I don't know where I'm going with this.
Not sure what is weird about that.
I doubt server / network costs, while significant for netflix are worth the trade for less viewership or the reduction to being in the mind of their users.
Remember Netflix has ads too..
If they're really worried about Fortnite, why haven't they made an effort to actually leverage network effects past cost scaling?
My primary reason to get Netflix if my friends have Netflix is so we can talk about the same (Netflix-only) shows.
But why not offer synced or simultaneous viewing with friends groups? Or per group commenting on episodes? Or anything that offers a truly different viewing experience that I can only get on Netflix?
Boy have I got bad news for you... https://gfycat.com/FrighteningMassiveHart
Since the topic is fortnite, perhaps such a streaming website could even include gaming content!
In the same way that I used to keep an xbox live subscription just for halo; any other game with online was a bonus, but not sufficient to justify subscribing. (CoD would be other reason, if I had ever cared for it)
However, I assume they depend on both, as at this point, the additional arbitrary selection of movies is the only value to me; particularly the fact that although I’ve stopped depending on it for significant screen time, the fact that its been dependable for one-off usage is sufficient value. (Im personally down to probably a single movie or two on netflix per month, maybe even less). But this is only a trait learned over time; any newcomer wouldn’t see this as valuable.
https://adage.com/article/digital/netflix-s-bandersnatch-rev...
If you are still finding content that you are interested in, you will likely keep your subscription; even if you spend significantly less time using it.
You don't need to binge watch a series of events day to find value to keep the subscription.
Growth is fueled by assimilating otherwise normal people into the Netflix zombie botnet.
The problem is that there is a fixed amount of time in a day and people's focus is a zero sum game. If more people are playing fortnite, less people are watching netflix. If more people are watching youtube, less people are watching mainstream tv.
There are only X amount of watch time for this world. The battle between all media companies is over that share. It's the cause of tension between traditional media and social media and why traditional media has been so forcefully demanding a privileged place within social media. There is only a finite number of hours for people's attention.
I think that optimizing for time watched is genius for Netflix for exactly the reason stated above. Of course it helps drive retention, but the ultimate benefit is netflix-izing our culture so that a subscription is just necessary for our social life.
1. I assume screen time translates to a stronger position in the market. Revenue-wise it might be negative, but I assume they have metrics showing that the less screen time a subscriber incurs, the more likely they are to cancel their subscription.
I'd suppose there is a ceiling to this. I personally would imagine it's just as likely for someone to cancel their subscription if they watch 5 hours a week then if they watch 20-- they probably won't, but I'd suppose at some point is just about holding a strong position? Forming habits? Someone who watches 5 hours a week might be watching one or two shows, will run out of things to watch, and might will jump ship if they find that next show somewhere else. Or they might have enough things to do outside of Netflix they'll just do more of that after they are done watching.
2. Which brings me to my second thought. In general, in my opinion it's wrong and creepy that Netflix has this wide view of what it's competing against. Including sleep [1] and now Fortnite is getting kind of borderline "anything that people do with their free time" at this point.
Sleep: it's general economic downtime. It's time everyone could spend doing something else, but you don't see KFC competing against it. Imagine-- "People are sleeping too much! That slows digestion, so they get less hungry. We gotta compete against that!"
Videogames: Not saying Fortnite is the healthiest of activities, but sheesh, not all screen time is the same. Sometimes I get tired of passive consumption and want to do something that will at least require me to press some buttons and strategize a bit.
[1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/4/17/15334122/netflix-sleep-comp...
Gyms essentially do this. The number of people with memberships will be 20x the gym's physical capacity, in part because people get memberships and then never show up. Some gyms target that kind of customer.
They would be very happy to sell you 100% of your screen time for $13/mo. The server costs are manageable.
In the long run, Netflix wants as much of your attention as they can have because no one quits a service they use every day and love.
On top of that, the net promoter score would be higher.
Netflix wants to maximize lifetime value. Why optimize for less screentime when it could just minimize cost of content?
There's a lot to be said for reliability factor too. I could pay for just the middle tier and handle occasional collisions (more people wanting to watch at the same time than the service tier allows). But it's easier to fork out extra $5 and avoid the issue altogether.
1. I "feel" like there might be something I want to watch at some point. Just kinda in the back of my head.
2. Its 10$/mo that I'm not even going to notice missing.
As their price increases I'll likely cancel. There is something about being at or under 10$ vs being over that triggers me to reevaluate even if I still wouldn't notice the extra couple bucks.
At $10 I’m not even that bothered about content quality.
These days content is spread out over a bunch of providers, some much more expensive due to movies, sports and live events.
I’m paying for four separate streaming services, and at $10 netflix just defaults.
At a higher price quality content will have to increase.
Why are people paying for subscriptions they don't use?