Netflix is testing ways to curb account sharing between households

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,253   +192
Staff member
A hot potato: Netflix isn't oblivious to the fact that lots of people share their account login details with others. It's one of the reasons why the streaming giant introduced separate profiles and allows for multiple simultaneous streams with select plans. The problem is that these features were designed for accounts to be shared under a single roof, not with relatives or friends halfway across the country.

Over the last year, Netflix has been working on ways to enable users who share outside their household to do so easily, securely and fairly. In the coming weeks, Netflix will start testing two features it has come up with to combat the issue.

The "add an extra member" option will allow standard and premium plan-holders to add up to two sub accounts for people they don't live with. Each sub account will have its own profile, recommendations and login credentials.

Existing remote users will be able to transfer their viewing profiles, either to new accounts or to an extra member sub account to retain their viewing history and personalized recommendations.

Netflix will trial the new approach in Chile, Costa Rica and Peru, with pricing starting at 2,380 CLP in Chile, $2.99 USD in Costa Rica, and 7.9 PEN in Peru.

The approach feels like a reasonable compromise on Netflix's part, and seems better than more drastic measures like banning account sharing entirely. But, what are your thoughts? Is $2.99 a fair price to pay to scrub one's guilty conscience?

Image credit Karolina Grabowska

Permalink to story.

 
This is just asking for backlash when, not if, this inevitably results in super wide range false positives. This is just not a good idea with so many competitors on their heels.

If you want more subscribers just invest in more content instead.
IMO, Netflix has far more content than any of its subscribers. Perhaps the only two that can compete with the amount of content that Netflix has in its library are Amazon Prime and Apple TV. The others' content libraries are pale in comparison, IMO.
 
IMO, Netflix has far more content than any of its subscribers. Perhaps the only two that can compete with the amount of content that Netflix has in its library are Amazon Prime and Apple TV. The others' content libraries are pale in comparison, IMO.
Fair enough. But places like Disney have some very heavy hitters I think a better way to phrase it is to invest more on content, not to get more of it but to improve the quality: create some of those heavy hitters that can compete more effectively with the other guys throwing huge names and franchises to attract subscribers.
 
I created a separate Netflix account because I didn't want to share my viewing history with my family, but then nixed it once we got Hulu. This could save me money if they introduce this to the US.
 
There seems to be a group of executives at Netflix who firmly believe that raising prices and cracking down on account sharing will improve their revenue. They probably know better than we do how to run their own business. But I’ve cancelled. If it was £10 a month and we could account share they would have £120 a year of my money. But instead they get nothing. I’ve still got Prime and Disney+. Both of which offer discounts on yearly memberships, something Netflix does not do.
 
The problem I have with the current Netflix pricing points is this: they go through-the-roof rather quickly!

The 720p plan is the only one priced sane anymore (and if you're going up, you might as well go 4k multi-stream, and share with friends!) They dug themselves into this hole (and if they start enforcing, then I'm going to cut the plan back to HD)

There is no way they can conceivably up their earnings-per-user if they start being punitive (otherwise, whats the point of having more the two simultaneous streams?)
 
Last edited:
There will always be people who pirate and/or piggyback on streaming services, but it's been proven in studies time and time again that the best way to curb this is to make it more accessible financially. This is the right move I reckon, and certainly does no harm. Its encouraging the piggybackers to pay their dues to get their own access of a kind, but I don't think they'll be restricting the practice by any means, it'd be quite difficult for them to implement that now.
 
I really don't mind and fully understand that decision. Too many households shares dane account and that really is an issue for a company barely living out of subscriptions. But I'd like to see options to watch Netflix on any browser on any os in full 4k quality, not 720p because of drm which doesn't help no one.
 
Some people do live in two houses - I gave one to my partners daughter - struggling with mortgage and all that . Another to a niece - she like many young people watch on a phone ( so how to tell )
So cast from phone .
Many parents give to kids at Uni . College
I watch so little I don't use a VPN - plus if I wanted something so badly I know how to pirate - Impossible to go after pirates in NZ - as cost the companies too much money - plus 3 warnings .
But if Netflex really cared - it could allow respect outside country viewing with some hoops to jump- but those customers are paying .
I imagine they will target those with 4 active streams in diff locations use a lot .

Or maybe it's just an honesty system why not - sure to grab some extra money - lots of rich parents ain't going to quibble about $3 for their child in another town
 
Netflix already allows paying members the fixed number of sharing. Why does it matter if the relatives are living within a single roof or staying elsewhere? Honor your words, Netflix! If you detect more than the amount of people watching separately at the same time, then take action. Else, you are asking for backlash. Once you get a lot of money, you can't stop being more greedy, eh?
 
If you're a regular Netflix watcher and not dirt poor, I don't see the motivation in trying to save a few bucks a month so that you're contributing towards content you enjoy.

That said I feel like a price based on max simultaneous streams is a great approach. It is objective; it's easy to explain; and it roughly lines up the amount charged with the amount of customer use.
 
Netflix needs to look around and take stock really, it is the dearest streaming service with the worst content. Disney+ and Amazon Video which both offer UHD cost a combined £158 a year, Netflix with 4K is £191.

With that in mind if they want me to pay for my daughter and grand kids to watch stuff at their house on a profile I have created for them then Netflix can jog on.
 
Netflix needs to look around and take stock really, it is the dearest streaming service with the worst content. Disney+ and Amazon Video which both offer UHD cost a combined £158 a year, Netflix with 4K is £191.

With that in mind if they want me to pay for my daughter and grand kids to watch stuff at their house on a profile I have created for them then Netflix can jog on.
I also pay for the top package in the UK, but I share this with my direct family, mum, sister, in-laws and grandparents.
 
If you look at other models it appears that Netflix is going to regulate themselves right out of business. End users aren't going to tolerate it and will dump them, especially when you consider how much free stuff is out their on streaming devices ..... Netflix stock holders need to clamp down on management and vote the bums out .....
 
This seems more like it would bring in less money rather than more. Now my mom could add me and my brothers and sisters to her account and pay a little extra and our households wouldn't pay anything. My mom already gives us all Netflix for Christmas and now she could do it for less.
 
IMO, Netflix has far more content than any of its subscribers. Perhaps the only two that can compete with the amount of content that Netflix has in its library are Amazon Prime and Apple TV. The others' content libraries are pale in comparison, IMO.
What are you talking about? HBO Max has the entire Warner Brothers catalog, which is massive. The only WB content not on HBO Max is content that was already under someone else (like Amazon), and I highly doubt that such content will remain off HBO Max once the agreement is up.

And then there is Disney+ and all the content Disney owns, which could or could not include Hulu depending on how you want to slice it.

Apple TV probably has one of the smallest catalogs - though, its very high quality all around.
 
It's not 'cuz the sharing that causes their revenue going down. It's cuz their 'woke' that chases people away from their service.
 
The problem is that these features were designed for accounts to be shared under a single roof, not with relatives or friends halfway across the country.

No, I don't think they were "designed" that way. They were marketed that way, but as is common with technology, how it's marketed doesn't necessarily mean that's how it will work in the real world.

Personally, what's the difference if people are in the same home or in hotel rooms across the country? You're paying for access to a service. That's all that should matter. If the plan allows for 4 concurrent users, then who cares if I give that to 3 of my friends to use?
 
Some people do live in two houses - I gave one to my partners daughter - struggling with mortgage and all that . Another to a niece - she like many young people watch on a phone ( so how to tell )
So cast from phone .
Many parents give to kids at Uni . College
I watch so little I don't use a VPN - plus if I wanted something so badly I know how to pirate - Impossible to go after pirates in NZ - as cost the companies too much money - plus 3 warnings .
But if Netflex really cared - it could allow respect outside country viewing with some hoops to jump- but those customers are paying .
I imagine they will target those with 4 active streams in diff locations use a lot .

Or maybe it's just an honesty system why not - sure to grab some extra money - lots of rich parents ain't going to quibble about $3 for their child in another town

I have 2 homes and it is common for me to be at one location and my wife at another. If I am forced to have 2 subs, then I'll have none.

The problem with viewing outside your country is that copyright laws could be very different in that country and the person getting paid for the copyright could be different, so you would be paying the wrong person for content. Now, I think that's messed up, but it is what it is. I'm more concerned with viewing within a single geography where there are no differences in copyright holders, eg within a single country.

Casting from a phone doesn't always work. Some content is prohibited, like sports content in the US. And the problem with paying $3 for a kid in another town is that it's $3 for Netflix, 3 for Hulu, 3 for Disney and so on. It begins to add up and Netflix is already one of the higher cost streaming services.
 
I dumped Netflix after the "cuties" debacle. I'm more interested in the criminal indictments brought against Netflix right now over "cuties".
 
Back