STEP 1 — Deconstruct the Existing Offer Core product/service A low-cost video-on-demand streaming service providing access to movies, series, or other video content. Primary customer problem Presumably: “I want entertainment without paying as much as Netflix.” That is a consumer problem, not a B2B problem. Promised outcome Likely: Access to entertainment for less money. The outcome is understandable but weakly differentiated. Features → actual benefits Feature Why would the customer care? Ultimate outcome VOD library They can watch content whenever they want Convenient entertainment Low price Reduces monthly expenditure More disposable income On-demand access No fixed broadcast schedule Flexibility Streaming No physical media/downloads required Convenience Multiple devices Watch in different locations Greater usability Potentially niche content Access to content unavailable elsewhere Unique entertainment value The critical problem is obvious: “Cheap Netflix” is not enough. Netflix already has enormous brand recognition, infrastructure, content breadth and habit. If your only meaningful advantage is price, Netflix can beat you on perceived value even if it cannot match you dollar-for-dollar. STEP 2 — The Real Buyer Pain For the stated target, the pain hierarchy looks approximately like this: 1. Financial pain — moderate People don't want another €/$/zł monthly subscription. 2. Subscription fatigue — high The customer may already be paying for Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, HBO/Max, Spotify, YouTube Premium, etc. 3. Content frustration — potentially high The customer may want specific movies/shows that aren't available on their current services. 4. Convenience — moderate They want something simple that works immediately. 5. Emotional pain — moderate Entertainment is discretionary, so the purchase is primarily about enjoyment rather than solving an urgent problem. 6. Opportunity cost — low/moderate Money spent on one streaming service cannot be spent elsewhere. Cost of doing nothing Very low. This is the biggest commercial weakness. If someone doesn't buy your VOD service, nothing particularly bad happens. They can: keep Netflix watch YouTube pirate content use another streaming platform cancel subscriptions simply watch less television Therefore: This is a low-urgency category. That makes premium positioning difficult unless you offer something genuinely unique. STEP 3 — Value Proposition Score Assuming the offer is literally just “cheap VOD service for millennials”: Dimension Score Why Clarity 8/10 Very easy to understand Relevance 6/10 Entertainment is relevant, but not highly painful Differentiation 2/10 “VOD but cheaper” is extremely generic Credibility 5/10 Depends heavily on catalogue/content rights Urgency 2/10 Little reason to buy today Perceived ROI 3/10 Entertainment isn't normally evaluated through ROI Ease of implementation 9/10 Subscription + app = simple Risk reduction 4/10 Depends on trial/cancellation policy Price justification 6/10 Low price helps, but doesn't create strong value Overall: approximately 4.9/10 Not terrible as a product. Weak as an offer. Three biggest weaknesses 1. No meaningful differentiation “Cheaper Netflix” is a pricing strategy, not a durable positioning strategy. 2. Weak urgency There is no major consequence associated with postponing the purchase. 3. Wrong target definition “Millennials” encompasses people with radically different: incomes tastes viewing habits willingness to pay content preferences You don't have a customer segment yet. You have an age cohort. STEP 4 — The Economic Buyer If this is genuinely B2C, the economic buyer is simply the subscriber. But if you insist on making it B2B, the buyer changes dramatically. For example, imagine the service is sold to companies as an employee benefit. Then: User Employees. Influencer HR / People Operations. Champion HR manager who wants a cheap employee perk. Economic buyer HR Director, CFO or company owner. Decision maker Potentially HR leadership or procurement. This completely changes the value proposition. You wouldn't sell: “Thousands of movies for less than Netflix.” You'd sell: “A low-cost entertainment benefit employees actually use, without the cost of traditional corporate perks.” That is much more interesting as B2B. STEP 5 — Reframe the Offer Current positioning Cheap VOD service for millennials. This is essentially a commodity. Buyer-centered positioning If B2C: Affordable entertainment for people tired of paying for multiple streaming subscriptions. Better, but still fairly generic. Strategic positioning A much stronger concept would be: The streaming service built around the content people actually struggle to find elsewhere — at a price that makes it an easy replacement for an unused subscription. Now the competition isn't simply Netflix. You're competing against: subscription waste + content fragmentation. That's strategically more interesting. STEP 6 — Stronger Offer Architecture I would not add random bonuses. Instead: Core offer Low-cost VOD subscription. Value-adding components 1. Curated catalogue Don't attempt to beat Netflix on quantity. Beat it on selection. For example: “500 carefully selected films rather than 50,000 titles you'll never watch.” 2. Distinctive content The strongest differentiator would be: cult cinema independent films older classics European cinema horror documentaries arthouse niche genre content The exact niche depends on available licensing. 3. Transparent catalogue Let customers see what they actually get before subscribing. 4. Monthly cancellation Eliminate commitment anxiety. 5. Free trial Let the catalogue sell itself. Risk reversal Something like: 7-day free trial. No annual contract. Cancel anytime. For a low-priced entertainment product, that's probably more powerful than elaborate guarantees. Time-to-value Extremely fast. Ideally: Sign up → choose something → start watching within 2 minutes. STEP 7 — Differentiation Strategy Here's the important part. I would not compete primarily through: ❌ Technology ❌ “Best quality” ❌ Customer service ❌ Reliability ❌ Generic convenience Netflix is already extremely strong in these areas. I would also be cautious about: ❌ Price Because the cheapest product frequently becomes the least defensible product. Best strategic differentiation: Specialization + content uniqueness + convenience + price. The positioning becomes: “The streaming service for people who want [specific type of content] without paying for another huge general-purpose catalogue.” That gives you a reason to exist. STEP 8 — Price-to-Value Analysis You haven't provided an actual price, so I would not recommend changing it yet. What matters first is the customer's reference point. They are likely comparing you against: Netflix → other streaming services → YouTube → piracy → doing nothing. This is important because “cheap” doesn't automatically mean “good value.” Imagine: Netflix: €10 Your service: €4 The customer doesn't automatically think: “€4 is fantastic.” They may think: “Netflix has 10× more content. Why would I bother?” So the question isn't: How cheap can we make it? It's: What can we provide that makes €4–€7 feel disproportionately valuable? Pricing should probably be low-friction rather than ultra-low. Potential structure: Basic €4–5/month Premium €7–9/month Annual 10–20% effective discount But this is only a hypothesis until we know: content licensing costs catalogue size expected watch hours acquisition cost churn gross margin Netflix's relevant local price willingness to pay STEP 9 — Three Positioning Angles OPTION A — ROI / Financial Ideal buyer Extremely price-conscious consumers. Core message Stop paying €10–15 for streaming you barely use. Main promise Get useful entertainment access for substantially less. Why it could work Immediately understandable. Weakness Very easy to copy. Best sales context Performance advertising and price-sensitive acquisition. Strength: 6/10 OPTION B — Pain / Problem Ideal buyer People frustrated by streaming fragmentation. Core message Tired of paying for five streaming services just to find one thing worth watching? Main promise One inexpensive service focused on content you actually want to watch. Why it could work It attacks subscription fatigue, rather than simply attacking Netflix's price. Weakness Requires genuinely good curation/content. Best sales context Social media, creator marketing, direct-response advertising. Strength: 8/10 OPTION C — Strategic / Premium Ideal buyer A niche audience with strong content preferences. Core message A curated streaming library for people who have outgrown algorithm-driven mainstream entertainment. Main promise Discovery of distinctive content unavailable or difficult to find on mainstream platforms. Why it could work You stop competing directly with Netflix. Weakness The niche must be genuinely passionate. Best sales context Community-led growth, partnerships, specialist media, influencers. Strength: 9/10 — IF the catalogue supports it. STEP 10 — Recommended Final Offer Assuming you can build a genuinely distinctive catalogue, I'd position it approximately like this: ONE-SENTENCE VALUE PROPOSITION A low-cost streaming service for viewers who are tired of paying for mainstream platforms and want a carefully curated library of [specific content niche] without another expensive subscription. WHO IT IS FOR Millennial viewers who already use streaming services but feel that mainstream platforms are increasingly expensive, fragmented, and full of content they have no interest in watching. PROBLEM IT SOLVES Customers are paying for large streaming libraries while repeatedly struggling to find the specific movies, series, genres, or specialist content they actually want to watch. DESIRED OUTCOME Give customers an affordable streaming subscription that consistently provides something worth watching, without requiring them to maintain several expensive services simultaneously. WHAT THE CUSTOMER GETS Access to a focused VOD catalogue Curated recommendations rather than relying exclusively on generic algorithms Distinctive content unavailable or difficult to find on mainstream competitors Simple multi-device streaming Low monthly pricing No long-term commitment Free trial before payment Easy cancellation WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT The service does not attempt to beat Netflix by having more content. It wins by being more focused. Instead of selling "thousands of movies," the offer sells "fewer titles you are actually interested in watching." The competitive advantage therefore comes from content specialization, curation, and low-friction pricing rather than attempting to replicate Netflix's scale. WHY IT IS WORTH THE PRICE The customer is not paying for access to another enormous catalogue. They are paying for a cheaper way to consistently discover and watch content they actually value. If the service replaces even one underused streaming subscription, its perceived economic value becomes substantially stronger. RISK REVERSAL Start with a free trial, require no annual commitment, make cancellation immediate and transparent, and clearly display the available catalogue before purchase. CALL TO ACTION Start watching free. Explore the catalogue, find something you actually want to watch, and decide whether the subscription is worth keeping. STEP 11 — Stress Test Now let's attack it. “Why wouldn't I just use Netflix?” Very strong objection. Answer: “Because we're not trying to be Netflix.” The product needs a catalogue Netflix doesn't serve particularly well. Without that, there is no reason to switch. “It's just another subscription.” Also a major objection. Your response needs to be: “Replace, don't add.” The strongest customer proposition isn't: “Add our €5 subscription.” It's: “Replace the €10 subscription you barely use.” That dramatically changes the perceived cost. “Netflix has more content.” Correct. Don't fight this. Trying to argue otherwise would destroy credibility. Instead: “You don't need 20,000 things to watch. You need something you actually want to watch tonight.” That's a much stronger argument. “Why should I trust the catalogue?” This is where proof becomes critical. You need: catalogue previews recognizable titles genre/category breakdowns reviews customer watch statistics testimonials sample recommendations Potentially even: “See everything available before subscribing.” That removes uncertainty. “I'll think about it.” That's particularly dangerous because entertainment has low urgency. The solution isn't fake scarcity. Instead, reduce friction: Free trial + no contract + immediate access. The buyer doesn't have to make a significant decision. STEP 12 — Final Strategic Verdict OFFER STRENGTH: 4/10 currently The underlying product isn't necessarily bad. The commercial proposition is weak because: “Cheap VOD for millennials” isn't a defensible reason to buy. BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY Own a specific content niche rather than competing with Netflix on catalogue size. BIGGEST WEAKNESS The product currently has no demonstrated unique reason to exist. Cheapness alone is insufficient. MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE Change the question from: “How can we make a cheaper Netflix?” to: “What can viewers get from us that Netflix isn't particularly good at providing?” That question determines whether the business has a future. BEST POSITIONING ANGLE Specialized / curated streaming + subscription fatigue reduction. Something along the lines of: “Stop paying for huge streaming libraries. Pay for the stuff you actually want to watch.” SHOULD THE PRICE CHANGE? Unknown. Don't lower it merely because Netflix is larger. First establish willingness to pay and unit economics. SHOULD THE PRODUCT CHANGE? Probably yes. Not necessarily technologically. The content strategy and positioning need to change if the current product is simply a cheaper general-purpose VOD service. SHOULD THE TARGET CUSTOMER CHANGE? Absolutely. “Millennials” is too broad. A much stronger target would be something like: Millennial horror fans who are frustrated by mainstream streaming catalogues. Or: Millennial fans of cult/independent cinema who want a curated alternative to mainstream streaming. Or: Millennial European-film enthusiasts who struggle to find European cinema on mainstream platforms. The narrower the initial audience, the easier it becomes to create a compelling reason to subscribe. FINAL RECOMMENDATION Do not build “cheap Netflix.” Netflix has an enormous structural advantage in that game. Build the Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to be: narrower, more opinionated, more curated, and specifically designed for an audience whose tastes aren't adequately served by mainstream platforms. The most valuable transformation isn't: “Expensive VOD → cheaper VOD.” It's: “Generic streaming catalogue → highly specific entertainment solution.” And there's an important B2B lesson here: if you genuinely need this to be a B2B offer, the current target is wrong altogether. You would need to sell the service to companies as an employee benefit, hospitality amenity, waiting-room entertainment solution, etc., with an economic buyer who has an actual business reason to purchase it.