Netflix Plummets, and for Good Reason

Is anyone really surprised by Netflix’s sudden fall from grace? The company’s shares have fallen 45 percent since mid-July, down 136 points from an all-time high of 305.  Nearly 40 of those points came yesterday alone, when the movie-rental company acknowledged that its customers have been canceling their subscriptions in droves, apparently because of a horrendous new pricing scheme announced earlier this summer.  It’s not often that a bell rings on Wall Street to tell investors it’s time to get out.  In this case, however, the ominous “clang!” came via an avalanche of complaints when Netflix aired plans in July to separate its DVD-by-mail service from its faster-growing Internet streaming service.  In the days that followed, the high-flying stock, a favorite of investors manifestly as brainless as they were giddy, shed 15 percent of its value.  NFLX never even bounced until mid-August, after it had lost a third of its value and was trading for around $200. 

The firm’s new business model probably would have had little impact on revenues if they had retained their original pricing scheme. Instead, Netflix jacked fees substantially for both services, forcing many of its 25 million customers to choose one or the other. Each service now costs $8, but the price of DVDs delivered by mail has risen sharply for those who want to keep two or three DVDs in the pipeline at all times. Your editor has been a Netflix subscriber for years but was never crazy about the streaming service because the selection of titles stinks. It’ll do for teenagers who missed a movie at the suburban multiplex, but for buffs who enjoy good films, especially offbeat ones, Netflix’s streaming video catalogue was the pits.

The company was so aggressive in trying to push customers onto streaming that one might have thought they had a fabulous library of great titles.  In reality, although Netflix claimed to offer scores of thousands of streaming titles, it always seemed as though most of them were TV shows produced on shoestring budgets in the U.S. and Europe. To be sure, even very bad television shows are better than most of the movies shown at mall theaters these days. But if you’re in the mood for cinema noir, or an Italian comedy, or even a horror classic, and you want to have those films in hand whenever you please, then you’ll have to pay Netflix $15 to $20 a month for multi-DVD delivery.  Your kids will howl when you cancel streaming Netflix, which is what they all seem to prefer, but let the little buggers bus tables or mow lawns if they want to keep the service. 

We Were Mystified 

Regarding the $305 price that Netflix shares ultimately achieved, we never really understood it. There are few entry barriers to competition; moreover, a few Internet biggies, including the already-competing Amazon, could jump into the business any time they want. Even Netflix’s prized algorithms – the ones that supposedly help customers select titles they are likely to enjoy – are not worth much as far as we’re concerned.  After you’ve rated hundreds of films – or thousands, as we have – the algorithms seem to grow increasingly desperate to find something good that you haven’t already seen. 

Meanwhile, are the morons who have been salivating over the prospect of a $100 billion Facebook IPO watching?  We doubt it.  But if and when that company goes public, we’ll be $50 million bid — and even then, only if Google appears to be stumbling badly with its own social network-in-the-cloud.  (Want to see how you could have called the top in Netflix shares?  Click here for a free trial to Rick’s Picks, including access to a 24/7 chat room that draws astute traders from all over the world.) 

*** 

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • nonplused September 19, 2011, 5:36 pm

    I don’t watch many movies, the new ones are mostly mindless and trite. How many more physics defying super hero explodathons can we stomach? Porn is more edifying than the crap coming out of Hollywood.

  • A. Rand Fan September 18, 2011, 1:54 am

    All I can say is the Market will decide if they made the right move. I thought it cheap before the change and it still seems so. Yes my Daughter has thoroughly taken over the streaming queue with about 50 entries. I tried the streaming a couple of times and found the quality IMO, lacking. But Blu-ray on my 52″ LCD TV is a great. My real problem is finding the time to watch and lower my cost per movie.

  • mava September 17, 2011, 10:56 pm

    CC,

    I believe the reason that mines are not popular investment this time, is the same as why I do not plan to own any mining shares. I think there are others who can sense what I sense.

    I sense that this time we are heading for reset, not just a dip and a recovery. Thus, this government will have to die, and new group of thieves will come forward to replace it. During this, when current government get too hungry, they will use populist reasoning to nationalize mines.

    You can already see the signs, as some states that do not have to pretend (like USA), that the Titanic will remain buoyant, already nationalize their mines.

    Gold (and Silver) is the only salvation (not real estate for the same reason as mines), but only gold that you can control. Literally.

    I agree with you on Apple, what an excellent example of a company exploiting self-destructive tendencies. I have never owned anything from Apple, nor planning to. When I was dealing with technology, I had a chance to see first hand how useless dumb anything MAC really is, and learned to hate it. I get a chuckle every time I see people “working” on Macs with a straight face. I am happy that Jobs is no more, as may-be there won’t be anyone so evil and at the same time so capable to replace him. Good riddance.

  • C.C. September 16, 2011, 10:14 pm

    I have to say that it never ceases to amaze, the valuations of certain segments of the tech sector…

    Slightly OT, but somewhat related: The genius of Steve Jobs return to Apple was not necessarily his penchant for simple but functional elegance or unique quality, it was his foresight into seeing just how ‘important’ diversionary entertainment was going to be…

    He saw the handwriting on the wall – a society bred and led on frivolous distraction, of which entertainment devices and the content they display, were destined to not simply play a major role, but in fact, become a Cornerstone of what American society is all about – entertainment. From Dancing with the Stars, to the NFL, to Netflix and many stops in between.

    Meanwhile, Junior mining companies that are producing real goods, feebly scratch & struggle their wiry frames up the sheer face of a 10,000 ft. granite cliff, one hand at a time. All the while, wondrous entertainment-oriented multi-zillion dollar market cap ‘social networking’ (read: Entertainment) companies, bask in the rewards of modern economic reality. Or do they…? As in all things, time will tell. Probably sooner than later in the current environment.

    • John Jay September 17, 2011, 4:51 am

      CC,
      That is a very good read of how the Apple business plan surfs upon the childish mental state of Joe/Jane Six Pack, I never thought of it that way. P T Barnum was right all along!

  • mava September 16, 2011, 8:04 pm

    Never been streaming either, – I have a problem with streaming – since it is not adding to your owned things, to me, it is simply a waste.

    Also, while you watch you stream, Netflix still has the same number of copies available, thus, because there is no reduction of stock at Netflix, it means you were duped, and paid for nothing.

    The way I understand market exchange, is that there must be an exchange: if I have less money, they you also must have less something!

    Thus, I believe that streaming is a fraud. May-be there are more folks like me, and this is another reason the streaming – oriented business plan did not hold?

  • roger erickson September 16, 2011, 6:41 pm

    you don’t think there are exceptionally mindless & hopelessly narrow lobbies at work?

    http://thecounterpunch.hubpages.com/hub/The_Conquest_of_Poverty
    make a copy of this; even this text might disappear someday

    re-invented here, yet again (still no one listening)
    Seven Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy (PDF Link)
    http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

  • PhotoRadarScam September 16, 2011, 5:18 pm

    The problem that I see is that they stream at reduced video and audio quality. No Dolby Digital when you stream.

  • joe U September 16, 2011, 4:43 pm

    My 2 at a time, unlimited monthly dvd’s actually had a decrease in price, from 15 to 8 a month. I seldom was using the streaming movies, so did not take that.

  • Ray Kumar September 16, 2011, 4:39 pm

    Your comment “a favorite of investors manifestly as brainless as they were giddy” seems to suggest NFLX was bid up by individual traders but the ownership figures suggest it the handiwork of insitutional “professionals” (90.5% of outstanding and 93% of float) and their bots and HFT algos.

    Now, their attention seems to have shifted to AMZN (84+% of float held by insitutions and 20+% of outstanding by insiders almost entirely by Bezos).

    Shall we fight them or join them is the question?

    • Rick September 16, 2011, 6:09 pm

      Since there ARE no individual investors in this market, Ray, that leaves only brainless, giddy institutions to bid the likes of NFLX into the ionosphere.

  • DG September 16, 2011, 4:34 pm

    A couple of years ago, Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix wrote an editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1316181657-+sFhsKgwP7ZrD5g0yG+Ipw

    about how he and all the other rich people should give more money to the government to fix our Nation’s financial problems. His definition of rich and soluton was $1 million income would receive a 50% fed tax. I guess if you have $100 million or more it is easy to say “what’s a few million bucks?”
    I have two big problems with this. One, it assumes the government needs more money, not needs to spend its money more wisely. Obviously, we piss away well over a trillion a year in nonsense. Second, a million dollars a year of income is not rich. It is a damn good year and if you are 35 and your business is starting to hum, paying for Reed’s generational screw up is not cool. How about this, Reed. If you feel so compelled, simply donate all of your wealth (including your $10 million house – I assume) to Uncle Sugar. That should make you feel better. You go first.
    My other beef with Hastings is that he proposes these public solutions as if we are one big commune, yet he runs his business, Netflix, with underhanded, fine print, which puts major screws to movie producers. I can tell you first hand (it happened to a movie producer I had worked with), how it happened. Netflix did a deal with Starz, years ago. Starz did deals with movie makers where they would show their movies on Starz in exchange for a reasonable, not large, amount of money. Buried in the fine print with Starz was verbiage which gave Netflix unlimited access to the same move for free.
    Fast forward to today, this raw deal got exposed, movie makers quit working with Starz, and Starz quit working with Netflix. It was a crappy deal and smug Reed knew it. It was a contract so I accept that everyone had a chance to read it and make their own decisions. What I don’t understand is how a CEO can write a “why can’t we just all pay” editorial regarding the US tax system and then turn around and wonder “how can I bend over content providers the most and thank them for a making a movie by giving them nothing?”
    He is a financial NIMBY hypocrite. You know the routine, “we should all pay, just you pay more.” I think “Animal Farm” covered this thoroughly.

    Then again, Netflix could wise up and come up with a model which compensates movie producers fairly. They would flock to Netflix and embrace it. They may want to reference itunes for reasonable models. Seeing that Hasting’s idea of fair is defective, I wouldn’t count on it.

    Oh, and I can’t wait for the scumbag lawfirms jump on board and start going after Reed personally for his Dec 20, 2011 editorial imploring folks to cover their shorts and buy the stock…..I thought it was odd and defensive at the time….it will be massive legal fodder for the scumbag class action guys as the stock was $180 then….

    $40, here we come. Yes, of course, I am short!

    • Robert September 16, 2011, 6:17 pm

      -Great points, DG

  • Earthwalker ~ September 16, 2011, 4:05 pm

    Its always good to see greed get what it deserves…

  • Benjamin September 16, 2011, 3:28 pm

    With Europe and Latin America being added to the Netflix service areas, not to mention the fall in cable subscriptions, prices rises were inevitable. Of course, given the global economy, the drop in subscriptions _should_ have been expected from the price rise. For that matter, expansion into the European market should’ve been questioned; they’re not exactly made of disposable income over there, these days.

    So, here’s my prediction… ‘Flix will try to get all that business back, with promotional deals and such, as their way of saying “Oops! we didn’t realize things were _that_ bad!”.

  • sr September 16, 2011, 3:06 pm

    Money is debt, people are paying their debt destroying the existance of money for the banks. Savers take there money out of the banks because they have nothing for it. And all the business and job go down the drain. Fractional reserve system is a scam. And Netflix want more money when there is less money; big mistake!

  • Treasure Seekers September 16, 2011, 2:51 pm

    Here we go again.

    Everytime a good business gets started with a good product at a good price , it becomes contaminated with todays greed based business model.
    The business model being used is one of , “rationing”, based on multi layer packaging.

    • Robert September 16, 2011, 6:14 pm

      The greed based business model exists in Tech-based companies because there is no valid form of legitmate return on equity.

      Software and algorithms are not physical assets- they are intellectual property, and, in spite of what patent law suggests, they NEVER really belong to a company.

      All software can be reverse engineered- every algorithm can be deconstructed and modified to make it just “unique enough” to avoid patent infringement. At that point, the ability to generate competive margins falls into the abyss of who is willing to go lowest on the price for the service…

      So companies will always and forever take their newest trend setting software to market at crazy prices so they can re-coup development costs and gernerate as much margin based profit as possible before the secrets of pandora’s box reveal themselves.

      Netflix screwed the pooch because they yielded their early “boom profit” potential in the hopes that they could re-baseline their business model around a large, stable customer base.

      But Rick hit it right on the head- when you have been offering the market 3 dollar tacos and free chips and salsa for years, then I don’t care how tasty your food is- the second you declare that “the tacos are still $3, but now the chips and salsa are also $3”, people are going to interpret that the same way they would interpret a $6 taco with free chips and salsa…

      When you are in the data distribution business, you better be able to get that data where it needs to be cheaply, and quickly- or you are toast.

      Netflix is toast.

  • John Jay September 16, 2011, 2:35 pm

    I will bet that if you compare a chart of United States Cable/Dish/Netflix use to a chart of obesity/diabetes they will be very close to identical. There is always a crowd of people at the Netflix kiosk in every grocery store I visit. And the 2 liter bottle of soda section at the grocery store is the biggest part of an aisle full of soda.
    Usually with the oposite side of the aisle carrying the salty snacks. I have seen photos from 100 years ago of a crowd of rail thin workers gathered around the rotund boss in a three piece suit. Times have changed. Go short NFLX, long KO and PEP.

    • Larry D September 16, 2011, 4:13 pm

      I didn’t realize the rotund boss could get Netflix 100 years ago. 🙂