Another great article in line with my previous points...



http://strom.wordpress.com/2011/01/0...re-being-dumb/

my point is it's their product they can sell it however they want. if it's a failed strategy the market will correct them. other businesses will learn and adapt.

Agreed, they will fail in a free market and true capitalism. But not when they are lobbying hard to get the government involved.

like any of these fucks that torrent shit all day anyway give a shit about brand loyalty who do they think they are kidding.

where is the government intervention in this case?

you are moving the goal posts.

A brilliantly written PR quote from their PR. Yeah that's what I'll take as fact ha.

Regardless, that's a bullshit idea. But as I stated before who the fuck wants to OWN a movie that you watch 1 maybe 2 times then collects dust, or you sell it to a video exchange store. Or you could give it away to a friend (BUT WAIT, That's piracy and illegal!)

It's the same things with record labels. Who wants to own a $15 CD with 11 shitty songs and 1 good song? When you can buy songs individually on iTunes or other online music stores.

Where? The industry lobbying to get SOPA and other legislation through. And the threats from hollywood to cut their contributions to government officials who dont agree with them.

is the government getting involved in this case? you argument is invalid.

ask the consumers who make dvd sales 6X the number of digital sales.

People have been doing this for 20+ years, while rental stores were still readily available. Do people suddenly not want to own movies, in any form?

This is changing as we speak.

I do own movies and shows in digital form from service providers. But just because people have been doing this for 20+ years doesnt mean consumer behavior isn't changing.

Making your customers wait to rent rather than own and limiting their options for purchase just doesn't look good and is not a way to create a long term positive relationship with consumers, we can already see that happening.

consumer loyalty wasn't harmed over the last 20-30 years of this. but magically now it will for some reason.

it has been so fatally damaged the poor consumer will have no choice to torrent movies. sad.

Megaupload had vast libraries of all the latest movies, tv shows, software, games, music, porn, etc and could only muster up $30 million a year. That is not free market or capitalism. That would barely finance one single movie. The only way to make profit in that market is to steal. And long-term in that market only crap would be produced.

People who don't like what Hollywood offers, should vote with their wallet. It doesn't give someone else the right to undercut their investments and profit off it themselves at a grossly unsustainable price-point. Of course the government gets involved when that happens.

think they made more than that.

The news sites all quoted $150 million over 5 years, but I guess no one knows for sure. Even that amount, though is low considering the investments that go into these projects.

What the hell? It's belongs to them. It's their movie.

They aren't fucking a "customer". Until a person actually buys a ticket and/or the dvd and/or rents it...they are a potential customer at best.

I'm not sure that this is going to work out the way they want it to. But it's not "screwing" or "fucking" any so-called "customers". You've read too many gideongallery posts and it's started to rub off on you a bit. lol :)

I found it interesting that with all of the replies, noone mentioned this part:

Hmm, so Blockbuster could just go buy a few copies at Walmart and have them for rent immediately. It would cost them a few dollars more, so they would probably charge more for renting these new releases.

After netflix split the costs between online and dvds, my account went to online. I never really liked the dvd option because the discs were fucked up half the time. The streaming services suck because they don't show any of the newer movies that are popular.Most of the shit you find is unheard of, tv shows I have seen, or from the 90s. The new movies that were straight to dvd type of stuff. That being said, it doesn't really affect me if they choose to prolong rentals :1orglaugh:Oh crap.

Here are some examples.

The reason you dont see the latest movies is because the studios' decision to do the 56-day retail only periods. It's not the streaming service that's at fault here.

The whole thing just makes the movie studios pathetic and petty.


Basically trying to funnel people into brick and mortar retail stores to purchase discs which is a thing of the past. And will go the way of bookstores and CD stores. Welcome to the future. I can't wait until discs of any kind are completely obsolete.

Why dont they have a premium option where you have to pay a higher rental price to rent the new releases? Instead of inconveniencing customers, and cock-blocking potential customers who like to use new technology methods to get their media.

If someone has purchased or rented from a certain movie studio, I'd consider that person our customer, which is a lot of people. Not roping off groups of people because they aren't a customer, treat everyone as a customer, gain more actual customers.

It's not really that simple, and it sort of is the "fault" of the streaming services. There are now at least half a dozen companies that want the Internet streaming rights to those movies and they are all in the middle of bidding wars, plus of course they all want exclusive rights.

Wal-Mart, Hulu, Netflix, Time Warner, Comcast... they all want the exclusive rights and it's going to be a battle. The studios are going to hold out and wait for the highest bid. Why wouldn't they?

Good job I didn't put the word "pay" in there too...that'd be 3 strikes in one post lol

Thats because there's a market for streaming services, it's what consumers want, people hardly use DVD players, and less and less every day. For the industry to hold on to that idea is just ridiculous. Trying to still cater to people who go by a DVD at Target thats not where things are still headed.

It's like if a band released an album, but you have to wait 56-days before you can buy it online, because we want to funnel people to buy the hardcopy CD at a brick and mortar retail store. How does that make ANY sense?

can't compare music and movies. too many different variables.

You can compare the two in gross. However, the margins on online digital sales are higher.

:thumbsup

"Improve the value of ownership?" What does that even mean? The only value I can think of is that you'd be able to brag to your friends that you have a newly released DVD which can't be rented yet... then your friend points out he got it via torrent 3 days ago.

How is it different, it's limiting the release of a product to a large growing market. It's the same general idea.

is that really true? stats?

Why don't you tell us again how we are a bunch of liars and morons for believing Incredible was banging cards?

Totally. "Hey guys check this out, I feel special because I get to own this DVD for 56 days before it's available through other means." :1orglaugh

Google spent about 4x as much lobbying to defeat SOPA.

Damn..those pesky lobbyists work for the tech companies you lick the boots of too!

Sucks to not be able to play the "lobbyists!" card doesn't it?

you mean solo converts?

That is pretty damn lazy. How hard is it to get up off a couch and change a dvd every 1 to 3 hours? Actually who the hell watches 3 + episodes in one sitting?

I buy dvds every now and then if they are cheap.

That wasn't the point of the comment. Also, the government is supposed to protect the free market, capitalism... not the other way around against it. So lobbying for that side, is not an issue.

I agree. The idea of owning a DVD is a pretty antiquated concept. It's for collectors, and suckers.

One thing that sucks about non-ownership though...Redbox uses the "non-special feature" version of the disc, so if you like looking at extras you're shit out of luck. There's no extras with an online rental either.

God forbid someone might have to spend more than he thinks is a fair price for temporary entertainment that is an escape from real life. DO SOMETHING ELSE THEN!

.

It's not about paying a "fair price" or people not wanting to pay - we've already laid that to rest about 8 times. I'd be more than happy to pay more than a regular rental price for a new release. But creating this 56-day retail period to funnel people to retail stores is absolutely moronic and is the epitome of what is wrong with Hollywood's strategies.

It's about convenience to the market and your customers. And providing the content where the consumers actually want it, not at a Walmart or Target.

feel free to start your own movie production company and use what you see as a weakness in the current release model to your advantage. then let the market decide whether your theory is right or wrong.

As I look at it, I see it more as a strategy to get more people to go to the theaters.
If all the kids knew that they couldn't rent the next "Twilight" movie for 2 months after it's theatrical release...they are more likely to go to the theater and see it.

I doubt very seriously this has anything to do with DVD sales. It's simply a way to get box office receipts up at the theaters.

This 56-day period is after the movie is out of theaters and being released on DVD, then 56-days until it's available for rental through popular services like Netflix. The average from theater-to-DVD release time is about 4 months now I believe. But this isn't the issue. I think most people are happy with movies not being available to own/rent while they are in theaters.

Also, I think theaters are great will always be around, it's a more social experience for people.

Looks like the cost of thieving just went up for Warner Brother's movies.

Exactly.

So if I'm a teen kid and I want to be in the "in" crowd at school conversing about the newest "Twilight" movie...I'm going to have to go see it at the theater. Otherwise I will not be able to experience what everyone else is for 2 months.

The studios know that most people don't buy a lot of movies on DVD. So by doing it that way they are creating more of a "must see" at the theater.

For the last few years they have went the other way and put the movies out for rent in a couple of weeks. Been great for rental revenue I'm sure.

Now they want to take it back the other way.

Not a big deal and nobody is getting "screwed". When I was a kid a movie came out at the theater. There was NO cable t.v. or HBO or Blockbuster or NetFlix or any of that shit.

It would be over a YEAR later before you could see that movie on network television. And then it was a big deal. Anybody remember these words preceding a movie on network t.v. : "And now...the network television premiere of..."

Nobody is getting "screwed". They are simply trying to figure out the way to release a movie to different mediums and outlets that will optimize the profits.

If they NEVER release a movie except at the movie theater...the public still didn't get "screwed". They can just go see the damn movie in the theater the way it is designed to be seen. :)

the only rational thing to do is to stop purchasing warner bros products. give your money to their competitors.

A few years ago I had a digital copy of the last star wars flick 1 week before it was released. I bought it while I was out of the country in the mid east.. Piracy is here to stay so just deal with it. Find ways to work around it. The genie is out of the bottle.

Yes whatever...they were all working together. Which he denied as well ofcourse.

That little piece of arrogant shit. You should look up some of those old threads. That little punk gave everyone shit while his boss was banging cards left and right.

they are doing it to so more people download it illegal.. and then they can go back to congress with a stronger version of sopa..

Every individual (consumer) is different and has different preferences. I prefer to watch tv series in a kind of marathon.

And like I said, it's not just about changing the discs. It's also about having to change the settings every time. About having to sit through an annoying video of a guy telling me not to steal (" hey, I just bought the damn thing, why the hell are you telling me?!") etc It's about convenience.

When I buy a whole season through my cable provider, I actually pay more than I would if I bought the DVD. The whole point here is that I as a consumer already pay more for something that I like (convenience). If Warner makes me wait longer before I can buy the type of product that I am willing to pay for (: being able to rent the content through my cable provider), I do end up doing something else. Like reading a book or watching something else.

Yes, Warner owns their content. But I as a consumer, own my money. They decide how to release their products. I decide how and when I spend my money. I don't go to theaters and I don't like DVDs. Will I suddenly start going to theaters and start buying loads of DVDs simply because Warner makes me wait x number of months before I can buy their product through a sales channel that I prefer to use? No, during those x months, I spend my money on other products (movies and series I can rent through my cable provider) or I do something else.