Netflix Pulls the Plug on Feature Designed to Get Kids Addicted to Netflix
vanityfair.com
vanityfair.com
Is there anyway to do this properly? I can imagine the problem will get worse and worse as we reduce human evaluation of A/B test results and automatically make real-time decisions through software and ML.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-shows-trump-appears-to-...
[2] https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/05/snap-evan-spiegel-app-re...
The way to do it properly is to hire experienced, competent UX designers and human computer interaction specialists, who understand the problem space and how to keep people engaged without addictive malpractice / dark patterns. Metrics are useful but they are what they claim to be - measurements - and nothing more.
You wouldn't choose which house to buy based on how large it was measured to be, but you would expect a surveyor to make those measurements.
Speaking as a web and video game designer, I can't wait until I can hire someone to think about these things for me.
Personally I don't mind clickbait if after doing whatever it takes to grab my attention, the creator delivers on an actually solid high quality educational/entertaining content.
The content should at least match the promise of the headline, or even overdeliver. Then readers are happy.
Captain Pedantic, reporting for duty, and that’s not actually clickbait. If the masterful baiter of clicks actually delivers, then it wasn’t bait. I mean, what’s to complain about? Turns out there is a way to target stubborn belly fat, five minutes a day, who knew?
Rather it's an engineering-first organization, run by an engineer.
Probably a mix of everyone's fault.
Only if people have a stake in the decline of a company, and have something to lose. Other wise in these days of executive networks, and people getting in their golf and dinner buddies- Execs mostly care about nothing at all.
The only people to lose anything are a few low level employees and may be shareholders. Shareholders mostly don't care either. People who hold large block of shares, are generally diversified. And since nothing fails at all at once- They are covered too.
So nobody loses any thing much basically.
Once this becomes the goal, the game is already up. It doesn't matter whether you use A/B testing, focus groups, or brilliant designers who operate on intuition. By targeting engagement, you're treating your users as a means to an end and falling afoul of the categorical imperative [1]. You're focused not on meeting their needs as users but your own needs as an engagement-driven platform.
The answer to this puzzle is to take engagement right off the table. An ethical business model is one in which you treat your customers as fully autonomous agents. As soon as you look past people's autonomy and see them as creatures of habit with psychological traits that can be gamed, you stray from the ethical path and find yourself searching for other rationalizations.
Instead try to think of your customers the way an old barber would think of his clients: as friends with individual needs who trust your experience in a particular problem domain.
Of course, this approach is extremely unlikely to lead to a billion+$ exit. But if your goal is to become a billionaire and you want to be as stridently ethical as possible, I don't know how to help you (and would invite you to further examine your priorities).
I guess it depends on where any individual places the task on the skill/luck or simple/complex scale. If the task (in this case, a design) is very simple — how many users who want to complete their voter registration form are able to — then experts may have an advantage.
OTOH, if it’s a complex space like facebooks news feed, I don’t think experts are the way to go. They simply think that they are.
FWIW, I’ve run hundreds of multivariate tests in my career. Every place I go, the design team is upset by the process, for the same reasons argued here. Every time, I challenge them to come up with 1 winning variation and 3 losers. If the designer-identified “winner” performs best, i pay them $10. If any of the losers wins, I get $10.
I have yet to meet a designer that can, a priori, pick the winning variation better than random chance would suggest.
Expertise is not valuable in an unpredictable context. Complex user facing systems like the news feed are impossible to predict.
I’m channeling Kahneman and Mauboussin here, but their theory explains my experience very well.
Note that talking to customers is not easy too. To the point that you need to psychoanalyze all the feedback to understand why they make those comments. Useful feedback is very rare. Customers are just not usability experts, they don't really know what they are talking about.
It is nakedly a psychological trick to give you a mixture of things you've seen before and new content to make you feel like you should try again more often - the slot machine strategy. No one asked for it.
Of course it helps that ads are easier to integrate into a feed when you don't even know what to expect in your feed in the first place.
So now, not only do these platforms not give a feed of pages and people I subscribe to, they litter my feed with ads and 'popular content' that I never subscribed to! otherwise how could they charge money to increase your organic reach?
what a crock! It was a marketers' dream to have their latest news and coupons delivered to your inbox and have you actually look at them, but if you subscribe to businesses you want to follow, how can the ad network make money? So they turned everyone into a customer of their ad platform, and held your content hostage until you paid up. This has effected numerous friends that are small content producers that maxxed out facebook's 5,000 friend limit and all they wanted was to invite all of their fans to their next event.
/rant
You have 1000 friends each interacting once per day with FB in a news feed worthy way (posting, joining an event, commenting etc). Are you supposed to look at 500 daily news feed posts to get a 50% chance of knowing what that friend you really like is up to? (pushing the trait but you get the idea)
Instead having to seep through endless activities I don't care about I can scan 10-15 posts per day and they are the relevant ones from the groups and friends I want to interact with.
--
I'm fully with you on the point you make about business/content creator you volontarily subscribed to having to pay extra for you to see their stuff.
Its a phrase that is often used but it is usually not as simple as that. Imagine that your existing users have a very different set of needs and priorities as new users coming onto your platform, or not yet users you want to attract. This means making hard decisions that will not please everyone.
Or, as you mention, your shareholders may require you to generate revenue faster and then you are left with a lot of bad decisions to make and your only choice is to pick the least damaging one.
In this case you should side with your existing users who 1) you already convinced to sign up and engage with your product 2) helped you build your product in the first place.
I’d take an established power-user any day over a potential new user that has yet to prove themselves (they might quit the platform as quickly as they joined).
Of course, some idiots don’t understand this, and “Twitter” is the result.
sometimes you don't have that luxury, because "you need to grow".
I had been a customer of theirs for years, starting with the DVD rental. After a while they started adding the streaming content which was cool, but then they eventually separated the two services and switched my plan from DVD rentals to exclusively streaming content. All without any action on my part or any consent from me.
Eventually, I quit Netflix because between Prime Video and Hulu, I was covered for my streaming needs and with the exception of a few shows, was unimpressed with Netflix's original content so it was a waste of money for me.
Fast forward to a week ago, I decided to give Netflix another shot. What amazed me is the dark patterns you speak of. Like downloading content for offline viewing.
I was without access to my normal ISP and had to use cellular data so I opted to download a show. 1 episode was 100 MB and I'm on Google Fi so it was basically $1 of data usage which I understood. But then when the episode was over, I stepped away from my phone to go to the bathroom and when I came back, I found that the episode had been deleted from my phone, and that the next episode had automatically downloaded without any action on my part incurring another $0.90 of data (not to mention deleting the episode I had intentionally downloaded making the first $1 a waste)
I saw at the top of the download section that there was something called "Smart Download" enabled that claims to do exactly that - delete the last episode and download the next, but it's only supposed to happen on wi-fi which wasn't the case for me. I turned off the feature as it was obviously broken and tried contacting customer service.
The CSR I talked to then told me that the app cannot delete or download material without me clicking a button - which contradicted their description of "Smart Download" that I had just read, and he explained there was no way for them to process a refund or credit to my account because they don't have any way to do that.
This seems like a pretty major problem.
Even when confronted with a direct customer complaint, their response was just to deny, deny, deny rather than taking even minor steps to rectify the issue. This seems mind boggling from a customer service perspective when companies like Amazon will bend over backwards to keep their customers happy. Even Hulu will credit you a free month of service when they goof - they even do it if you try to cancel the service because you can't find anything good to watch. Netflix's service isn't good enough to justify this type of behavior and general apathy. Customer-last seems like a crummy business model.
I do a lot of cellular/tethering and know some of the pain points but can recognize that the needs are quite different to the regular user who may consume stuff at home then want to take stuff with them on the go.
Normally I see that UX often caters to the lowest common denominator which leaves power users and niche users sidelined.
My personal bug bear on this subject is that YouTube no longer buffers entire videos and holds them there - presumably this saves them lots in traffic costs and additionally allows them to up sell YouTube premium
Without the "Smart Download" enabled the episodes persist until I delete them or cancel my service, that's the assumption with a download. Smart download immediately deletes whatever you downloaded as soon as it sees fit - which in my case was erroneously assuming I was on wi-fi. And this was my first download, it's not like it had some storage space restriction to deal with. I had ~16 GB free and it was 100 MB.
The next episode feature aside, it seems weird to say, "Okay, download this one" and then it saying, "Okay, so you meant download it and then delete it".
And to your Youtube point, I think it depends on the use-case. I fully agree with holding the buffer there, but if I'm on mobile data, I might not necessary want it to just load as much as it can as soon as it can because I pay per MB.
This seems more like a CS fault than anything. Netflix is a huge company and CS agents are outsourced/so far from the actual product team that they operate on guidelines/info that might actually not be true/outdated. I'd say it's just a problem with a huge organization.
So in the long term being decent is really good for business but also costly in short term.
Optimizing for the short-term is what many killing companies and good products.
> Corporations have no priority except to make money. If making money is at odds with positive user experience (which is almost always is), making money wins.
That attitude has a similar problem: socialism has been gaining in popularity, and I'd say that's a direct result of corporations over-prioritizing their money-making over both customer priorities and other social priorities (like paying reasonable amount of tax).
Others say "hire competent UX people", but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think doing that will help.
Even the best UX person won't help you if management - or processes they set up - push for microoptimizing profitability at all costs. If the competent UX person doesn't have morals and ability to push back based on that, they'll either leave, or - worse - implement the bad things that much more efficiently.
The way I see it, companies must realize where their profit/growth optimization borders on user abuse, and then not cross that line (or be made to not cross that line).
I’ve yet to find a UX team I’ve worked on with enough political capital to win any conversation which results in a net-decrease in profits, regardless of the ultimate benefit.
Too many quarter to quarter direction to overcome the profits-today-at-all-costs momentum which grips management.
I have my differences of opinion with most UI/UX teams I worked with (in particular, I don't buy the trend of making software as easy as possible at all costs; it leads to dumbing down and reduced utility). But I'm not blaming UX people for this. They have as much to say in this topic as developers about third-party JS bloat - i.e. we can all complain all we want, out of practicality or morality, and ultimately the decisionmakers don't care.
The problems associated with NHST are well documented (three that are especially awful: multiple comparisons lead to uncontrolled rate of false positives; large sample sizes leading to statistically significant but substantively irrelevant effects being "accepted"; hard thresholds of statistical significance are arbitrary and the difference between a significant effect and insignificant effect is rarely significant). In addition, there are problems that emerge from using NHST as part of an A/B test: namely, using live, rolling samples to identify significant results rather than prespecifying sample sizes; and making atomic changes as though they are additive without re-testing joint hypotheses of multiple changes.
But when you come down to it, the question you want to ask is "Is B better than A?" and the question you do ask is "If A were truly no better than B, how often would a sample of size n drawn using the same sampling procedure I think I'm using produce the impression than B is as much better than A as it is apparently in my observed data?", and two problems are that these aren't the same question and almost no one knows they're doing the latter.
To be totally fair, one of the most common problems with NHST (the null hypothesis is patently absurd) isn't necessarily a problem in the A/B UX case.
Not sure which of these in specific the grandparent is referring to, but I suspect they and I are on the same page in general.
Unless you can predict what this difference is expected to be with some precision beforehand it is not possible to legitimately attribute it to your favorite reason.
I would start here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/186099
You can test, find something is objectively better, but then have your users dislike it for fashion or historic reasons, or whatever.
But beyond that you have to do the hard slog of mastering the discipline of UX, real, human-centric design, and accept that not everything important is measurable.
We have plenty of examples of how doing real UX instead of playing a numbers game can differentiate your business, Apple has applied this philosophy consistently over many years.
The root of the problem is a "fuck you, market share at all costs" culture that has come to permeate Silicon Valley. And you can argue (somewhat cynically) that this philosophy makes sense in a blue ocean where you have no competition and just need to gobble up people and turn them into cash before someone else does. But I think going forward this mentality may actually become a liability as more humane alternatives to heavily despised products emerge. Many of the current crop of giants seem to have forgotten that a company's most valuable asset is always its brand.
> mastering the discipline of UX...
There is no reason to be ambiguous about the practice of good UX design.
The main mistake made by most A/B testing is to think that just because you do some testing, it will magically make your UI somehow better. You can make any tests you want, but how do you know they the right tests? And test results do not interpret themselves. There are no obvious conclusions to be drawn from the results of a test.
The correct way to do user testing is to start with clear, articulated goals, then select tests to see if the goals are failing or succeeding. Anything else is just back-dating hypotheses - a known anti-science practice.
The other misinterpretation of A/B testing is that it will make user interfaces "better" for the end user. Testing can only support or disprove the stated goal and it works just as well for goals that are foolish, short-sighted, self-destructive, and malevolent as it does for those that are ethical and beneficial.
From a sociological and personal point, problem is the companies which effectively make money off of stealing people's time and data for profit by making them agree to short term gains through addictive content.
What we as responsible adults need to do is to find out what addictive psychology is and put an end to these opportunistic constructs through law making.
In my opinion, time is better spent on cultural skills and pursuits, not flocking to "the next big thing" you are spoonfed.
Cycle metrics so that you don't get stuck on local optimization minima.
It's also helpful to have long term and short term optimizations to avoid burning fats, like measure both conversion and yearly conversion because it's more than likely that a discount for a week will not increase yearly conversion but will reduce yearly earning.
This was learned hard by steam, they made the sale event so big the whole game industry changed their pricing practices dropping in time much much more slowly than what it used to be.
Sadly this didn’t happen because the entire company is based on a lack of common sense by the looks of it.
I'd suggest either just giving an honest rant or giving actual advice. And for that you have to really unpack what you mean by "common sense" until somebody who doesn't have "common sense" can have a chance of understanding and fixing the problem.
In this case, simply doing some basic user-testing would’ve been considered common sense and would’ve brought up the problem immediately.
Telling a company "do some basic user testing" is a useful recommendation. Telling them to have "common sense" isn't.
Either the company truly didn’t have anyone do user testing, or they did and were ignored (which doesn’t surprise me either considering the child they appointed as “CEO”).
Maybe the problem isn't with my rant, but that somehow the people running that company do indeed not know what they're doing?
Although that does point to a common problem of 'design for purchasing manager' where software is designed for the sake of pleasing people who don't actually use it and merely adds a bunch of useless cruft that would rapidly become an irritating obstacle to users but looks impressive on first blush.
The point here is that just because people think they want or like something doesn't necessarily really mean they do, especially when what they're 'consuming' is in some way different than the regular long term consumption of the product (as you hit on). I don't think it's much of a coincidence that some of the most famous marketers, most relevantly here probably being Steve Jobs, weren't particularly interested in what the consumer thought they wanted.
This reminds me of a few years ago when they did "cash for clunkers" to stimulate the economy. Tons of people took advantage of it and car dealerships has two amazing months........ followed by four months of almost no sales. All that happened was that people who would have bought one in the next six months took advantage of the incentive now. It didn't create any new demand for cars or stimulate anything. If you only measured success during the first two months you might have been convinced that it was a roaring success.
Psst.. Are you ready to feel old today? The Cash for clunkers program was from 2009. Yeah, really. (The federal program in the US at least, I don't know if states ran their own version since)
The infamous Facebook user emotion study comes to mind: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
Anyone know why tech companies aren't held to the same ethical standards as academia?
I think it's the system working as it should, and I just hope people don't over-react and try to throw the system out when it seems to me to be actually doing a pretty good job at healing itself here.
Personally I've enjoyed the feature.
I find it annoying on youtube though, for some reason.
Edit: Oh, wait, are you talking about autoplaying preview trailers or autoplaying the next episode? I like the next episode feature, autoplaying trailers are annoying.
And yes, since you ask, my TV’s mute button doesn’t do anything when speakers are connected via the optical cable (I suppose it sends some event and the optical -> analogue converter I use to hook the TV into my ancient sound system just doesn’t know how to handle it). But that isn’t Netflix’s fault.
Prime doesn't have the bizarre, useless, space-wasting auto-expanding selections like Netflix though.
Netflix stream selection UX is so infuriatingly atrocious.
I really dislike the modern Netflix UI. I miss the old Netflix, where you could rate your shows with stars, it did a good job of actually suggesting things, and didn't force you to make choices you didn't want to make.
Adding a badge system? Not wonderful, but basically just brings them up to par with almost anything else on the internet. If we want to oppose badge systems, and maybe we should, we should start with the entire gaming industry and social media.
Netflix has so many other sins that they have raised the bar on my outrage. That in itself is sad...
What's upsetting about autoplay?? If you are truly "upset" about things netflix does did you ever think maybe you should just not subscribe to it?
I should have been clear, I meant the trailers. I'm browsing for specific content but getting blasted by ads for Netflix originals.
> did you ever think maybe you should just not subscribe to it?
I often don't. They've pushed me from a habitual subscriber to an occasional subscriber. Perversely that means I'm opting out of providing them ux data.
But in general people can have complaints about something even if it's not a dealbreaker. For another example, the ux on aging isn't great, but it beats the alternative.
If only the world was so simple.
And I also noticed that my profile has different images than one used by my partner - but that's not a surprise from what I recently read; netflix algorithm uses some heavy profiling - more black characters on thumbnails for those who seems to be black person etc.,; and the algorithm thinks I am black person because I'm watching Star Trek DS9...
Let us not discount the possibility that IP owners are not licensing to Netflix anymore.
I agree with the above poster that 2013 - 15 Netflix was the best. Transparent ratings systems and (to me) more relevant content with higher quality originals on average.
Now the content is subpar; every movie I've wanted to watch in the past three months is not on the platform. Add to that, the UI is incredible tedious to navigate. Everything _has_ to be "Because you watched XYZ" - and never the kind of content I'd be willing to settle for.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/starz-ends-contra...
I no longer feel confident if I add something to my list that I'll be able to find it later, mainly because the interface has changed so many times that I have to remember what to do.
The only better interface for me personally was when I used their API via Ruby and was able to sort exactly how I wanted.
Because every international Netflix variant had a much poorer selection of English-language titles compared to Netflix US, it must have hurt international adoption.
Unsurprisingly, Netflix changed their site layout so that such tables were no longer "exposed" to the end user.
As soon as you reward someone for watching, they'll figure out how to script it. They'll load it up, set it going turn off the speaker and the monitor and go to bed.
It wouldn't have increased my engagement, but it would remove me as a data point!
I would not consider autoplay the next episode a dark pattern.
It's the autoplay of trailers/previews while browsing their library that is the most annoying. This is definitely a waste of bandwidth for me. And while maybe not a dark pattern, it's annoying as much as popup UI stuff or in social feeds, ads in news, etc.
So why do they do it? What's the business case? I know they aren't idiots over there. What do they know that the rest of us don't?
Are the content producers actually paying them to force-feed those previews?
They are probably right and have data to back it up but I find that “feature” to be extremely anti-user. It shows utter contempt for user preference.
Of course, many of Netflix's UI features have historically been engineered to make it hard to tell just how limited their selection really is, so autoplay does fit that pattern, at least.
Remember when it was annoying pop-ups that auto-played video and sound? Now it's a feature to extract as many watch-time minutes from users as possible. I guarantee it's all A/B testing looking for a few points of uptick in watch time.
I've had it re-enable itself a few times. I'm sure it's due to the extra add-ons and such I use that's messing with it. A few of my friends don't use the same add-ons I use, or they don't use any and have had it happen enough times for them to complain to me about it.
My friend first found out his auto-play was re-enabled after youtube ate up most of his monthly bandwidth cap in one night.
So we're definitely in the minority, but it does seem to happen to different people with very different configurations.
Too late to edit unfortunately
Sure they have some stellar content but they also have a lot of crap.
I get that Netflix is a different beast than Hulu in many ways. But for cord cutters Hulu feels more like the total package.
Their horror is an awful text heavy interface with 5 inch size font on my TV.
I remember even further back when the internet put users in control.
I personally like having the ability to preview content rapidly—I can glean a lot about a show/movie in just a few seconds of video (title/thumbnail alone is low-info). The old pattern was ~5 clicks + buffer time to watch a preview (if one was even available). Also, opening Netflix signals an intention to receive audio+video—this isn’t nearly so bad as e.g. ESPN’s site randomly blasting you with a video as I’m trying to read an article.
Anyways, I agree that software should be as user-configurable as is reasonable, and it seems that these days apps like Netflix are completely bereft of meaningful options. Also much of the content that Netflix pumps out feels like the output of a generative algorithm designed to cover market segments vs. anything guided by a sort of original artistic vision.
(PS—can we collectively pump the brakes on the “X minor annoyance is cancer” lingo?)
But it's easy for me to not get upset about auto-playing trailers because my primary client never got updated to support them.
It's so obnoxious that I would consider paying extra to 1) shut this off, and 2) have a sane implementation of some sort of helpful/powerful search filter.
I suspect it's a result of poorly done UX research.
If you frame the question as "How can we increase engagement with the homescreen", adding noise does increase engagement.
Basically the % of people interacting with the home screen increases, but the number of people viewing the home screen decreases.
Ironically this means less time spent exploring...
Netflix often generates some interesting micro-genres and I used to scroll through a bit looking for things to add to my list - now if I don't have a specific title in mind I don't open Netflix at all.
Though I'm not sure I should complain - less mindless watching has lead to me reading more research papers and news. Being more productive.
I actually disagree. I think Netflix has several massive troves. For example I recently worked my way through Frasier, then Cheers. There's a lot of hit shows like Star Trek, Friends, Buffy etc.
I agree the selection is not perfect, but for me, there's a lot of stuff that I wanted to check out in the 90s but was too lazy to monitor a VCR for. There's also a decent enough amount of original content - Black Miror, Bojack for example, that make me feel I get my money's worth.
Maybe it's a generational thing... Netflix has so much more than any Blockbuster.
If not Netflix, what service? Who has better selection? Who is their rival.
IMHO Netflix is getting better at creating great content - Bojack Horseman for example is superb. They have the name brand recognition. And at the end of the day, the price is right - people can justify 12 bucks a month.
IMHO Netflix's rival is not Hulu or Prime Video - it's the local library. Many library systems nowadays offer DVDs and BluRays. Why pay a monthly fee when you can get the same titles from the library as fast as you could. Basically, people may be willing to trade cost for speed. (Heck sometimes I can get things faster from the library than I can from my DVD plan)
The best Netflix interface is the one Apple designed for them on the Apple TV 1-3. I’m considering dusting it up just for Netflix.
Ps. Agree with everything you and parent said!
They will never expose an outside review system.
But somehow Hulu is worse so there’s no impetus to clean up.
You'd be better off getting rid of Netflix altogether. The acceleration of addictiveness[1] caused by tech companies making their platforms ever more sticky is anti-human.
If there is a film/series you really need to watch, there's always Bit Torrent.
Users get the products they "want", not what they need — or deserve:
Make Something People Need
> We are surrounded by well engineered — and increasingly addictive — technology that shapes what we do and how we think. Especially when you work at a large tech company, how do you trade giving users what they want and your own business’s profitability, with the negative effects that this leads to?
https://www.nemil.com/musings/make-something-people-need.htm...
Or some director/executive who insists a pet personal preference be added to the product despite protestations from the entire team.
At the very least, it shouldn’t auto-play the audio, only the video.
The subscription is so cheap I don’t care about it. There is enough stuff I want to watch that I regularly use it.
But if I never used it, why care? Wouldn’t I be the perfect customer? Pays the subscription but doesn’t consume resources?
It has improved the experience so much I am actually using it more.
Adults sure, but what decent human sets out to get kids addicted???
The relentless march of capitalism
Quite a few. Have a look at the free-to-play games in the app store of your phone/tablet; it's both edifying and horrifying. Psychological addiction has been refined into a high art and, unfortunately, has been quite successful at separating children and young adults from their money.
It is not at all surprising that interest in these techniques is spreading beyond the games industry.
Why optimize for screen time? They get payed through monthly subscriptions not per minute. Shouldn’t they optimize for user satisfaction, or lock in then?
Beautiful website design! Very elegant use of space above the fold. I likewise love Nautil.us design too.
Which themes (Wordpress or some static site generator) would be similar?
Can you think of a better way to express this criticism?
Oh please. By some miracle every Netflix-produced thing has a >90%-match with my preferences, yet somehow when I type in movies that I want to watch I find Netflix had them in their catalogue but never bothered to suggest them to me.
They want you to see self-produced stuff and then a show and not a movie (so you stay on longer) and not to find the best matches for your taste.
Also, giving them Kudos for not doing something that should have been a no-starter in the first place sets a pretty low bar for giving someone Kudos.
A) A company that makes money from you spending as much time on their website as possible
B) A website that makes a set amount of money per user because you voluntarily pay them every month
Company A is not inclined to optimize for user happiness, whereas company B absolutely is. If these two companies do not take different approaches, then one or both of them is doing something wrong.
Edit: And for the record, I do think that on the whole, Netflix is behaving far too much like Company A despite having Company B's business model.