>

Has there ever been a brand the size of Netflix to intentionally produce negative advertising aimed at themselves?
The fact that doesn't happen should put yet another nail on the coffin to the myth "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
/u/Magemonster (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

It wasn't to get people talking about Netflix, it was a trial balloon to see how the market would react to such a change.  They likely got the data they needed (cancellations, social media dunks, etc) and acted accordingly. >

This i can actually believe as an alternative. They was never going to go through with it, but as a test for future policies or a pr stunt is both believable !delta >

You jumped the gun.
Netflix already does this in multiple countries and has had plans in place for this for the last year. This is public information.
Nothing about this was a trial or stunt, it's a policy already in use being expanded. >

What countries is it already in use? >

Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru. >

Thanks. I take it these are their test countries to see if it works >

Yup. He's saying "oh they already do it in those countries therefore this isn't a trial" as if them doing it in those countries hasn't been explicitly stated by Netflix to be trials to see how the policies work out. Why wouldn't they also do a test in other regions to see how they'd react before rolling out a finalized policy? >

They did it in countries where if it backfired it wouldn't hurt as much. >

Yes I'm aware. And then the policy leak earlier this week was them testing to see how people in larger more important markets would react to the change >

Completely agree. >

The unfortunate reality is that they were almost certainly entirely sincere about this, and this is a very common tactic with large corporations.  
1)  Come up with an idea that will make you more money, but will be unpopular.
2)  Announce the idea.  
3)  Observe the response.
4a) If the response is minimal, proceed with whatever exploitative bullshit you had planned.
4b) If there's public outcry/response that makes this idea cost more than it produces, cancel it and deflect to some excuse.  "This was posted in error"  "This wasn't the final product and was released for public feed back". 
Netflix would have happily implemented this change, had the entire community of users not raised such an outcry about it.  The idea that it's a PR stunt is just one layer of deflection from the fact that they were making a legitimate attempt to do this. >

While I didn’t cancel my account, I did change my plan to a cheaper one as soon as the news came out. I was originally paying extra for more screens to share, now they’re calling it the ultra 4k plan. No thanks. I wonder how many other people did also. Enough to make them backtrack I’m guessing. >

I think you are confusing primary motivations with a silver lining. Sure, maybe the execs can comfort themselves with the idea that even after a failed attempt to squeeze more money from their customers at least people are talking about the platform. 
If you think they are rubbing their hands together while saying mission accomplished I would have to disagree. >

The question would be: why?
It's not like Netflix isn't unversally known. They constantly have controversies regarding their shows - they really don't need the additional attention, at the very least not at that price. >

The Why is easy, Streaming giants make more ads nowadays than ever now that there's so much competition, HBO max, Amazon prime etc, not even talking about the regional services, where i live there's at least 3 other competing services.
The same way everyone know what coca cola is, yet they still pump out loads of ads everywhere.
And this PR stunt didn't cost netflix a dime, they didn't go through with it, i don't think a substantial amount of people unsubscribed from netflix because they will remove password sharing in the future. i would think most of the people using this, including me would want to ride the wave to the end. >


And this PR stunt didn't cost netflix a dime, they didn't go through with it

I doubt that... I could see there being plenty of people for which this was "the final straw", even if it did not actually come to pass.

The same way everyone know what coca cola is, yet they still pump out loads of ads everywhere.

The major difference here is that ads at that level are aimed at improving the standing of the brand over other brands. If your standing worsens from your ad campaign, more people might switch to a competitor. >


I doubt that... I could see there being plenty of people for which this was "the final straw", even if it did not actually come to pass.

I do not agree with you on this. I don't think a substantial amount of people think like this.

The major difference here is that ads at that level are aimed at improving the standing of the brand over other brands. If your standing worsens from your ad campaign, more people might switch to a competitor.

I do agree that these are different kind of ads, but i don't believe all publicity a brand gets has to be positive in nature to gain a positive effect.