add Netflix to your cable plan?

[GoRK]

Surprise surprise people don't want another premium cable network which is exactly what Netflix has stupidly turned itself into. Whats worse is they killed every competing movie jukebox service (what people actually want) and video rental store during their market conquest before they changed their business model.

If it's not plainly fucking obvious to anyone, the fact that many cable providers now allow you bundle Netflix in with your cable or internet package (or it is used as a value add) should be a pretty big clue.

Re:Would you like to add Netflix to your cable pla

[fropenn]

What else could Netflix be? If they don't own any content then their business is completely at the whim of the licensing fees charged by other companies. And when these other companies decide to open their own streaming service to keep all the profits themselves, Netflix would be screwed. So they have to make their own content. The Netflix DVD by mail service is still the best there is for any kind of physical media rental. And the selection is amazing.

Re:Fixed that car analogy for you

[Darinbob]

Yup, for all the criticism of Netflix, what are the reasonable alternatives? Apple and Google aren't cutting it here. Amazon has a smaller overall selection, has premium pricing for some shows, and overall is only worth it if you are already a Prime cult member. Hulu seems to be just a wannabe for those people who demand more current TV series.

Uh no it does not

[aepervius]

because as i said I buy (books/game) or license/subscribe (film/serie) whatever I watch. if i watch something I *already* am subscribed for the month therefore it does not remove any money from netflix, crunchyrolls or amazon if i watch something else. In fact by your own argument if I don't watch that grey film/episode/anime/whatever then I am stealing money from them. So if I watch twitch instead ? Or free youtube ? Or one of the other video I have as dvd ? Your argument fail as a devil advocate.