The definition of not getting it.
The fallout from Netflix's attempt to spin off its services into two separate revenue streams has finally been totaled. It's probably not a surprise that Reed Hastings is still not getting it--a friend of his told him, point-blank, when he mentioned the Qwikster thing, that it was bad idea and he was ignored; he thinks that the uproar was more about pricing than the irritation of having to manage two websites for the same service; he mentions the general irritability of the populace (it's OWS! it's the Tea Party!); and so on and so on. It should not be a surprise that the man who's behind the decision that cost the company close to a million subscribers is defensive of his actions (and in complete denial about why his plan failed).
No, what surprises--and galls--is The New York Times' reporting (as ever, it seems). For example:
In its reliance on data and long-term strategy, the company underestimated the unquantifiable emotions of subscribers who still want those little red envelopes, even if they forget to ever watch the DVDs inside.
It was never about the emotional satisfaction of envelopes, be they red or otherwise. It was about convenience, pure and simple. Sometimes, it's more convenient to get DVDs by mail--because they aren't on streaming; because customers don't have high-speed internet to stream; etc. etc.--and sometimes it isn't. The choice was the attractive feature about Netflix, as was the convenience: you could get the discs or you could stream, and you could get it all in one place. Take that away, right after hiking prices, and you've just made your convenient service a hassle, for the honor of which your customers have to pay more. Why is it so hard for the damn newspapers to say as much? Why does a group of disgruntled consumers with a legitimate beef with a company have to be "emotional"? What, are they women or something? (DEAR GOD THAT WAS SARCASM, DO NOT KILL ME.)
In less aggravating news, G4 is making a trilogy of short horror films based on video games with almost no inherent stories of their own, and they've started with Duck Hunt. It's actually pretty good, and I think, even if you didn't know the reference, you'd probably get it after a while. Stupid laughing, mangling evil dog!
No, what surprises--and galls--is The New York Times' reporting (as ever, it seems). For example:
In its reliance on data and long-term strategy, the company underestimated the unquantifiable emotions of subscribers who still want those little red envelopes, even if they forget to ever watch the DVDs inside.
It was never about the emotional satisfaction of envelopes, be they red or otherwise. It was about convenience, pure and simple. Sometimes, it's more convenient to get DVDs by mail--because they aren't on streaming; because customers don't have high-speed internet to stream; etc. etc.--and sometimes it isn't. The choice was the attractive feature about Netflix, as was the convenience: you could get the discs or you could stream, and you could get it all in one place. Take that away, right after hiking prices, and you've just made your convenient service a hassle, for the honor of which your customers have to pay more. Why is it so hard for the damn newspapers to say as much? Why does a group of disgruntled consumers with a legitimate beef with a company have to be "emotional"? What, are they women or something? (DEAR GOD THAT WAS SARCASM, DO NOT KILL ME.)
In less aggravating news, G4 is making a trilogy of short horror films based on video games with almost no inherent stories of their own, and they've started with Duck Hunt. It's actually pretty good, and I think, even if you didn't know the reference, you'd probably get it after a while. Stupid laughing, mangling evil dog!