McCrutchy
Second Unit
To be clear, I am not confused by anything.Persianimmortal said:On the one hand you say that demand is "absolutely artificially inflated" by limited editions (i.e., higher than it should be), then in the very same post you admit that the net increase in terms of items sold is zero, and that all it does is increase the speed with which the company sells the product, and the profit they make. A point I've already made myself, and have explained that this appears to be necessary to make releasing of certain movies on Blu-ray viable. What exactly is wrong with a company reducing their risk exposure by selling a product more quickly and making a profit?
You seem to be confusing net demand with initial demand. Initial demand for limited editions is indeed higher, as people rush to grab a copy before the product sells out. But net demand is the same, it isn't higher because people bought copies more quickly. Ultimately, the same number of copies go to those who wanted to buy the movie, whether directly, or eventually through scalpers and the like.
Then, you once again turn to a common argument which is that somehow, simply because something is limited edition, it causes a lot of people who would otherwise not buy something to buy it. Yet the example you provide proves nothing of the sort. Why did 4,000 people hurry to buy a limited steelbook edition of Rush? Because they wanted the movie, thought the fancy packaging was worth the extra money, knew that if they waited for discounting it might run out, so they bought quickly. Once again, you're confusing the speed of demand with the total amount of demand. In the absence of limited edition marketing for that steelbook, it would probably sell just as many copies, but over a greater period of time.
I'm going to drop this debate as I think we're just going to go round and round in circles unless someone proves that a significant number of people who would otherwise not buy something at any point in time, are somehow now going to buy that same item just because it's labelled "limited edition". And we're not talking about scalpers, who are just middle men. We're talking about end consumers who are supposedly buying movies they don't really want on Blu-ray, just because they're labelled as limited edition, thereby "artificially inflating demand"...? I just don't buy it (unless you make your argument a limited edition ).
You seem to imply that "overall" demand is just as important as initial demand, but this is not the case.
While titles that have "legs" and sell steadily for long periods can be valued, companies want to sell as much as they can, as quickly as they can. So, yes, the "speed" of demand, as you say, is very important.
The use of limited edition branding usually does create an inflated artificial demand for a product, because it is demand that would not be present otherwise. Again, you seem to say that because everyone who buys a copy would/could buy a copy at some point in the future, then demand is somehow the same, and this is what does not make sense. While I will grant you that Title A moving 10,000 units is just as good as Title B moving 10,000 units, if Title A takes ten years, and Title B takes ten months, then Title B is going to get another pressing, double-quick, and Title A will quietly go out-of-print.
If you prefer then, you could think of it as limited edition branding "increasing" the "speed" of demand. But please don't think that overall demand is somehow equal to initial demand. Initial demand is what everyone pays attention to, and is, for better or worse, far more important.
I also can't agree that this branding does not make people buy things they would not otherwise. I might buy a limited edition Blu-ray now, of a title I might loathe in five years, and perhaps would rather I never bought. On the other hand, I might kick myself every time I am reminded of missing out on a limited edition of a movie that went OOP five years ago, and which I did not purchase out of ignorance (tastes can change, after all). The latter scenario has occurred to me dozens of times, and the former has occurred more than I care to admit...