Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Xerographica]

There's a problem when new content doesn't have a risk of failure. Every endeavor should have a risk of failure.

The issue is whether consumers can directly decide for themselves with their own money whether a new show is a success or a failure.

I think this thread is a success. If you agree that it's a success then you should pay me for it. If you disagree... then you shouldn't pay me.

Of course... clearly you don't want to pay me. So even if you think this thread is a success... you have an incentive to lie and say that it isn't.

You're welcome... I just taught you why taxation is compulsory rather than voluntary.

But if you're already subscribing to this forum... and can choose which threads you spend your fees on... then you have absolutely no incentive to lie.

You're welcome... I just shared the solution to the world's biggest problem.

Yes she does.

And I do.

And Gallo does.

And everyone else does as well.

At least, under your model.

Your model presupposes that we're going to pay what we value from a product from a business. We're going to lie and give you just one dollar in compensation because if we can get away with paying 1 dollar, we will. Hell, if we can only give you one cent for it, we will.

People are cheap.

With my model people can't "save" money by not spending their subscription fees. So the idea of people being cheap is nonsensical and/or irrelevant.

[Galloism]

There's a problem when new content doesn't have a risk of failure. Every endeavor should have a risk of failure.

The issue is whether consumers can directly decide for themselves with their own money whether a new show is a success or a failure.

I think this thread is a success. If you agree that it's a success then you should pay me for it. If you disagree... then you shouldn't pay me.

Of course... clearly you don't want to pay me. So even if you think this thread is a success... you have an incentive to lie and say that it isn't.

You're welcome... I just taught you why taxation is compulsory rather than voluntary.

But if you're already subscribing to this forum... and can choose which threads you spend your fees on... then you have absolutely no incentive to lie.

You're welcome... I just shared the solution to the world's biggest problem.

Yes she does.

And I do.

And Gallo does.

And everyone else does as well.

At least, under your model.

Your model presupposes that we're going to pay what we value from a product from a business. We're going to lie and give you just one dollar in compensation because if we can get away with paying 1 dollar, we will. Hell, if we can only give you one cent for it, we will.

People are cheap.

Not to mention, given there's no sacrifice whether you allocate or not (also why there's no particular incentive to lie or tell the truth) it's very likely that many will simply forget to do it or not bother.

Because time is individually valuable - "Netflix dollars" are not.

Combined with the notion that allocated funds roll over, this means IP holders will generally not get paid, regardless of how good or not their product is. Ergo, they'll pull out.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

With my model people can't "save" money by not spending their subscription fees. So the idea of people being cheap is nonsensical and/or irrelevant.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about Netflix, I was talking about your idea in general.

When it comes to Netflix, all IP holders will just go to Hulu or Amazon. You know, a place where they actually get what they think they should get to cover the costs of the IP they are leasing/buying.

With your idea, Netflix as a business model would fail.

[Saint Jade IV]

Yes she does.

And I do.

And Gallo does.

And everyone else does as well.

At least, under your model.

Your model presupposes that we're going to pay what we value from a product from a business. We're going to lie and give you just one dollar in compensation because if we can get away with paying 1 dollar, we will. Hell, if we can only give you one cent for it, we will.

People are cheap.

With my model people can't "save" money by not spending their subscription fees. So the idea of people being cheap is nonsensical and/or irrelevant.

But the data is less valuable. Netflix already collects more valuable data, including when people stop viewing tv shows that they don't like, when they pause movies and whether they return to them later or not, the time of day they watch particular types of shows or movies, how often they repeat certain shows or movies, which recommended shows and movies they act on, and a whole lot more. All of that data is much more meaningful than a dollar value to them. Like, seriously, much, much more valuable than allowing their consumers to eat a meal they don't end up paying for.

Your problem is that you are a) fundamentally unaware of the data available, and the data that Netflix uses, i.e. you are data illiterate, and b) you have no understanding of how markets work.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, let me demonstrate with a simple experiment what would the model of Xero would look like for businesses as it is understood:

Say Netflix manages to acquire the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month.

If Netflix gets the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month under their system they need some way to recoup their money. For the sake of simplicity, let's suppose these are the only ways Netflix can earn back their money:

100,000 people paying 1 dollar for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
50,000 people paying 2 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
25,000 people paying 4 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
12,500 people paying 8 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.

Let's suppose there are, in fact, more than 100,000 consumers, say, a million, subscribed in Netflix and more than 100,000 people watch said movie -- say 200,000 -- but then they only value the movie at an average of 25 cents each.

200,000 x .25 = 50,000 dollars.

Now, in a platform of one million, one fifth of your audience watching a movie and repeating it every few times a month is quite a good thing. If we multiply all of those 200,000 subscribers by 5 reruns in their TVs per month, they make 1 million views, more than enough to justify keeping the content under a model that doesn't try to gauge things by gift economics. But because only 25 cents went into the valuation, now that movie is gone the next month because Netflix can't afford it, or they have to take a loss of 50,000 dollars per month -- quite unsustainable by business standards and they run the business to the ground.

Now tell me, is someone willing to take a business that does this? Anyone?

[Camicon]

I mean, let me demonstrate with a simple experiment what would the model of Xero would look like for businesses as it is understood:

Say Netflix manages to acquire the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month.

If Netflix gets the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month under their system they need some way to recoup their money. For the sake of simplicity, let's suppose these are the only ways Netflix can earn back their money:

100,000 people paying 1 dollar for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
50,000 people paying 2 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
25,000 people paying 4 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
12,500 people paying 8 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.

Let's suppose there are, in fact, more than 100,000 consumers, say, a million, subscribed in Netflix and more than 100,000 people watch said movie -- say 200,000 -- but then they only value the movie at an average of 25 cents each.

200,000 x .25 = 50,000 dollars.

Now, in a platform of one million, one fifth of your audience watching a movie and repeating it every few times a month is quite a good thing. If we multiply all of those 200,000 subscribers by 5 reruns in their TVs per month, they make 1 million views, more than enough to justify keeping the content under a model that doesn't try to gauge things by gift economics. But because only 25 cents went into the valuation, now that movie is gone the next month because Netflix can't afford it, or they have to take a loss of 50,000 dollars per month -- quite unsustainable by business standards and they run the business to the ground.

Now tell me, is someone willing to take a business that does this? Anyone?

Depends. Can I liquidate its assets and sell it to a competitor?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, let me demonstrate with a simple experiment what would the model of Xero would look like for businesses as it is understood:

Say Netflix manages to acquire the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month.

If Netflix gets the rights to show and distribute a film for 100,000 dollars per month under their system they need some way to recoup their money. For the sake of simplicity, let's suppose these are the only ways Netflix can earn back their money:

100,000 people paying 1 dollar for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
50,000 people paying 2 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
25,000 people paying 4 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.
12,500 people paying 8 dollars for subscription to Netflix to watch that movie whenever.

Let's suppose there are, in fact, more than 100,000 consumers, say, a million, subscribed in Netflix and more than 100,000 people watch said movie -- say 200,000 -- but then they only value the movie at an average of 25 cents each.

200,000 x .25 = 50,000 dollars.

Now, in a platform of one million, one fifth of your audience watching a movie and repeating it every few times a month is quite a good thing. If we multiply all of those 200,000 subscribers by 5 reruns in their TVs per month, they make 1 million views, more than enough to justify keeping the content under a model that doesn't try to gauge things by gift economics. But because only 25 cents went into the valuation, now that movie is gone the next month because Netflix can't afford it, or they have to take a loss of 50,000 dollars per month -- quite unsustainable by business standards and they run the business to the ground.

Now tell me, is someone willing to take a business that does this? Anyone?

Depends. Can I liquidate its assets and sell it to a competitor?

I mean, you can

[Xerographica]

With my model people can't "save" money by not spending their subscription fees. So the idea of people being cheap is nonsensical and/or irrelevant.

But the data is less valuable. Netflix already collects more valuable data, including when people stop viewing tv shows that they don't like, when they pause movies and whether they return to them later or not, the time of day they watch particular types of shows or movies, how often they repeat certain shows or movies, which recommended shows and movies they act on, and a whole lot more. All of that data is much more meaningful than a dollar value to them. Like, seriously, much, much more valuable than allowing their consumers to eat a meal they don't end up paying for.

Your problem is that you are a) fundamentally unaware of the data available, and the data that Netflix uses, i.e. you are data illiterate, and b) you have no understanding of how markets work.

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But the data is less valuable. Netflix already collects more valuable data, including when people stop viewing tv shows that they don't like, when they pause movies and whether they return to them later or not, the time of day they watch particular types of shows or movies, how often they repeat certain shows or movies, which recommended shows and movies they act on, and a whole lot more. All of that data is much more meaningful than a dollar value to them. Like, seriously, much, much more valuable than allowing their consumers to eat a meal they don't end up paying for.

Your problem is that you are a) fundamentally unaware of the data available, and the data that Netflix uses, i.e. you are data illiterate, and b) you have no understanding of how markets work.

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

2.

I mean, why the hell would a let a robot spend MY money according to my consumption habits? If I regularly eat Pizza that doesn't mean tomorrow I won't want to shove into my mouth 10 pounds of Doritos.

[Salandriagado]

"We're responsible corporate officers that have a duty to our shareholders."


"Welp, guess we're going to Hulu."

Let say that I sell my epiphytes to you for $10/each. Then I stop selling to you. In doing so I publicly acknowledge to all the world that my epiphytes are worth a LOT less than $10 dollars/each. What happens when I try to sell my epiphytes to Two Jerseys? How much is he going to be willing to pay for my epiphytes? A LOT less than $10/each.

Erm, no. That's exactly the opposite: if you are unwilling to sell at $10, then you are claiming that you value it at more than $10.

But the data is less valuable. Netflix already collects more valuable data, including when people stop viewing tv shows that they don't like, when they pause movies and whether they return to them later or not, the time of day they watch particular types of shows or movies, how often they repeat certain shows or movies, which recommended shows and movies they act on, and a whole lot more. All of that data is much more meaningful than a dollar value to them. Like, seriously, much, much more valuable than allowing their consumers to eat a meal they don't end up paying for.

Your problem is that you are a) fundamentally unaware of the data available, and the data that Netflix uses, i.e. you are data illiterate, and b) you have no understanding of how markets work.

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

The second one, every time. In fact, I have this option already: I could have set up automated transactions to pay for stuff on precisely that basis. I haven't, because that's fucking stupid.

[Galloism]

But the data is less valuable. Netflix already collects more valuable data, including when people stop viewing tv shows that they don't like, when they pause movies and whether they return to them later or not, the time of day they watch particular types of shows or movies, how often they repeat certain shows or movies, which recommended shows and movies they act on, and a whole lot more. All of that data is much more meaningful than a dollar value to them. Like, seriously, much, much more valuable than allowing their consumers to eat a meal they don't end up paying for.

Your problem is that you are a) fundamentally unaware of the data available, and the data that Netflix uses, i.e. you are data illiterate, and b) you have no understanding of how markets work.

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

... I guess my consumption. That's what the robots I have doing now do.

My electric bill, water bill, gas bill, etc are all automatically paid based on my consumption. Besides, it would be very silly for me to create a robot that I have to command for every single action. After all, why have a robot if it can't act of its own initiative based on its programming?

However, I would program the robot to never pay more than it has to, and try to haggle or reduce the cost of my consumption. IE, instead of purchasing whatever I consume on Amazon, have it reference 10,000 stores to find the lowest price of things I consume to buy.

Actually, this is starting to sound like a very handy robot. Why can't I have a robot like this?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

... I guess my consumption. That's what the robots I have doing now do.

My electric bill, water bill, gas bill, etc are all automatically paid based on my consumption. Besides, it would be very silly for me to create a robot that I have to command for every single action. After all, why have a robot if it can't act of its own initiative based on its programming?

However, I would program the robot to never pay more than it has to, and try to haggle or reduce the cost of my consumption. IE, instead of purchasing whatever I consume on Amazon, have it reference 10,000 stores to find the lowest price of things I consume to buy.

Actually, this is starting to sound like a very handy robot. Why can't I have a robot like this?

Programming

[Galloism]

... I guess my consumption. That's what the robots I have doing now do.

My electric bill, water bill, gas bill, etc are all automatically paid based on my consumption. Besides, it would be very silly for me to create a robot that I have to command for every single action. After all, why have a robot if it can't act of its own initiative based on its programming?

However, I would program the robot to never pay more than it has to, and try to haggle or reduce the cost of my consumption. IE, instead of purchasing whatever I consume on Amazon, have it reference 10,000 stores to find the lowest price of things I consume to buy.

Actually, this is starting to sound like a very handy robot. Why can't I have a robot like this?

Programming

[Xerographica]

Let's say that you have a robot companion who has ALL your money. This robot companion has two settings...

1. he'll spend your money according to your consumption
2. he'll spend your money according to your command

Once you choose one setting the other will no longer be available. Which setting do you choose?

... I guess my consumption. That's what the robots I have doing now do.?

So if you spend an hour playing candy crush then you want your robot to decide how much of your money to give to candy crush?

[Galloism]

... I guess my consumption. That's what the robots I have doing now do.?

So if you spend an hour playing candy crush then you want your robot to decide how much of your money to give to candy crush?

No, but when I spend five hours on my computer which results in... I dunno... 15 cents in electricity usage I guess, the robot automatically pays my electric bill.

Because, you know, I consumed electricity, and the robot pays for the electricity I consume.

[Ethel mermania]

So if you spend an hour playing candy crush then you want your robot to decide how much of your money to give to candy crush?

No, but when I spend five hours on my computer which results in... I dunno... 15 cents in electricity usage I guess, the robot automatically pays my electric bill.

Because, you know, I consumed electricity, and the robot pays for the electricity I consume.

netflix now has MSTK3000, i will signal my approval by watching

Manos: The Hands of Fate

[Xerographica]

So if you spend an hour playing candy crush then you want your robot to decide how much of your money to give to candy crush?

No, but when I spend five hours on my computer which results in... I dunno... 15 cents in electricity usage I guess, the robot automatically pays my electric bill.

Because, you know, I consumed electricity, and the robot pays for the electricity I consume.

You didn't consume candy crush but you consumed electricity?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, but when I spend five hours on my computer which results in... I dunno... 15 cents in electricity usage I guess, the robot automatically pays my electric bill.

Because, you know, I consumed electricity, and the robot pays for the electricity I consume.

You didn't consume candy crush but you consumed electricity?

Well, yea, how the hell are you going to use the computer? Steam engine?

[Camicon]

You didn't consume candy crush but you consumed electricity?

Well, yea, how the hell are you going to use the computer? Steam engine?

All you need is the right valve.

[Galloism]

No, but when I spend five hours on my computer which results in... I dunno... 15 cents in electricity usage I guess, the robot automatically pays my electric bill.

Because, you know, I consumed electricity, and the robot pays for the electricity I consume.

You didn't consume candy crush but you consumed electricity?

You skipped the rest of the post where the robot should also pay the least it could and still provide me with that which I consume. For candy crush that's $0. For electricity it's a small number but distinctly not zero.

The reason it should act this way is because of my self interest. Invisible hand, yo.

[Xerographica]

You didn't consume candy crush but you consumed electricity?

You skipped the rest of the post where the robot should also pay the least it could and still provide me with that which I consume. For candy crush that's $0. For electricity it's a small number but distinctly not zero.

The reason it should act this way is because of my self interest. Invisible hand, yo.

Would you mind if your robot starts spending your money on things that you aren't consuming?

[Galloism]

You skipped the rest of the post where the robot should also pay the least it could and still provide me with that which I consume. For candy crush that's $0. For electricity it's a small number but distinctly not zero.

The reason it should act this way is because of my self interest. Invisible hand, yo.

Would you mind if your robot starts spending your money on things that you aren't consuming?

Depends. Is it in my self interest to do so?

If so, yes.

If not, no.

[Muthia]

Fortunately, there are numerous examples.

You have yet to provide a single example where you voluntarily (choose to) spend your money on something that really does not match your preferences.

Tipping, I don't want to tip servers and such, I want them to be paid minimum wage at least, but social pressure makes me tip them

[Xerographica]

You have yet to provide a single example where you voluntarily (choose to) spend your money on something that really does not match your preferences.

Tipping, I don't want to tip servers and such, I want them to be paid minimum wage at least, but social pressure makes me tip them

Just like Neanderthal's grandma peer pressures him to put money into the collection plate at church. I'm not looking for examples where a platypus is controlling you. I'm looking for examples where you 100% willingly and regularly choose to spend your own money on something that really does not match your preferences.

As opposed to? As opposed to examples where you don't spend your money on something that really matches your preferences. Like this thread.

It's the forced-rider problem versus the free-rider problem. In no case does society benefit when its members lie to each other about how much they value things. When we deceive each other then we all suffer from a shortage of things we want more and a surplus of things we want less.

[Galloism]

I'm looking for examples where you 100% willingly and regularly choose to spend your own money on something that really does not match your preferences.

I'm trying to think of an example where I 100% willingly and regularly choose to spend my own money on 'X' thing, preferred or not.