Slashdot Mirror


Netflix 'Would Lose 57 Percent of Their Subscribers If They Added Commercials' (netimperative.com)

According to new research from marketing technology firm Audience Project, the majority (57%) of UK customers would stop watching Netflix if commercials were introduced, and even lowering subscriptions would cause a significant drop off of 42%. Here are some of the other key findings: - In the UK, Netflix takes the lion's share of the streaming audience at 70%, followed by BBC iPlayer (61%). Interestingly, YouTube, ITV Player and All4, all of which host ads, saw a decline.

- TV is still the preferred streaming device in the UK used by 42% of respondents.

- Streaming is on the rise particularly amongst the young, with almost as many 15-25 year olds streaming/downloading (63%) as watching traditional TV (65%)
"This is proof, if it were needed, that Netflix is right to focus on growing through its investment in content rather than considering hosting advertising any time soon," Netimperative reports.

Martyn Bentley, Commercial Director UK at Audience Project, comments: "Our findings highlight the growing importance of targeting and relevance in advertising. As consumers have increasing choice over whether or not they see ads, both broadcasters and advertisers alike need to work hard to ensure that campaigns enhance experience, rather than detract -- plus it suggests that greater inroads need to be made with Connected TV as a means to help tailor advertising at a granular level."

21 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Same with Youtube by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Youtube had ads their viewership would drop a lot too.

    1. Re:Same with Youtube by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, Ad Block stops 100% of Youtube ads for me, so I never even knew Youtube had ads until I started watching it via television instead. Since Youtube started on the computer I suspect most users who have ad block are fine with it, and those without ad blockers may find that other web sites are far more annoying with ads.

    2. Re:Same with Youtube by godrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some times I watch Youtube on my phone where I don't have an adblocker (maybe should get one). And it is unbearable. I end up watching no more than a couple of videos before doing something else.

    3. Re:Same with Youtube by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It turns off ads on youtube for roughly $10/mo USD
       
      We watch most of our evening news as clips on youtube, stuff like the late show with colbert, last week tonight, cnn, msnbc, fox news etc and specialty channels all have ads now when you watch a segment.
       
      Also useful for playlists of music, as we use our TV as a youtube jukebox when pandora isn't cutting it.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Same with Youtube by Bobrick · · Score: 4, Informative

      NoScript and AdBlock get rid of the ads for free, just sayin'.

    5. Re:Same with Youtube by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not on Android TV devices...

      Besides, I prefer to pay for my content, especially if it's a more or less fair deal: get ads, or pay a reasonable fee to get rid of them. As soon as YouTube offered Red (or whatever they call it these days) in my country, I subscribed. We watch a fair amount of stuff on it.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Same with Youtube by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they offered a reasonable ad-free option I'd take it. But $12/month is ridiculous. Way more that Netflix, for a start, and even if I cared about their premium content I wouldn't pay that much for it.

      It seems to be because you get ad-free music, but I don't want that.

      Give me ad-free normal YouTube for $2/month and I'm in. Otherwise I'm sticking with ad blocking.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Same with Youtube by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On Android you can use the open source Newpipe app for ad-free YouTube, or a hacked official YouTube app.

      Unfortunately it's become impossible to block YouTube ads on smart TVs because they changed the way that the ads are served. They now come from the same domains as the actual content, and there are thousands of them, and even if you manage to block them it just causes the app to hang as it rotates through domains looking for one that works. A PiHole or similar is no longer effective.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Same with Youtube by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In all honesty, I don't even mind the unskippable ones in theory because they are usually very short (or at least can be skipped after a few seconds).

      What I truly hate is when they are inserted into the middle of a stream where someone is right in the middle of speaking or what have you. While such breaks are, thankfully, very short, they still completely interrupt the flow of whatever one was watching, to such an extent that I sometimes have to skip back a few seconds right after the commercial and rewatch that part of the video (which doesn't replay the commercial, thankfully).

      To be honest, I believe that if Youtube really wants to insist on ads like this being in a video, they should ask the uploader to ensure that there are scene cuts or otherwise suitable places in the video to insert commercials, and youtube can ask where the timing of such spots are when the video is uploaded. If an uploader cannot provide satisfactory locations for commercials to youtube, then the entire video should be blocked from being able to be watched for free until the uploader has modified it to be amenable to this process. Of course, the uploader should be advised that this is the case, as well.

      Yes, I'm quite aware of how user-hostile this solution is... that is a design feature, not a bug... because IMV, it is still less hostile than inserting commercials right smack dab in the middle of people saying a sentence.... almost EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.

  2. They missed the interesting question by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The interesting question is not whether a large portion of their existing subscribers would bail with commercials. That goes without saying. Even if they cut the price massively, one of the major reasons for paying for Netflix is the ability to get good content without commercials, and they know this.

    Rather, the interesting questions is whether a lower-cost or free ad-subsidized tier would bring in enough additional subscribers to offset the loss from subscribers in the ad-free tier switching to that ad-subsidized tier.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:They missed the interesting question by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Meh. The ability to track viewership really does not concern most people. In fact, most people understand that the ability to track viewership is important for ensuring that people can actually get the kinds of content that they like. After all, if nobody knows whether anybody is watching a particular type of show, what's the incentive to continue producing that type of show over some other type of show? And the more expensive the show is to produce, the more important it is to know that there are a lot of people watching to make it worth spending the money, so for things like sci-fi, tracking is absolutely critical.

      Mind you, it would be nice to have an incognito mode in Netflix, for when you don't want something to affect your rankings because you think it might suck, but I have a separate profile for that. Beyond that, though, I'm pretty sure the only people who really care about avoiding tracking are watching porn. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:They missed the interesting question by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the ability to track viewership is important for ensuring that people can actually get the kinds of content that they like

      I have never seen this mysterious feature to work in any way whatsoever for me on any site. Not even remotely. Amazon keeps pestering me with suggestions for things I've bought half a year ago, Youtube suggests videos I would never watch in my life and even if I click away all suggestions it will start with the same nonsense again after a while, and Netflix suggests the most awful and horrible movies on earth, because they have only like a few dozen movies in my country anyway and I've all the good ones ten years ago. Even their series suggestions are complete nonsense, merely based on what's new in their catalogue.

  3. Growing importance? by GrahamJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our findings highlight the growing importance of targeting and relevance in advertising

    No, the findings highlight the fact that consumers don't want advertising. Anyone other than a marketing droid would see this as declining importance of ads. Talk about cognitive dissonnance.

    1. Re:Growing importance? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Copied and pasted exactly the above quote to say just what you did.

      Advertising people are special. I've known a couple, very nice people, in terrible jobs. The stories they tell themselves to justify what they do. Most of the ones I've known have eventually gotten out. And their story changes when they do.

    2. Re:Growing importance? by mentil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This raises the question of what's going to happen to video ads once broadcast TV goes away. If everyone's watching commercial-free services like Netflix, then where are people going to see these things? Are advertisers just going to rely on other types of ads, like on web pages? Print is dying as fast, although some audio streaming services have audio ads. Maybe it'll move to sponsorships, with the content producer talking about the product or having product placement.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  4. 100% of Attention by dohzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They lose 100% of my attention when ads are on anyway.
    Step 1. Mute.
    Step 2. Look away or look at another device.
    Step 3. (Optional) Consider how I could acquire the same content with no ads, any means necessary.

    1. Re:100% of Attention by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in the old days of television, commercial breaks were prime time for “potty breaks”. During hugely popular shows (e.g. Roots or the Super Bowl), there were anecdotes about large old apartment buildings having their plumbing fail because too many people flushed at the same time.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  5. I'd think it'd eventually be 100% by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the actual fuck are you going to PAY every month for something like Netflix if you're still going to be subjected to commercials? It would make zero sense. if they want to add commercials then they should charge ZERO dollars per month. If you PAY for it then you should get ZERO commercials, plain and simple. If they're not making enough money then raise the damned subscription fee. Otherwise why bother? Just put an antenna on your roof at that point and pay nothing anyway, record everything on a DVR, and skip past the commercials.

    1. Re:I'd think it'd eventually be 100% by sysrammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is how HBO/et.al. started:
      q. People said "Why would i want to PAY for a TV channel when I can watch it for free?"
      a. Well, exclusive content and no ads. ...and then there were a few ads for a few HBO shows. Ok, we can accept that...sorta like movie trailers. And then you had "This show presented by Proctor & Gambel", but that was just at the start and end, and we said..."ok, that doesn't hurt much"... ...and shortly after that, the frog was boiled.

      PS: from an old rant: "Who needs all these channels? Who the heck is going to watch a channel about the WEATHER?"

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  6. Re: Lower tiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When cable TV first came out one of the selling points was, you are paying up-front so there will be no commercials! Now you can watch maybe five minutes of cable TV without getting a commercial - and people are fleeing. One of the absolute best things about Netflix is the lack of commercials. They have already shown that people will in fact pay up front to avoid commercials. It will be too bad if they submit to the easy route and add commercials, dooming themselves to irrelevance.

  7. Re:Lower tiers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about free? Or perhaps they can pay people to watch ads.

    You know, you're absolutely right. If network television could thrive for decades by giving people free programming paid for via commercials, so can Netflix.

    So forget it. Netflix. If you add commercials, it better be gratis.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.