Profiles going away!?

[Ernie]

Did everyone else get this e-mail from Netflix:

" We wanted to let you know we will be eliminating Profiles, the feature that allowed you to set up separate DVD Queues under one account, effective September 1, 2008."

Why?

"While it may be disappointing to see Profiles go away, this change will help us continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers."

Okay, how does Profiles going away improve Netflix? Am I the only one in household with multiple people each of whom want a different queue for tracking, rating, reviews, etc. Furthermore, according to the FAQ, there's no way to even transfer a Profile to a new separate account. So that means if you spent time rating tons of movies under one profile, all of that is lost! This seems like a huge disruption of service. In what way is this good? And there's not even any way I can see to match the equivalent functionality once they go away.

This to me is a huge negative change to the service for no visible reason.

Ernie

[Jimbo3P0]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out......
Seriously though, speak with your feet instead of fake community accounts and let the rest of us enjoy our Netflix Community.

[Jackson Fox]

This is awful news. Having multiple queues has been the feature I use more than any other on the site. It allows us to have a queue for movies (which we watch very rarely) and one for television shows (which we watch much more frequently). Going back to a single queue will force me to spend a lot more time managing my queue in order to keep one movie disc and three TV discs at home.

[Angela]

I really don't understand why the ability to move all my ratings/queue went away. When my husband and I merged accounts (and I became a profile on his account) I was able to move all my movies and ratings from my old account -- but now the reverse won't work? I can't move everything from a profile to a new account? That just doesn't make sense at all!

Programmers out there -- why would this be true??

[C]

There probably isn't a technical reason why they decided to be so brutal in the way they went about this and not provide migration facilities, etc. It's probably just that some PHB had the bright idea that they could save money by not implementing the migration facilities. There may be some non-technical reasons though. (Perhaps they want you to re-enter your ratings a second time in order to get data about how precise people are in their ratings by comparing your original rating and you completely new second rating. Probably not, but you never know.)

[sensei6375]

nah its all just personal. they just don't like you.

[Bryan]

Laziness.

[Ernie]

I think the thing that really gets me is that even if it is only 1% of the user base that uses this, taking away the feature is still extremely disruptive to that 1% user base. The time it takes to make the queues, rate movies, write reviews, etc. is not negligible, and to take all that away with absolutely no options for any form of transfer shows that they consider the forward progress of the company "at any price" more important than customer satisfaction. It means that any feature that they find not completely mainstream is expendable. It really discourages use of Netflix in other than its most bare-bones form. Probably Netflix could remove the entire Community section, the entire Reviews feature, and still only offend maybe 10% of its base. So is that okay? I guess they can get away with it, but if you truly care about customer satisfaction that means caring not just about the mass of casual Netflix users, but the power-users who make the most of the site. It is those users who made Netflix what it is today by trying it when it was unknown. It definitely narrows the ways in which Netflix once distinguished itself from once larger and more powerful companies such as Blockbuster.

[droidmaker]

One could bog down the site trying to make it cater to dozens of special interest 1% sized groups interested in one feature or another. I think there is a sense at netflix that a feature that negatively impacts the entire customer base, but positively impacts a fraction, is something that needs to be evaluated. I think 1% doesn't merit keeping. I think 10% certainly merits keeping. Somewhere inbetween is probably a line. I don't know where that is: 5%? 3%? 7%? Who knows. Maybe 3% and growing would be kept... but 7% and shrinking would be cut?

I do know that having the guts to cut features that are only used by a few folks is hard and (in spite of everyone anger) should be respected. If you don't, in 10 years you have a very complicated to use website that is slow to improve, hard to keep from being buggy, and not fun to develop for. (something perhaps like Microsoft Word. Watch David Pogues' TED talk poking at their absurd feature creep).

[AK]

Well, if the feature is only used by 1% of the users, how can it bog down the site for everyone? Unless the website is badly designed, there is no way extra profiles (which can be thought of as extra user accounts) used by 1% can bog down the site. So the whole point about 'negatively impacting the entire customer base' is irrelevant.

[olrac]

Absolutely - this is clearly about Netflix wanting more money. If this easily coded, unintensive feature (being used by "just 1%" of account-holders) is having a negative impact on the Netflix servers, then Netflix needs to fire its entire staff of developers and hire ones who know what they're doing. If they're willing to take away one of the most important features that I pay for, then I expect something at least as important in return, such as the ability to tag queue items as "Added by...", as well as increasing the queue limit to 2000+. Otherwise, I'd be paying $17/month for something I get free from half a dozen other sources.

[Rachel]

I can see the logic here. I am all about "majority rules," etc. I just don't understand why they are performing so poorly in regards to business logic.

If you don't, in 10 years you have a very complicated to use website that is slow to improve, hard to keep from being buggy, and not fun to develop for.
OK, so a business has a feature that slows down the website, due to weak foresight. Why not invest in a whole new streamlined software that would incorporate those features? Why would you get rid of a feature that we obviously use, and not focus on the bigger issue (a software that doesn't allow easily for streamline changes). To borrow a cliche, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So, why, as a businessperson would you take away a service without offering anything in return? There is no consolation, it's just "You're 1%, so you don't matter." Yes, I realize we're a minority, but geez, if you want to ostracize a customer base, that's a sure-fire way to do it: treat them like they don't matter. We're not choosing profiles frivolously, we are using them intentionally (and by the way, more people might have used them if it was marketed...the magic of persuasion). Why not change this program when you're ready to incorporate everyone's needs?

[runnr1]

Why not invest in a whole new streamlined software that would incorporate those features?

because it may not be worth the investment. and who's stupid enough to throw out bathwater?

Why not change this program when you're ready to incorporate everyone's needs?

it's always a sad thing when you see others realize that the world does not function to make them happy.