Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Movies Television Entertainment

Netflix Will Roll Out a Lower-Priced Subscription Plan in India (techcrunch.com) 58

Posted by msmash from the double-face dept.
Netflix said on Wednesday that it will roll out a cheaper subscription plan in India, one of the last great growth markets for global companies, as the streaming giant scrambles to find ways to accelerate its slowing growth worldwide. From a report: The company added 2.7 million new subscribers in the quarter that ended in June this year, it said today, far fewer than the 5 million figure it had forecasted earlier this year. The company said lowering its subscription plan, which starts at $9 in the U.S., would help it reach more users in India and expand its overall subscriber base. The new plan will be available in India in Q3. According to third-party research firms, Netflix has fewer than 2 million subscribers in India. Netflix started to test a lower-priced subscription plan in India and some other markets in Asia late last year. The plan restricts the usage of the service to one mobile device and offers only the standard definition viewing (~480p). During the period of testing, which was active as of two months ago, the company charged users as low as $4. [...] For Netflix, the decision to lower its pricing in India comes at a time when it has hiked the subscription cost in many parts of the world in recent quarters. In the U.S., for instance, Netflix said earlier this year that it would raise its subscription price by up to 18%.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Will Roll Out a Lower-Priced Subscription Plan in India More

Netflix Will Roll Out a Lower-Priced Subscription Plan in India

Comments Filter:

  • Netflix isn't doing so hot. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday July 18, 2019 @09:58AM (#58945830)

    Unfortunately it seems like too many media outlets are making their own streaming services to share their own stuff. CBS All Access, Disney+, and Amazon, Google, Hulu... All jumping in too. What makes it worse every show they decide to put on one of these services is one less show or movie that will be on Netflix.

    So instead of paying hundred dollars per month for cable, we are paying hundred dollars per month for streaming services for the one or two shows we want to watch on it.

    • Yeah, this is a pain. Looks like a lot of people will be paying for Netflix for 3 months, drop it, pay for HBO for 3 months, drop it... keep rotating depending on what your mood is. It's not worth it to pay so much for just a little entertainment. I'm not paying for 5 different streaming stations while the household watches 7 hours of TV a week between all of us.

    • Unfortunately it seems like too many media outlets are making their own streaming services to share their own stuff.

      Yes, but that includes Netflix, they've been at it for much longer, and they have a much wider range of good exclusive content.

      So instead of paying hundred dollars per month for cable, we are paying hundred dollars per month for streaming services

      Why would you do that when you could pay $10/month (roughly) for a single streaming service, watch everything you like that month, then cancel and th

    • Re:Netflix isn't doing so hot. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2019 @10:17AM (#58945936)

      We got what we wished for. This is what a la carte TV looks like.

      • la carte TV needs to take ESPN and RSN's out of the basic package.

        • I wish they went bankrupt and out of business. And there was an app that just scraped the information I wanted for sports from all the other sources. I am so sick of having to view/listen to their talking heads.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        We are not quite there yet. I have ruko every major channel that I want to watch his is own app, Scifi (i refuse to call it syfy), Discovery, and the History channel. All these apps have a live feed on them but you have to subscribe to a major cable package to get them. Which defeats the purpose of having a live feed on the app.

        When these apps unhook their ass from this cable requirement, then we can true adhoc tv. I would be willing to pay up to $2 for a channel with ads for this. Anymore and they w

        • You would think the ads could pay for the service. Sending data only gets cheaper and cheaper.

          But when you introduce restrictive licensing deals, such as only airing a particular program in market A but not market B, C, D, or E, because other providers have each signed a deal for exclusive airing in those markets...

          It is these exclusive licensing deals that have to go, but they wont, because cable is still a thing.

        • " I would be willing to pay up to $2 for a channel with ads for this. Anymore and they would have to shit can the ads."

          They're not going to do it for anywhere near that low, ads or not. CBS All Access is pretty typical here. 6 bucks a month with ads, 10 bucks a month sans ads.

          The content creators have figured out that if they have an anchor show (or better yet, anchor FRANCHISE, in the case of Star Trek), then fans that just can't live without out it will pay. And unfortunately, for you, ALL the content net

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            This is why we have The Pirate Bay. I wasn't going to PAY to watch Star Trek so I just downloaded half the shows from Pirate Bay. I only got half because I realized that STD suck and wasn't worth any more of my time.

            So here is the deal. I'll pay for it if the price is reasonable, but if not then it's a pirates life for me.

      • "This is what a la carte TV looks like."

        Why do people keep claiming that bundling from a different source is a la carte? That's literally the opposite of a la carte.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      So instead of paying hundred dollars per month for cable, we are paying hundred dollars per month for streaming services for the one or two shows we want to watch on it.

      If you watch one or two shows, at the most you'd pay for two streaming services (assuming they are on different streaming services) and that would be at most $30/month. I don't even know what Comcast or DirectTV packages cost these days but I'm pretty sure it isn't $30 a month. Hyperbolic much? Since I cut the cord on a bad month, I pay just shy of $30/month depending on what shows are on. When I binge watch a series and have to wait, I cancel the streaming service it was on until the next season comes

    • So instead of paying hundred dollars per month for cable, we are paying hundred dollars per month for streaming services for the one or two shows we want to watch on it.

      No one I know pays hundreds a month for streaming services.

      What you could do is subscribe to 1 provideer (e.g. Netflix) for a month or two and watch/binge whatever new season of show(s)/movie(s) they just released or you haven't seen yet and then cancel service.

      For the following month, subscribe to another service (e.g. Hulu) and watch/binge whatever new season of show(s)/movie(s) they just released or you haven't seen yet and then cancel service.

      Rinse and repeat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by syn3rg ( 530741 )
      Time to separate content from delivery....again [wikipedia.org].

  • Ah. That's why they upped the price. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    As usual, Westerners have to subsidize the developing world: That's why Netflix upped their price, and that's why Netflix lost subscribers.

    Also, their original content has become increasingly woke, and now they've also hired the Obamas. Why would anybody want to pay for all this crap?

  • subsidized by us (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Thursday July 18, 2019 @10:28AM (#58946016)
    by "us", I mean existing subscribers. Offering cheaper subscriptions to "poorer" locations means my dollars help compensate their subscription model since Netflix continues to jack my rates
    Oh well, when Disney starts their new service, I can jump on that much cheaper wagon with all the good content already pulled from Netflix.
    Netflix is in a world of hurt. They increased debt last year by $3.2B to produce their own content. Sure there's a couple hits. but, Given the increasing number of competitors in this market-space, the subscriber base will be diluted leaving only top level providers eventually scooping up the intellectual property of the carcasses for pennies on the dollar. br? My bet's on Disney with their diverse and profitable ventures.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't worry, once they do dumping and get the monopoly in other countries, they will adjust the price to do dumping in the US again and kill competition.
      Better just drop them all at once IMO

    • Offering cheaper subscriptions to "poorer" locations means my dollars help compensate their subscription model

      No, that's not how it works. Netflix would never offer a lower rate in India if they didn't expect the lower rate to bring in more revenue. They're not segmenting the market for altruistic reasons, they're doing it because they believe they will get many times more subscribers at the lower rate in India.

      Unfortunately for you, they don't believe subscriber counts are particularily price sensitive in your country, that's why they're jacking up rates there. But that's has nothing to do with what they're doi

  • That's an interesting marketing strategy.

    Its success would speak loudly on the subject of addiction.

  • Average income is also much less in India in absolute $$ terms.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quantum Mechanics is God's version of "Trust me."

Close