Why Reed Hastings Should be Applauded for Netflix Split

Posted on Sep 19, 2011 | 259 comments


By now you probably know that Netflix is splitting its business into two parts: its digital streaming business (retains the name Netflix) and its DVD mailing business, which was its original business (to be called Qwikster).

If you haven’t read Reed’s explanation of this split make sure you read it (of course, after you’re done with this post ;-)) —> here. It’s simply brilliant.

1. He acknowledged mistakes in his past communications and apologized
2. He offers a transparent explanation of his business and;
3. [most importantly] – It’s a great strategic decision.

With nearly 25 million customers using Netflix it’s clear that everyone will have an opinion on this. And many short-termists will think it’s a bad idea. Indeed, my Twitter stream tells me so. I find much of the criticism so far fairly reactionary. I would like to take the opposite side of that debate.

If you haven’t read my post on the Future of Television and the Digital Living Room you might enjoy that as a primer. In it I talked about how I believe that Netflix has a very strong lead in the battle for the “head end” of the digital living room. Right now they’re the leading platform for streaming movies. Hulu is the leading player for streaming television.

Frankly, I’m surprised Netflix doesn’t buy Hulu. In my opinion it’s the most natural fit and it would give Netflix a very strong presence in Los Angeles and in TV (obviously subject to getting the right rights from the studios).

So why on Earth should Netflix split into two businesses?

1. Innovator’s Dilemma – In his seminal book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Clay Christensen talks about why industry leaders almost always fail to act when “disruptive change” enters their business. He defines this as new products that are dramatically cheaper, lower quality, lower margin but larger markets. Incumbents can’t react.

If you haven’t read his book please do yourself a favor and buy it. It’s the most profound book I’ve read on thinking about how the Internet is changing business. Period. But for now feel free to read my short summary of the key principles.

The reason that incumbents can’t react is that their revenue and defensibility are continued by serving the high-end of the market for which it would take too much time & money for any competitors to effectively challenge. In Netflix’s case this is their DVD distribution business. It’s hard to imagine somebody else being able to effectively compete with that.

But the real threat comes from the change in technologies that rule the old business obsolete. Streaming. It’s clear that in the future movies & TV will be delivered to our homes from the cloud. Indeed for many this is already the case.

To win the future he needs to attack his core assets by building new ones. Very few companies ever do this. It would be like if Microsoft undermined its Office franchise by aggressively pursuing a Google-Docs-like strategy. Yeah, I know they did, but too little, too late, too lame.

2. Focus – By having two separate businesses, each with its own CEO and own teams, they can focus on their two very different businesses and develop the right strategies for each. The Qwikster team can’t make any excuses for not hitting their numbers and can’t argue that their resources are being funneled onto streaming projects.

The execs of Qwickster have got to continue to sell the merits of that DVD business – the most notable of assets is the much deeper library than the streaming business.

Equally, the streaming business has got to accelerate content acquisition, focus on customer retention, improve streaming technologies to make it better for users / worse for competitors, and they’ve got to continually improve the UI.

3. DVDs won’t die quickly – As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” We all predict that technology change will cause obsolescence of previous technologies much more quickly than they actually do.

MapQuest was (and is) a much shittier product than Google Maps yet people used it for years. It defied logic. People still pay for AOL dial up years after they no longer need to. And many people actually still use Evite. Crappy. Old. Evite.

Many people are happy to receive their regular DVD mailers and for these people (still 14 million subscribers!) this service will continue.

4. Charge the right prices for the right services – But as fewer people take the DVD service over time, there will be less revenue to cover the relatively high fixed cost structure of the mailer (Qwikster). So it wouldn’t be a surprise to see price increases in Qwikster in the future. No time soon. But eventually. It seems logical.

And what about streaming? This business will adapt, too. Who says that “all you can eat” pricing is the right one for a streaming service? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. In the DVD world they could always limit you because you could only have a certain number of videos outstanding and any time. With streaming, this is harder to enforce.

Plus, content rights are harder to secure for streaming. If you haven’t followed this check out what’s happened with Netflix’s biggest content partner who has withdrawn from the service.

It’s possible that the best structure in the future is PPV (pay-per-view) or different tiers of content pricing (i.e. new arrivals plus library versus just library) or even create channels (i.e. kids movies priced as a separate package). Who knows?

Separate businesses allow them to play around with different pricing models without affecting the other business line.

5. Transparency for investors – I also love the transparency that is created when you have two businesses that will move in opposite directions, have different strategies and different economics. For investors this is huge. As Dan Frommer pointed out, all of the news reports on Netflix said that they had lost 1 million customers from their recent price increase. In fact, they are projected to only lose 200k streaming customers (800k DVD).

6. Positioning for the Future - It’s rare in business to see somebody like Reed Hastings tackle the massive changes happening to their businesses and deal with them before they’re too late. Imagine if the record labels had been as bold. By making the separation Reed can now point the Netflix business squarely at the future. Netflix can stop having to answer questions about its DVD business.

A note for industry

I argued ages ago that Yahoo! should have come out early and say, “we lost the search war to Google but we still have a have a great media business and we’re going to focus on that.” They dithered for years. Imagine if Carol Bartz or the Yahoo! board had had Reed Hasting’s clarity and boldness.

When Fox first hired its triumvirate of CEO’s to run MySpace after the founders’ departure, I argued the same.  Announce you’ve lost the social networking battle with Facebook and that you’re now focused on a narrower business for gamers and for music. In stead the press story for 2 years was about how they were losing to Facebook and continuing to hemorrhage revenue and people.

Reed is showing the cojones that so many others haven’t.

Any Hollywood studios taking notice?

==> What do you think about the Netflix decision?

  • http://twitter.com/VouxCroux Davey C

    I was with you until you said “less” instead of “fewer” in point number 4. After that grammatical mistake I just couldn’t take you seriously.

  • http://twitter.com/richarddjordan Richard David Jordan

    This is right on the money.  

    As a Netflix customer it’s possible that they may lose me as a DVD-by-mail subscriber (we may already have – the mrs keeps up with subscriptions) but they’d already lost me as a DVD-by mail user I was just still paying for the service out of habit.  I am pretty sure as the streaming service gets better there’ll be tolerance at my end for pricing movement upwards – the absurd rates for cable / satellite TV that I pay given that I watch the baseball, football and a couple of HBO shows tell me that I am clearly prepared to pay for media.  

    I had the pleasure of watching Michael Eisner interview Reed Hastings at the Churchill Club last year and it was incredible seeing these two titans – the old and new – go at it.  Most of the people criticizing Hastings’ decision right now are second guessing the decisions of one of the best CEOs in tech, and few if any of the critics I’ve read can claim as solid-a-track-record as him.  

    Naysayers always assume they have some secret (usually painfully obvious) insight that the person who lives with the decision 24/7 has somehow missed.  I’m gonna bet on Reed Hastings and not the nattering nabobs of negativism on this one.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Anon 2, aka another person unwilling to have a debate with his/her real name while I go on the record with my views.

    I didn’t argue with Anon’s points because he / she has none other than “customers are pissed off.”  That’s not a logical enough argument to counter debate. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Will some customers cancel subscriptions? Yes.

    Do I think it will massively hurt their business? No. They got the message that they were too cavalier about the changes. They won’t make that mistake again. And let’s be honest – neither Netflix nor Qwikster have strong competitors.

    I think they’ll be fine. I know Anon’s 1 & 2 don’t. The beauty is that in time we’ll know. And at least I have the cojones to go on record early with my name against my point of view.

    You?

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Right now the overlap is 12 million. Some will choose but I suspect the cross over will stay large for some time to come.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    What he said.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I hugely appreciate your willingness to expand your thinking.  I think my less than fair response to you was based on:
    1. It was 2.30am in the AM when I’m more ratty – sorry and;
    2. The fact that as ‘anon’ you said customers were pissed off – you yelled it – and you didn’t have strong logic to argue your points.

    You make a great case here. I appreciate it. Sorry we got off to a bad start. I generally don’t mind Anon’s when they’re respectful.

    re: “movies” – the complexity is that they can’t secure digital rights where they can always get DVD rights. This problem won’t go away until Hollywood does. They mess around with time windows to maximize revenues. Talk about an industry that messes with customers. So Qwikster & Netflix will always have a different library. No way around it. But at least splitting the businesses gives them a way to change different amounts for different value. 

    re: search, ratings, etc. not working across both sites – I agree with you. I think that’s really WEAK and an excuse. They should be able to have different websites & businesses but sync our data. Come on – not that hard. I didn’t point this out because for me it’s a minor mistake that they’ll correct over time. Or if not, it’s an annoyance for all but not something that would cause too many people to cancel. But I agree with this point.

    re: losing millions of customers. See my post. They have lost 200,000 in their streaming business from where they were forecasting. they have lost 800,000 in DVD from forecast. Not good – not the end of the world. Again, I’m sure they regret the communications. But if you give them a choice between churning some low-end (in terms of $) customers versus becoming Blockbuster – pretty easy choice.

    Thanks again for coming back and detailing your views. And sorry again that I was a bit sarcastic in my first response.

    Mark

  • http://www.justanentrrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

    They didn’t want to grandfather the pricing.  They moved from free to $8.  Free isn’t a strategy.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Qwikster is a pretty shit name. But maybe it will grow on us all over time. 

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Agreed.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Well … short-term movements of stockholders certainly doesn’t give me enthusiasm for or concern about any business. Markets tend to be pretty dumb in the short-run.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I think Reed acknowledged the communications were a mistake. I’ll bet he works his arse off to put it right.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    He wasn’t disrespectful in his comments so I tend to not delete. Plus, he followed up with a great and detailed explanation of his/her views.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Yeah, pretty dumb that he didn’t think of that. I had that thought immediately. I’ll bet they plug that one.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Agreed. but they could have rolled out the new brand a little bit more thoughtfully.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I don’t like the name Qwikster either. Sounds rushed. But we’ll see if it grows on us.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    They’re probably having to take a step back regarding customers in order to position it as a win in the long run. But they could have handled it much better. Sure.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I, too, only use the streaming service.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Hear, hear

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    The moat is the very large base of existing customers + the ability to pay up-front licenses to the studios + the continued spend on streaming technology – which is not trivial.

  • James Harradence

    Will it be around for more than 10 years?

    We do not have a working DVD machine in our house (46,42, 9 & 6 ages).

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I’ll take the other side of that bet. Time will tell. 

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    He is clear that the pricing wasn’t a mistake – the communications were. I agree with him. Yes, you’ll churn customers. This happens often in business where you need to focus limited resources on your high-value customers. Can’t serve everybody and survive.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Thanks, Jason.

    Regarding having 2 brands versus 1 brand with two sub-divisions. I’m not sure there is a black-and-white answer. I’m certainly not arguing in favor of the need to have a separate name. But a separately run entity? Yes. My guess is that they created the new brand name so that eventually they can break up the stock and have two physical companies. But who knows.

    I don’t really like the name Qwikster. Maybe it will grow on us over time. But I agree with you that it seems rushed.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Thanks, Chris.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I think the original sin was a PR mistake. But my guess is that he’s sincere here and will put things right. Only time will tell. Thanks for weighing in.

  • James Harradence

    I just think it is unfair to hammer someone on a bumpy part of a pretty audacious and to this point amazing journey.

    I never thought the DVD shipping business would get them into the streaming business. It has. That’s amazing.

    I did not know about the unique rights granted to DVD purchases that do not apply to streaming; that they would attempt streaming looks pretty gutsy.

    In 12 months, will the overlap be 12 M? or will their supply chain play ball, give them the full content library and let them rock and roll? If that happens, then they slice will be small and they will be all the away around to home. That will be more than amazing.

    That they hiked the price and split the company to stay alive is gutsy. LIkely, most CEOs would have caved to their supply chain, rather than stood their ground and tried to hold the line on the value proposition of a single distribution brand for all movies.

    Its a pretty massive game of chicken. Today, the studios do not have a strong enough brand presence to challenge Netflix. Unlike, say, Columbia, who can open a boutique store in a mall, 200feet from a national sporting goods retailer that carries their gear (and is given the choice to carry it or not – and they all do) the studios do not (yet) have the ability to go straight to consumers.

    Consumer are allowed to beak about it. But, if you are a business person and you  look at Reed’s performance, its very strong, IMO.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I understand better than you know. I’m not saying it would work. I’m just saying that in a perfect world and with the right rights it would be an awesome franchise.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Agree about user experience. In the case of books, I suspect Amazon doesn’t have as difficult of rights issues as film.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I agree and think they will fix this.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    we’ll see. but I certainly understand your point of view. Thanks for adding it.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Ha. Well, I wrote the post between 1.15am – 2am. I wish that were the worst mistake in the post. I just went and cleaned up many others.

  • http://www.thinktiv.com Jonathan Berkowitz

    I think the result of splitting the company will not be clear until we see what happens with each respective product offering. I dropped Netflix when they made the announcement.  I dropped them not because they raised prices, but because they raised prices without improving their offering to me at all. Now – we learn it will be operationally annoying for some period of time to have both subscriptions if you want both methodologies of consuming their movie-base. I suspect this is even worse for most consumers. 

    I think businesses should be responsible for improving their products frequently.  Mark, I appreciate what you said in your original post about Hastings’ convictions – but simultaneously, I feel like the Netflix team dropped the ball in not timing this pricing change / split with some product improvements or content deals, etc. 

    It’s what I expect my customers to demand from me, and it’s what I counsel our customers to demand of theirs.

  • Guest

    How is “the customers hate it” not an argument? Maybe you didn’t like the way he typed it? Isn’t that what matters? Whether or not customers love or hate your service, or the changes you make to it? If he had said “I HATE it” then it would be a rant. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1212846862 Howard Cohen
  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    The customers hate what ?  The price hike? The split? The name?  The service?  The email from Reed?  All of the above?  What was “anon” arguing for or against?   

    Actually, see Mark’s response below. As of now two down from this one, starting with “Anon 2, aka another person unwilling…”

    If, I missed something, show me.  So far, though, I’m not getting your point.

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Yeah, like during Dow rollercoaster week back in August. Although, I guess that was a more general trend than one specific stock.

  • PeterW

    Mark,
    This is my first visiting your site, and I’m impressed not only with your arguments why this was a gutsy and correct move for Netflix but also with the generally high level of discourse in these comments.

    While I can see your position about Netflix, I still think this move will hurt them. There are a lot of choices for streaming – Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Qrocity, iTunes, GoogleTV etc… As a consumer, I’m looking for two things:

    1) The widest range of content under a single portal. I want movies, TV shows, consumer-created content and live news and sports. 
    2) The ability to access and play this content on multiple devices – PC, phone, tablet, STB and game console.

    The former Netflix had the widest range of content available from any provider – as long as you included the DVD-by-mail service. It allowed me to manage a single queue for all my devices and content, even if some could only be enjoyed as DVD. But as a streaming-only service, their content is very weak. And the content owners don’t want to give up control of streaming and associated revenues to Netflix, so I doubt many movie studios and TV networks will rush to support Netflix’s new streaming-only business. 

    I predict that like Hulu for TV networks, you’ll see movie studios band together to create a streaming delivery service. And as these services approach critical mass the rest will jump on board. Consumers already pay for the bandwidth with their broadband service, and content owners can create effective portals; there’s really not much reason to give up more revenues to a middleman for distribution. If there was, GoogleTV would be the real winner, but it’s just a footnote in the war for streaming viewers today.

    Someday I’ll have a single portal that will manage all my subscriptions and logins across all my devices, provide me with a consistent interface and a single queue, and remember where I left off watching on one device when I resume on another. It will even have cloud storage so that I can upload my own content to watch on all my devices and share content with friends. The closest business model to this today is GoogleTV + YouTube, or maybe what Dish is up to with SlingBox and Blockbuster. I just don’t see content owners rushing to put their content on Netflix streaming, nor Reed Hastings having the willingness to pay enough to aggregate enough worthy content for me to renew my subscription. Netflix’s real value was its massive subscriber base; making them unhappy when there are so many other choices and potential competitors hardly seems like a brilliant business move to me.

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Makes me wonder deep down if the expectation is that the DVD business will go the way of Blockbuster before long.  Showing my age here, but intuitively reminds me just a little of what the studios did with the VHS business when digital technology emerged. 

  • Dailyinterval

    Apparantly the genius that wrote this article believes that running a successful business by alienating your customer base makes good business sense.Absolutely brilliant move, Netflix just lost a million customers.Way to go. Clap clap clap.

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Love this post, Mark.  

    Made a comment in the wee hours and it got eaten by @Disqus:disqus  (but I give a lot of grace to those guys because I’m a fan).  Won’t try to completely reconstruct what was fresh in my thinking after spending some time at AVC responding to Fred & company re Netflix — had actually just pushed “post” on a comment when Reed’s email came through.  Was surreal!  And then your post almost immediately after that.

    Can’t help but think that you and Fred had some inside scoop.  And why wouldn’t you?

    Netflix is an easy target right now because they made some very obvious mistakes and in a capitalistic economy, it’s right that they get called on it.  It’s part of the consumers’ investment in their perfection.  I love capitalism.  

    It’s so easy to complain but many of those complaining would be the first to miss Netflix when they went under by not making the strategic move they are making right now.  In spite of the PR faux pas (plural) and that name Qwikster (and failing to secure the Twitter handle — which makes for hilarity), I believe they are handling well the uncharted territory they are in.  And that’s the thing, they are in uncharted territory and are still a fairly young company with huge and complex issues facing them.  Like sending an adolescent off to war — as the general. 

    Even an older, more established company would be something of a startup in the streaming arena — which is a startup industry (fair to call it an industry?).  They are taking the hits as trailblazers and many of us will benefit as a result in some way or another.  

    Fine line — the criticism is a favor to them in a sense, but they also deserve some grace.

    And to complain about the price hike is a joke.  I’m probably going to lose some Twitter followers for what I tweeted about that.

  • Bertrand Hazard

    No-one can tell whether in the long run this is a good or bad business strategy. Now what Netflix and HP have in common is this: they’ve definitively failed with their communication strategy.

  • http://twitter.com/unabst Johan Miyanaga

    The first letter made me change my plan from 3 disks to 2…. so that the price would be the same. The second letter made me want to cancel my subscription. Coming off as arrogant and insensitive in a price hike notice is one thing (typical actually), but trying to be overly personable and apologetic, yet back it with no “action” was insulting and degrading. When a CEO writes “I messed up” they need to back it with a refund or a delay in the price hike or a coupon or something. 

    As if it was only intelligence that was lacking from the first notice, a CEO of all people cannot expect their subscribers to sympathize with them right after announcing they are happily willing to take more of their money.

    Clearly words rub off differently on different people, but to think that that letter was sent to every member of the extremely broad demographic which is Netflix is a catastrophe at best. And Qwikster with a “w”? What a horrible name. It has to be obvious by now that they forgot to invest in brand identity and image management, and seems as though the CEO is doing what he thinks best off the top of his head. A for efford, F for execution.

    With that said, this news took me to the Blockbuster web site for the first time in a very long time. And I must say, Netflix can mess up all they want. If the best blockbuster can do is rip off the old netflix site but do it worse, then there is no contest.

  • Jonesey8985

    Reed Hastings made a smart move in my opinion.  If the studio’s TV and Movie offereings were avail for streaming the same day as DVD on sale dates tomorrow you would see the Roadrunner (streaming) go “Beep,Beep” and ol Wile E Coyote (DVDs) standing on the side of the road scratching his head thru the dust within 2 years. The customers who are so mad at Netflix now would probably be willing to pay at least $20/month The studio’s business model of monetizing content over 5 different release windows is what the issue is.  That business model is going to die but how soon the DVD portion of it does depends on the amount of revenue the content creators and studios can make from streaming from Netflix, Hulu and the 5-10 other companies that would jump into that space as soon as licensing windows change.  The video game business is going to go through this as well.  I was in the music business for 25 yrs (not anymore) and in 1999/2000, the head of one of the big record companies said, “we have to stop worrying about little round things”.  That freaked all the big music retailers out but instead of making a ballsy move like Mr. Hastings has the record business got in the bunker, ignored the dawning of the “Burger Kingization” of the way consumers want music and now look.  The record business is over and the music business is a shadow of it’s former self.  The big music retailers like Tower, Musicland, Wherehouse, Borders etc..are all gone.   All the record companies, movie studios and to some degree the game studios are holding on to the old “McDonalds way” (no I dont want special sauce and I dont want to wait 10 minutes while you make my Big Mac w/out it.)  McDonalds eventually realized that the consumer wants it “their way but it took Burger King (and Wendy’s to a lesser degree) to push them into it. 

    People want Music, Movies, games and books on many platforms when they want it.  The cloud is going to probably be the where all of this content lives by 2020 or sooner.  The only reason “little round things” exist at all any more is licensing and bandwidth and the bandwidth issue is the smaller issue.  Effectively monetizing entertainment content for the long term digitally is the game. Netflix has effectively told the world they are going to drive on both sides of the road for as long as they have to.  The studios and the new streaming models will come to the same conclusion which is that you can be very profitable with a home/mobile model as long as the library is robust and the UI is simple. The perceived and real value of that will determine a reasonable cost to the consumer in the end.  The cable and satellite companies will fight it tooth and nail but the model of paying over $120/month for 200 channels and only really watching 25-30 is going to have to change as well. People would pay half that for 25-30 channels they watch all the time which is what the streaming model of HULU will wind up as once licensing is sorted out.  Specialized Sports channels would still be a premium.  

    No one wants to wind up like the record labels and before the end of this decade the transition will be a fuzzy memory. 

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Love this post, Mark.  

     

    Made a
    comment in the wee hours and it disappeared.  It was surreal to push the “post” button on a comment on @fredwilson:disqus ’s blog post about Netflix stock and moments later to receive the email from Reed Hastings and then shortly after that to see your post come through (was working late).  

     

    Can’t
    help but think that you and Fred had some inside scoop.  And why wouldn’t
    you?

     

    Netflix
    is an easy target right now because they made some very obvious mistakes and in
    a capitalistic economy, it’s right that they get called on it.  It’s part
    of the consumers’ investment in their perfection.  I love capitalism.
     

     

    It’s so
    easy to complain but many of those complaining would be the first to miss
    Netflix when they went under by not making the strategic move they are making
    right now.  In spite of the PR faux pas (plural) and that name Qwikster
    (and failing to secure the Twitter handle — which makes for hilarity), I
    believe they are handling well the uncharted territory they are in.  And
    that’s the thing, they are in uncharted territory and are still a fairly young
    company with huge and complex issues facing them.  Like sending an adolescent
    off to war — as the general. 

     

    Even an
    older, more established company would be something of a startup in the
    streaming arena — which is a startup industry (fair to call it an industry?).
     They are taking the hits as trailblazers and many of us will benefit as a
    result in some way or another.  

  • http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

    ive always thought of streaming as a ‘sustaining innovation’ for netflix ..up higher on the performance curve than dvds. …sure streaming is disruptive to others (blockbuster). Actually, could this split be a retreat upmarket by netflix after being disrupted in dvd space by redbox?

    Anyhow – it seems the biggest problem with netflix ( from and end user perspective) is that the available content is so diff between dvd and streaming. i would gladly go streaming-only if they would offer the content therr – like show time :)

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    You changed your name again.  Did you think the other was too…um… anon ?

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    When you say two inferior products, what would be the superior product in each category — streaming and DVD rental?

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    You are the first person I’ve read (besides me) who has referenced Netflix’s role as a forerunner in social media and in online curation.  Granted I seemed to have more time on my hands then and there were not as many other social media options (and I hadn’t discovered blogs), but Netflix was a sticky and fun place to actually spend time (long before the streaming began).

    I think they missed a huge opportunity by not building on the social platform.  They had so much of the right stuff in place already!     When you (and others) mention studios setting up their own streaming, I have to admit that makes me queasy. 

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Except maybe their continued existence.

  • http://hirethoughts.blogspot.com Donna Brewington White

    Once again, Phil, you are the voice of reason and insight.

    BTW, if streaming had never been free, the current price would seem like such a deal.  It cracks me up that people are complaining about that.