If Netflix Wants to Offer a Less Expensive Service, It Should Test Advertising

Both of Netflix's biggest competitors, Amazon and Hulu, have multiple revenue streams. Netflix should too.

Jan 6, 2014 at 3:00PM

Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) is reportedly testing a downmarket plan. New subscribers that don't need to stream movies on multiple devices at once and don't care about high-definition can save a whopping $1 a month. I guess Netflix is testing to see if $1 off will convince more people to sign up. My guess is that it won't.

The diminutive discount for the severely limited service seems to imply that Netflix can't afford to offer much less, with the cost of content rising with the added bidding power from Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN), Hulu (owned by Walt Disney (NYSE:DIS), Twenty-First Century Fox (NASDAQ:FOXA), and Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA)). If Netflix really wants to accelerate adoption, it needs to diversify its revenue as Amazon and Hulu have done.

How Amazon pays for Prime Instant Video
Amazon Prime subscribers are profitable for Amazon because, on average, they buy more stuff. The additional sales are enough to cover shipping costs, video content rights, and e-book lending rights associated with a Prime subscription, and leave a $78 profit, on average. In other words, the average Amazon Prime subscription fee falls straight down to Amazon's bottom line over the course of the year.

Because Amazon doesn't rely on a single revenue stream, it won't feel pressure to grow Prime subscriptions in order to afford new content and renew old content. As e-commerce expands, Amazon is leading the charge, and it can use that huge revenue stream to support its Instant Video service.

How Hulu pays for content
Hulu has two revenue streams: subscription fees and advertisements. Besides competing with Amazon and Netflix for previous seasons of popular television shows, it also pays a premium for the rights to current season episodes. As Hulu points out in its FAQ, it shows ads so that the service is more affordable. Even though its parent companies make a lot of the content, the subsidiary still has to pay for them.

In 2013, Hulu expects to generate $1 billion in revenue. I estimate the company made slightly less than 40%* of that from subscriptions. The rest was from advertisements.

Hulu is really good at getting people to watch ads. It serves more ads per minute of video and more ads overall than any other website. It's also able to charge a premium for advertising compared to its competition. The Wall Street Journal reported that top-tier video sites charged $15 to $20 per thousand views in 2012. Hulu, however, charges around $35 per thousand impressions, applying a conservative estimate. At that rate, Hulu is bringing in an extra $3 per viewer in profit.

Could Netflix go to advertising?
It will be interesting to see how people respond to Netflix's newest offer. As mentioned, I have my doubts that $1 will really sway people to sign up. If Netflix really wants to move downmarket, which this test seems to imply, it might be better off offering an ad-supported version of the service.

Even if the low-rate subscribers watched less content than the average Netflix subscriber -- say 20 hours -- Netflix could charge $4 per month, show just 4 minutes of ads per hour, and see its average revenue per user, or ARPU, increase***. In other words, Netflix could generate more revenue from its low-end, ad-supported subscribers than it does from its typical $7.99 per month subscribers. 

There are other benefits to advertising besides revenue. Netflix could use ads to reduce churn by pointing its subscribers toward series they might be interested in watching. Its recommendation engine does a very good job of this already, but an ad may give users that extra push, or it may inform them that the content is exclusive to Netflix, which ought to keep them around.

Why is Netflix moving downmarket in the first place?
With subscription rates starting at $7.99 per month, Netflix is already very affordable. I suppose the low-rate test may give some insight into the price elasticity of the service, but Netflix likely can't afford to decrease its rates significantly without diversifying its revenue. Even if the test shows an uptick in subscription rates, it may never see a full-fledged rollout. Investors want Netflix to increase its ARPU, not decrease it.

If we had to buy only one stock in 2014, this would be it
There's a huge difference between a good stock, and a stock that can make you rich. The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for 2014, and it's one of those stocks that could make you rich. You can find out which stock it is in the special free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2014." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.

*Hulu started the year with 3 million subscribers and ended it with 5 million. The mid-point, 4 million, provides annual revenue of $383.5 million. That might be on the high end considering free-trial users and the timing of sign-ups.

**Approximately 1.4 billion ads per month. 16.8 billion ads total. Approximately $600 million in ad revenue ($1 billion-$400 million). ($600 million/16.8 billion ads)*1000 ads  = $35.71

***8 ads per hour. 20 hours per month. $0.035 per ad ($35 CPM). (8 ads/hour)*(20 hours)*($0.035/ad) = $5.60. $5.60+$4 = $9.60 > $7.99

Adam Levy owns shares of Amazon.com and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Amazon.com, Netflix, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool owns shares of Amazon.com, Netflix, and Walt Disney. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information