Online Selection Sucks!

[goldfilm]

I can't take it anymore. The current online selection is worst than my dad's collection in VHS. Check the New Releases:

- First of all, 75% ARE TV SHOWS !!!

- True Grit, The Fighter and Biutiful, three great films... but released two years ago!

- Limitless, The Lincoln Lawyer and No Strings Attached, three of the worst films of 2011.

- Senna and Elite Squad 2, the ONLY two interesting films...

Now let's go to iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, etc, all of them with movies to STREAM. They have better films, newer films, most of the 2011 Oscar nominated, etc.

So, obviously, Netflix has an issue with the distribution rights, the best films only on DVD, and for streaming, old stuff. They PROMISED that they would have a better selection, up-to-date, signing lots of new deals and contracts with the studios... what happened?

I called Customer Service a couple of times, they AGREED they have to improve the selection, and told me they would call me back with a response from an executive... HAHAHAHAH... Call me back? HAHAHAHAHA

So, why I don't cancel? I don't know, I guess I'm masochist.

[alpha309]

It is sustainable the way they have streaming at this very second.  If they try to appease everyone and get the brand new stuff HBO has, Netflix has no chance and must charge easily triple what they do now to even think about possibly breaking even.  End of story.

[Knaldskalle]

True, but does anyone really think this has reached some sort of stable level? I'm sure that Netflix is going to have to cough up more and more for access to the content that the studios own - even content that isn't "hot". Just look at what happened with Starz, it went from being a $20 million deal to $200-300 million deal... They coughed up $1 billion for the Epix deal.

That's of course one reason Netflix started producing their own stuff, so they can say "Hey studios, if you guys start demanding too much money, we'll just go and make our own material". It may ultimately not be much of a threat, but it just has to have the appearance of a credible threat.

Like I said, some of us are watching this with great interest.

[alpha309]

I expect all the deals to be very close to the Epix deal.  That seems to be the benchmark, and will be.  As for independent films, hell the producers are happy to make their money back most of the time.  Especially the ones produced for under 1 mil.  If they can squeeze a little out theatrically limited, then sell a few DVD's then sell rights to a few places they have made a small profit.  Their price points are probably going to stay the same.

I would say that Netflix producing their own titles are a credible threat.  Lilyhammer is very well done.  House of Cards and Hemlock Grove are two of the more intriguing pilots this year and they have no restrictions that a network would have.  Think more along the lines of what Showtime or HBO can pull off.  These two are very important.  HBO and Showtime are able to get talent for cheaper than network with a two strike argument, 1 the prestige of their projects, and 2 they can argue they rely on subscriptions and not advertising for their income.  Netflix can argue this as well if both of these shows take off (which I think they will).  Then they will be able to get better talent to do cheaper shows and continue on in this cycle.  The only issue is really how to determine royalties.  Once these shows finally get released it will be interesting.  Also, I think Netflix will follow the HBO/Showtime method and not rely on ratings to determine what continues on from season to season and use the prestige it brings to them by having it on.

[Knaldskalle]

That sounds like a very reasonable analysis to me. I agree.

[lobito]

I understand the whole thing with contracts, but the problem remains, once you watch what you want that is there (and that might take a few months), there is nothing new coming for streaming!

Even at $8/month, I'm considering canceling. There's literally nothing compelling in the 'new releases' or 'new shows' (when there's anything new there at all, which is rarer and rarer).

A couple of months ago my streaming queue had like 37 things. Now it's down to 27 or so (which is bad, it should go up with time, not down!).

And it's not only new things. The other day I looked for old stuff I'd like to watch and they're not there either (should they get a deal with like TV-Land?).  I was sort of in the mood to see an episode or two of like Bewitched (not there), Dream of Jennie (not there), Flintstones (not there). Then I said, ok, let's watch the Godfather (not there), Goodfellas (not there).  Basically, I couldn't find one thing I wanted to watch.

I think Netflix is in serious trouble.

[goldfilm]

I feel that Netflix is becoming very TV-oriented. Somebody mentioned that they are paying Netflix so the kids can watch the TV shows, and I'm kind of in the same boat now, with the difference that I still have some old movies in my queue I want to watch. But once the queue goes down I think I'll cancel, because the new is barely new, like lobito mentions "rare and rarer".

Today I saw that they added "Melancholia" and I almost threw a party. I remember a year ago that from many titles I'd think "what should I watch first?" Not anymore.

[dreamscape86]

This mirrors my experience lately exactly. Any time I try to find something specific, it's not available. And of course, fanboys just reply by saying "Well, there's lots of great stuff if you explore what's out there!" But that misses the point. I'm not paying for Netflix to tell me what to watch. I want to be able to watch what I want. And I'm not even talking about remotely new releases. I realize there's a premium on those. But if I type in an Academy Award winning movie from 5 years ago or a blockbuster from 7 years ago, that should be available. This is the kind of content that people are obviously going to want. Netflix shouldn't be telling us to just watch what's available.

Also, has anyone else with a streaming-only subscription noticed that Netflix has started hiding movies that are DVD-only from search results? That way, when you search for a major movie, they don't have to show you that it's not available, and instead offer a bunch of totally unrelated titles to distract you.

Like you, I understand why the studios only want to sell movies on a pay-per-view basis, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it. I can drive a quarter mile to the nearest Redbox and rent a movie for a night for $1 (or a Blu-ray for $1.50), which includes the distributors' costs to create the disc and ship it to my store, so why does it cost $4 to stream it online? (I'm not saying online streaming is free, but it can't cost $3 per viewing.)

I keep my Netflix subscription (for now) because I want to send a message to the studios: I want to pay a flat-rate for my media consumption. I would be fine if my rates doubled or maybe even tripled (because, as mentioned, $8 a month is very cheap) if it came with new content, but I refuse to be nickled and dimed to death.

Many business commentators online have said (and I agree) that Netflix made a huge misstep when they decided to use their capital reserves to expand overseas rather than securing new content partners. They've spent huge amounts of money to bring in new customers, but now they have nothing to sell them. 

[Spindaddydad]

I want to be able to watch what I want.

You can do that with iTunes, Amazon, PS network, etc., but not with subscription-based services.

Netflix has started hiding movies that are DVD-only from search results?

Because people were bitching about being given the bait-and-switch. "Why are you showing me stuff I can't watch?"

I'm not saying online streaming is free, but it can't cost $3 per viewing.

You're forgetting about profit.

Like you, I understand why the studios only want to sell movies on a pay-per-view basis, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Yeah, it kind of does. Unless you want second tier product.

I would be fine if my rates doubled or maybe even tripled (because, as mentioned, $8 a month is very cheap) if it came with new content

Double or triple ain't even close. Keep going...

Netflix made a huge misstep when they decided to use their capital reserves to expand overseas rather than securing new content partners.

Content partners are refusing to sell content... at any cost. But subscribers keep joining to see the content that is available.

[tragedy]

This is why I dumped streaming when they forced the rate hike on us.

Go to the Imdb and pick any decade and look at the top 50 movies of that decade.

The 1920s, the 1950s, the 1990s, it doesn't matter - any decade including this one.

Netflix will only have a few of those film available for streaming. Usually just one or two - if that.

How many of the AFI 100 Greatest Films of all time do they have for streaming? Once I checked and it was like two. Two. Pitiful.

[ltkduncan]

I would have to agree; it seems like it is very seldom that Netflix updates new movie.  I have been a member for several years and I am thinking of canceling my membership.

[Pihk]

I am thinking of canceling my membership.

I hear that Netflix is thinking about improving their crappy Instant Watch selection.