comment: >
  
  It's not a stunt. They are a public company and are held to the standards of a growth stock by their shareholders. 
  They've already grabbed about as much market share as possible in terms of viewership, so now they have to find a way to make more money per viewer.
context: /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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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" >
  
  How can a company be so out of touch? Very easily. Companies constantly make dumb decisions which are motivated by greed. They hope they will be able to get away with it/people won't care 
  Just look at wizards of the coast for their recent reversal in planned policy thanks to mass consumer protest and withdrawal of money >
  
  How is trying to get people to pay for your service greed? That’s what all business do. 
  People are freeloading, Netflix is trying to convert freeloaders to paid customers, simple as that. >
  
  If I buy a 4 account Netflix subscription until their about face it wasn't dependent on living in the same household. For instance my family has a shared Netflix account with the ability to watch multiple things at the same time. Why should it be that I have to be in the same physical building as my parents to access it? >
  
  
  Why should it be that I have to be in the same physical building as my parents to access it?
  
  Because those are the terms you agreed to when you signed up? >
  
  Maybe we shouldn't care so much about poor people violating a TOS agreement of a billion dollar company. >
  
  Poor people shouldn’t be spending money on entertainment services they can’t afford.
  People who can afford it should pay their due. 
  Do you disagree? I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial here. >
  
  I think that sort of view carries with it a view about people's deservedness for their positions in the social hierarchy. It seems to take the hierarchy as it presently stands as just, when it is demonstrably not. >
  
  That’s cool, but my simple question only requires a yes or no answer:
  
  Poor people shouldn’t be spending money on entertainment services they can’t afford.
  People who can afford it should pay their due.
  
  Do you disagree, yes or no? >
  
  You do know that just because you ask a question doesn't mean you're entitled to an answer? I explained already why it's simply a bad question with bad presuppositions, until you deal with my objections to it, I see little point in answering, since any answer would be meaningless given the meaninglessness of the question. You're simply ignoring what actually matters and badgering me in response.
  edit: and now OP has done the classic "respond then block" move, so I can no longer comment in this thread. I do think it's funny that they both demand I answer their question but also block me from doing so. >
  
  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. >
  
  You're misinterpreting the link you've shared, saying "it's all off the table" isn't correct, the link you posted states that it was because "they aren't applicable to the US yet" but as far as we know the plan is still the same, and iirc the changes are live in certain markets
  You say that "its a PR stunt", and that's where your view needs to be changed, its not a stunt it's just PR, until they fully backtrack we have nothing to show its not just bad PR
  It's not a good decision, but the doesn't make it a stunt >
  
  
  You're misinterpreting the link you've shared, saying "it's all off the table" isn't correct, the link you posted states that it was because "they aren't applicable to the US yet" but as far as we know the plan is still the same, and iirc the changes are live in certain markets
  
  Surprised there isn’t more comments on this. I’m not interpreting that they’ve abandoned the idea at all. They could be tinkering with it so that they can sell a slightly neutered version and pretend it’s a “win” for subscribers, or they just are holding off to ride out the current negative reactions. Maybe they’ll delay it for a while longer in the U.S. but they can’t unring the bell that they’ve implemented it internationally and it’s the direction they want to go. >
  
  Thank you! u/Magemonster is holding a view that is fundamentally incorrect and I want my first delta lol >
  
  If it was just a PR stunt, then why have they actually been implementing this in countries like Costa Rica for years now? This isn't new, they have been trialing it for literal years and I'm sure that the ultimate goal was bringing it to larger countries like the US and UK where most of their market actually is. 
  Source: I'm from Costa Rica >
  
  
  and then after a while you see that they say "it was a mistake" Link And now it's all off the table.
  
  Did you read the article? did you even read the comments from people that actually read the article?
  
  Though the new password sharing rules are only being tested in select countries, they are expected to launch in many more regions by the end of March 2023.
  
  In March is when the changes for password sharing are coming through, they've said that already
  the error is that people were informed those changes were happening now, but they're not, because they're schedule for March
  it's not off the table, nothing has changed so far. you were mislead by a click bait article shared by someone wanting some karma which ended up make you think its a PR stun as you continue making others think it's not longer happening >
  
  So your thesis is that they created a lot of bad press and lost some subscriptions to generate PR?
  What PR would netflix need?  What show is being released right now that they want PR?
  Who doesn't know of netflix such that they'd need to generate PR?