[thaumasiotes]

> They published some shareholder statement years back saying "The quality of the programming does not seem to correlate with how much most users consume".

That's not particularly informative, though. It could be true right now. "Users" is not a group with a fixed population.

If they drive their content quality into the ground and hemorrhage users as a direct result, it would still be true that the quality of the content was uncorrelated with the amount that users consumed. Instead, quality of the content would correlate with number of users. But the users are always people who are willing to deal with whatever the current content is!

What's weird is that, as a flat-rate subscription service, they're already aware that increasing number of users is good, while increasing the amount of content that users consume is bad.