Hi, my name is bill
And I am a netflixholic.
It all started when cable pricing went into the triple digits for a single watcher and HDTV DVR. Channels were moved, added and removed every other week like seats in a bingo parlor. I had no idea where my fav shows were moved, and why I had to pay more for crapchannels (shopping, religion, grande chi chis).
Then netflix came into my life. I was getting DVD after DVD of movies (i missed many theater releases while I was in and out of relationship-pursuit activities). It was great! I even cancelled my HDTV channels (an early "cord cutter) and sent back my DVR. I figured it was costing me $1.08/movie for DVDs. Then came the streaming. Wow, my Xbox (had to have gold account) and PS3 could show movies (the PS3 had to have a DVD inserted; rather backwards for tech so cool). But titles were not plenty, and alot of shows were DVD only for viewing. This was the beginning of the end of my "joy" of watching. Netflix would raise rates (2x in 12 months), and titles would disappear from my queue. Then Starz vs Netflix was announced in the blogs regarding relicensing.
Netflix brought about some needed change. But it also pried open the vault of not only movies I could never rent at Blockbuster (thank God BB is gone... $21 late fees POOF), but it also showed us how the movie biz licenses and distributes films.
We also see that many shows CAN'T be streamed because of quid-pro-quo with actors, producers, directors, screenwriters adn all their guilds and unions. This doesn't even include the lawyers and studio execs. Streaming falls under broadcasting and thus, there are licensing and rights that must be followed (along with compensation). I bet someone at Starz lost their job when they realized Netflix was on to something THEY didn't think of (amazing how entertainment industry was set in their ways).
My $1.08/title was no longer to be.
I imagine Netflix' CEO will have some stories to tell when he resigns (I am not suggesting he will, but when it comes, he has much insider info on how studios operate with licensing). If you don't own the content nor the way to distribute it, how do you expect control (although one can sell the service of streaming and startup something else later...)
So now, I am installing an OTA digital antenna, and saving $ to buy shows from Amazon, Hulu+, Zune (Xbox), Sony (PS3), Crackle, and others... (I won't steal with torrents...content costs money to make). Netflix. I enjoyed the high. But now I realize the cost and what its done to my friends and family.
(Bill, here is your first token)
|reply to cableties |
The price change was more than I had expected, but was not really outragous or unexpected that something would change.
However this (an idea they obiviously should had waiting is a really bad idea.
Problem #1 poor branding
The netflix name does make the most sense for the internet/streaming portion, but Qwikster? I tried googling it and ran into the same problem as this guy
»technologizer.com/2011/09/19/qwi ··· ickstar/
Generally when you consider the name change for a company you first do some marketing studies/research to avoid "sounds like", misspelling, existing companies, defunct companies and branding (a history of failed "sounds like" branding efforts may mean the name is not good, not that it was a poor fit for previous product lines, some words just aren't right) legal issues aside, this was poorly thought through.
Problem #2 customer confusion/limited future?
In a few months time, there may not even be a USPS to deliver the disks in an affordable manner, and they could just let it die gracefully.
Problem #3 splitting the accounts is a futher push for users to drop delivery, and is a negitive towards attraching to subs.
Problem #4 Poor Andy!
Reed hastings presents...sidekick Andy new CEO of our "designed to fail" division, I wonder if he knows he's being thrown in front of a bus?