MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More Netflix Hype: Citibank Edition

The Netflix headline of the day is “Analysts: Netflix Has Fully Recovered From Its Qwikster Debacle”

Citibank is bullish on Netflix. Good for them. But the logic, as laid out by PaidContent, is bizarre.

Although it is constantly been repeated as a fact, It is a to stretch one fact into a false perception to say that Netflix recovered from the Q3 loss of customers. The fact is, as offered by Netflix, that in their domestic streaming business, which is now their core business, they lost another 350,000 paying streaming customers in Q4, ending Dec 31. Q1 2012 doesn’t close until the end of this month. The company did add 581,000 FREE subscribers in Q4.

Netflix also lost 2,774,000 domestic paying DVD customers in Q4 with a marginal increase of 11,000 free DVD subscribers.

In combined domestic (Streaming + DVD), paid customers were up 15,000 in Q4.

The one area of real growth for Netflix in paid customers was internationally, up 458,000 paying subscribers. But expanding the business into new countries, which Netflix has openly acknowledged is not going to be a profitable business for years, isn’t really the same as recovering from the domestic losses of Q3 2011.

Citibank’s report apparently relies on the notion that Netflix’s paid domestic subscriber base will continue to grow. There is no reason to make that assumption. There is no specific reason to assume that there will be a massive exodus of subscribers either. But leaps of faith about a company in a significant transition seems sloppy, at best.

The second big issue is that Citibank is assuming that Netflix’s Cost of Revenue will be $2.1 billion in the next year… when Netflix’s Cost of Revenue was $1.1 billion in the last 2 quarters. So the theory is that Netflix is done spending on content?

And this brings me to the third and most serious problem with the oddly timed Citibank report. Netflix has, in the last month or two, opening admitted to a new paradigm… TV-programming first.

The assumption that the only issue facing Netflix is today’s customer satisfaction and that the only problem in the last year was “the Qwikster problem” is a sad joke. The company – which I still think is a terrific and interesting addition to anyone’s media mix – is not in the same business that it was in just 2 weeks ago. And the response from customers is not likely to settle in for another 3 or 4 months. The timing of the Citibank survey makes a mockery of its results. It’s not valid.

No question, one of the first steps for Netflix to get back to a growth mode is to stop the talk about it stepping backwards. But why is Citibank carrying their water against some very basic logic? Why is the media so anxious to help Netflix turnaround by continuing to run the myth instead of the not-that-ugly facts?

(shrug)

4 Responses to “More Netflix Hype: Citibank Edition”

  1. storymark says:

    David v Netflix: Round Whatever.

  2. David Poland says:

    Sorry, Storymark, but that’s just simplistic.

    I know that readers prefer the legend to the facts every bit as much as hack reporters enjoy lingering in them. But the truth is the truth and bullshit is bullshit and I don’t really care that I have to repeat it.

    As you certainly didn’t notice, I’ve been on the right side of this story for 18 months.

  3. Bennett says:

    i like your netflix perspective David. I may not always agree with you but I respect and appreciate your work…

  4. David Poland says:

    Oddly, it becomes less and less about my perspective, Bennett, and more and more just keeping the spin in check.

    As I was writing this piece, I realized that I wasn’t actually offering my perspective on the future of the company at all… just pointing out details that others seem to want to overlook as they drool over their precious.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

Julian Schnabel: Years ago, I was down there with my cousin’s wife Corky. She was wild — she wore makeup on her legs, and she had a streak in her hair like Yvonne De Carlo in “The Munsters.” She liked to paint. I had overalls on with just a T-shirt and looked like whatever. We were trying to buy a bunch of supplies with my cousin Jesse’s credit card. They looked at the credit card, and then they looked at us and thought maybe we stole the card, so they called Jesse up. He was a doctor who became the head of trauma at St. Vincent’s. They said, “There’s somebody here with this credit card and we want to know if it belongs to you.”

He said, “Well, does the woman have dyed blonde hair and fake eyelashes and look like she stepped out of the backstage of some kind of silent movie, and is she with some guy who has wild hair and is kind of dressed like a bum?”

“Yeah, that’s them.”

“Yeah, that’s my cousin and my wife. It’s okay, they can charge it on my card.”
~ Julian Schnabel Remembers NYC’s Now-Shuttered Pearl Paint

MB Cool. I was really interested in the aerial photography from Enter the Void and how one could understand that conceptually as a POV, while in fact it’s more of an objective view of the city where the story takes place. So it’s an objective and subjective camera at the same time. I know that you’re interested in Kubrick. We’ve talked about that in the past because it’s something that you and I have in common—

GN You’re obsessed with Kubrick, too.

MB Does he still occupy your mind or was he more of an early influence?

GN He was more of an early influence. Kubrick has been my idol my whole life, my own “god.” I was six or seven years old when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I never felt such cinematic ecstasy. Maybe that’s what brought me to direct movies, to try to compete with that “wizard of Oz” behind the film. So then, years later, I tried to do something in that direction, like many other directors tried to do their own, you know, homage or remake or parody or whatever of 2001. I don’t know if you ever had that movie in mind for your own projects. But in my case, I don’t think about 2001 anymore now. That film was my first “trip” ever. And then I tried my best to reproduce on screen what some drug trips are like. But it’s very hard. For sure, moving images are a better medium than words, but it’s still very far from the real experience. I read that Kubrick said about Lynch’s Eraserhead, that he wished he had made that movie because it was the film he had seen that came closest to the language of nightmares.

Matthew Barney and Gaspar Noé