return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agoSpotify ramps up policy enforcement on family plansarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square104linkfedilinkarrow-up1245arrow-down15
arrow-up1240arrow-down1external-linkSpotify ramps up policy enforcement on family plansarstechnica.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square104linkfedilink
minus-squareSquizzy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·4 days agoIt is relevant to the stock price discussion, which was the dfense of the family plan enforecement.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 days agoThe metric of interest in the context is the effects on churn/subscriber conversion, in which Netflix significantly overperformed following the enforcement of family plan rules.
minus-squareSquizzy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·4 days agoAnd has since underperformed. Their watch times have not followed their subscriptions and investors are concerned. So the enforcement resulting in more subscribers could be seen as short lived given the results for netflix.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoA drop in consumption could be equally well explained by lacking content quality, leading to disinterest in consumption. Arguably better explained, given that they laid off the director of content.
minus-squarewebhead@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoNow that people can’t share maybe they’re more discerning about keeping that subscription?
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoI’m not really clear on what you mean here - Netflix are not having any trouble with their subscriber growth/churn numbers
minus-squareSquizzy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·3 days agoBut their subscriber growth is not increasing their market share or stock price. Which is why you would do that.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoIt is increasing their revenue, which is the intended effect
minus-squareSquizzy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·3 days agoAnd investors dont view that revenue as sustainable or capable of further growth. They damaged their brand for temporary growth
It is relevant to the stock price discussion, which was the dfense of the family plan enforecement.
The metric of interest in the context is the effects on churn/subscriber conversion, in which Netflix significantly overperformed following the enforcement of family plan rules.
And has since underperformed. Their watch times have not followed their subscriptions and investors are concerned.
So the enforcement resulting in more subscribers could be seen as short lived given the results for netflix.
A drop in consumption could be equally well explained by lacking content quality, leading to disinterest in consumption.
Arguably better explained, given that they laid off the director of content.
Now that people can’t share maybe they’re more discerning about keeping that subscription?
I’m not really clear on what you mean here - Netflix are not having any trouble with their subscriber growth/churn numbers
But their subscriber growth is not increasing their market share or stock price.
Which is why you would do that.
It is increasing their revenue, which is the intended effect
And investors dont view that revenue as sustainable or capable of further growth. They damaged their brand for temporary growth