I’m a long time Netflix subscriber (started in 2003) and I noticed recently that new movie releases are taking A LOT longer to be sent to me than they used to be. The other day I had a convo with some friends about it and Mike mentioned “Yeah thats because they hold the new movies for the new subscribers to keep them happy. Existing customers get fucked”.
I searched around and found CNN has done a story on this and yes this is true!
I’ve had 40-year virgin on my queue since October 2005 – It’s 4 months since its release andstilll at the top of the queue… no movie. I’ve writen several email complaints to what ever email address I can find because contacting Netflix is also made frustratingly difficult. And here’s a response I got back about their movie throttling:
In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service. As a result, those members who receive the most movies may experience next-day shipping and receive movies lower in their Queue more often than our other members. By prioritizing in this way, we help assure a balanced experience for all our members. Those that rent a lot of movies get a great value and those with lighter viewing habits are able to count on our service to meet their limited needs.
What kind of BS is this! We all pay the same service fees so we should all get the same service. When I go to a movie its first come first serve for the seat and if I come late to the movie, shit I either have to sit in the front row or behind the 7′ tall guy with an afro. I’m an avid movie watch, I love the movies and I shouldn’t get punished because I use their service more than others. How would the Gym rats feel if they came into Golds Gym and told they couldn’t do squats today because all the machines were being reserved for new gym members. Bull shit!
Blockbuster has their own service but they are not now, and never will be an option for me. I’m not interest in renting from a company that blatantly deceives its customers (late fee suit, forum thread)carries on fraudulent business practices in regards to their in store late fees or censoring movies to their own religious agenda (you won’t find any unrated versions or “director’s cuts” at Blockbuster — only “sanitized versions” of movies). On top of that I don’t want to have any dealings with a company that signed contracts with Enron (interesting take on what could have been for them).
***UPDATE***
Since the CNN article has been taken down I found this one and added all the text below:
Printed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Manuel Villanueva realizes he has been getting a pretty good deal since he signed up for Netflix Inc.’s online DVD rental service 2.5 years ago, but he still feels shortchanged.
That’s because the $17.99 monthly fee that he pays to rent up to three DVDs at a time would amount to an even bigger bargain if the company didn’t penalize him for returning his movies so quickly.
Netflix typically sends about 13 movies per month to Villanueva’s home in Warren, Mich. — down from the 18 to 22 DVDs he once received before the company’s automated system identified him as a heavy renter and began delaying his shipments to protect its profits.
The same Netflix formula also shoves Villanueva to the back of the line for the most-wanted DVDs, so the service can send those popular flicks to new subscribers and infrequent renters.
The little-known practice, called “throttling” by critics, means Netflix customers who pay the same price for the same service are often treated differently, depending on their rental patterns.
“I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they didn’t advertise ‘unlimited rentals,”‘ Villanueva said. “The fact is that they go out of their way to make sure you don’t go over whatever secret limit they have set up for your account.”
Los Gatos, Calif.-based Netflix didn’t publicly acknowledge it differentiates among customers until revising its “terms of use” in January 2005 — four months after a San Francisco subscriber filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company had deceptively promised one-day delivery of most DVDs.
“In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service,” Netflix’s revised policy now reads. The statement specifically warns that heavy renters are more likely to encounter shipping delays and less likely to immediately be sent their top choices.
Few customers have complained about this “fairness algorithm,” according to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.
“We have unbelievably high customer satisfaction ratings,” Hastings said during a recent interview. “Most of our customers feel like Netflix is an incredible value.”
The service’s rapid growth supports his thesis. Netflix added nearly 1.6 million customers last year, giving it 4.2 million subscribers through December. During the final three months of 2005, just 4 percent of its customers canceled the service, the lowest rate in the company’s six-year history.
After collecting consumer opinions about the Web’s 40 largest retailers last year, Ann Arbor, Mich., research firm ForeSeeResults rated Netflix as “the cream of the crop in customer satisfaction.”
Once considered a passing fancy, Netflix has changed the way many households rent movies and spawned several copycats, including a mail service from Blockbuster Inc.
Netflix’s most popular rental plan lets subscribers check out up to three DVDs at a time for $17.99 per month. After watching a movie, customers return the DVD in a postage-paid envelope. Netflix then sends out the next available DVD on the customer’s online wish list.
Because everyone pays a flat fee, Netflix makes more money from customers who only watch four or five DVDs per month. Customers who quickly return their movies in order to get more erode the company’s profit margin because each DVD sent out and returned costs 78 cents in postage alone.
Although Netflix consistently promoted its service as the DVD equivalent of an all-you-can eat smorgasbord, some heavy renters began to suspect they were being treated differently two or three years ago.
To prove the point, one customer even set up a Web site to show that the service listed different wait times for DVDs requested by subscribers living in the same household.
Netflix’s throttling techniques have also prompted incensed customers to share their outrage in online forums such as Hacking NetFlix.
“Netflix isn’t well within its rights to throttle users,” complained a customer identified as “annoyed” in a posting on the site. “They say unlimited rentals. They are liars.”
Hastings said the company has no specified limit on rentals, but “‘unlimited’ doesn’t mean you should expect to get 10,000 a month.”
In its terms of use, Netflix says most subscribers check out two to 11 DVDs per month.
Management has previously acknowledged to analysts that it risks losing money on a relatively small percentage of frequent renters. The risk has increased since Netflix reduced the price of its most popular subscription plan by $4 per month in 2004 and the U.S. Postal Service recently raised first-class mailing costs by 2 cents.
Netflix’s approach has paid off so far. The company has been profitable in each of the past three years, a trend its management expects to continue in 2006 with projected earnings of at least $29 million on revenue of $960 million. Netflix’s stock price has more than tripled since its 2002 initial public offering.
A September 2004 lawsuit cast a spotlight on the throttling issue. The complaint, filed by Frank Chavez on behalf of all Netflix subscribers before Jan. 15, 2005, said the company had developed a sophisticated formula to slow down DVD deliveries to frequent renters and ensure quicker shipments of the most popular movies to its infrequent — and most profitable — renters to keep them happy.
Netflix denied the allegations, but eventually revised its terms of use to acknowledge its different treatment of frequent renters.
Without acknowledging wrongdoing, the company agreed to provide a one-month rental upgrade and pay Chavez’s attorneys $2.5 million, but the settlement sparked protests that prompted the two sides to reconsider. A hearing on a revised settlement proposal is scheduled for Feb. 22 in San Francisco Superior Court.
Netflix subscribers such as Nathaniel Irons didn’t believe the company was purposely delaying some DVD shipments until he read the revised terms of use.
Irons, 28, of Seattle, has no plans to cancel his service because he figures he is still getting a good value from the eight movies he typically receives each month.
“My own personal experience has not been bad,” he said, “but (the throttling) is certainly annoying when it happens.”
Just last week, Merck & Co.’s “voluntarily” yanked the blockbuster arthritis drug Vioxx from pharmacy shelves because an ongoing clinical trail (read: a studying of a currently
Merck probably reached their tipping point and pulled the pill to stop the PR leak in the dam. There can be a large case made that pharma companies weight the financial risks of law suits from adversely effecting the patients they provide drugs for vs. the profits made after development, marketing and release of the products. If the profits over a certain number of years exceed the expected loss in revenue from suits and bad press, then they would conceivably move forward with the public release of a drug… All this regardless of risk to the actual patient. 
Vioxx isn’t the only arthritis drug causing health problems and Merck isn’t the only pharmaceuticals manufacturer engaging in some astute “damage control.” Ironically, the news you’re about to read appeared in print on the same day that the Vioxx cover-up story I just told you about broke. Shrewdly timed, as I’m sure you’ll agree in a moment.