Film Buffs Say Netflix Kept Them
In The Dark
By Claire Hoffman, Times Staff Writer
Hell hath no fury like a movie junkie scorned.
That's what Netflix discovered when its most devoted "heavy
users" found that the movie rental service had an undisclosed
policy during shortages of shipping films faster to those customers
who rent the least.
In a class-action lawsuit filed against the nation's largest
online DVD rental company in September 2004, the company was
accused of false advertising for its claims of "unlimited
rentals" and "one-day deliveries."
When it agreed to a settlement due to be finalized this month,
Netflix denied any wrongdoing but conceded that it had a policy
that sometimes allocated movies more quickly to those who rented
less frequently.
That policy — called "throttling" by some
critics — has unleashed a backlash as a vocal group of
disgruntled users have attacked the terms of the settlement
agreement, which would give Netflix customers the choice of
one month of free rentals or an upgrade in their service plan.
Critics say that instead of punishing Netflix, the agreement
helps the company promote its service.
Just last month, the Federal Trade Commission joined several
consumer groups in filing amicus briefs in the suit, decrying
the settlement as potentially costly to customers.
Steve Swasey, a spokesman for the Los Gatos, Calif.-based
company, denied critics' claims that the practice is meant
to save Netflix shipping costs by coddling customers who don't
fully make use of their subscriptions. The most popular plan
is $17.99 a month to rent three movies at a time, with no late
fees.
Swasey said, "100%-guaranteed customer exhilaration is
very difficult for any high-volume consumer company.
"Netflix made the decision that if we had a shortage
of DVDs that we would give them to lighter users. We are giving
it to folks who have less alternatives for viewing."
Netflix began acknowledging the policy in an online posting
of its terms of use after the suit was filed. But even before
the company's explication of its shipping system, film nerds
everywhere had scrambled to figure out why they weren't getting
prompt delivery of their movies.
For Mike Muegel, "Sweet Home Alabama" was the movie
that made him start to feel the hurt.
Muegel, a freelance software engineer in Dallas, loves watching
movies through Netflix. Such was his passion that for a while
he watched about 20 movies a month. But in early 2003, he requested
the Reese Witherspoon romantic comedy and was told he would
have a "very long wait."
Sensing trouble, Muegel set up test accounts in the names
of his mom and his wife and plugged in the same movie. Suddenly,
recalled Muegel, "Bingo … 'Sweet Home Alabama'
was mine."
Muegel then spent 50 hours building a software program that
analyzed the activities of test accounts. He published his
findings on his website http://www.dvd-rent-test.dreamhost.com
. Yet even after discovering what he calls the "fishy" company
policy, Muegel says he still loves the rental service.
"I don't want them to go out of business," he said.
He just wants to be treated fairly, Muegel said.
That same desire led Frank Chavez to become the lead plaintiff
in the class-action suit, he said. Chavez, a San Francisco
accountant, believed that he wasn't getting his movies — usually
about 10 a month — fast enough. "Netflix wasn't
providing what it promised," said Adam Gutride, Chavez's
lawyer. "People in general want there to be truth in advertising.
They want to know that they are going to get what they are
promised."
Netflix prides itself on outstanding customer service, and
87% of new members join after a personal recommendation.
But the FTC says the proposed settlement could cost customers
money if they opt to upgrade their service plans. Carol J.
Jennings, an attorney in the enforcement division for the Bureau
of Consumer Protection for the FTC, said because such upgrades
would be free for only one month and then charged at full price,
Netflix users could unwittingly pay more.
"They became automatically enrolled unless they did something
affirmative to end it," Jennings said. "We concluded
it could end up causing more harm than benefit."
Netflix maintains that only a "vocal minority" has
been affected by the delivery policy, and it pointed to its
performance as proof. For 2006, the company predicts profit
of $29 million on revenue of $960 million. More than 4.2 million
customers had subscribed by the end of last year, Swasey said.
Netflix's churn, or number of customers who cancel each month,
is at the lowest level ever — about 4%.
Joe McClellan, a graduate student studying Buddhism at Rice
University, says there's no way he's canceling even though
as a heavy Netflix user he has experienced long delays.
Rice says he uses Netflix to rent the "crazy experimental
super-violent" Japanese movies he loves — usually
12 to 15 of them a month. Sometimes he waits for weeks for
a particular title. But he doesn't mind, he says.
"I'm not picky because I still have 500 movies in my
queue," McClellan said.
Link to article
|