New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NY Times Article on DVDs

post #1 of 28
6/15/06 at 2:35pm
Thread Starter 
The article is entitled "As DVD Sales Slow, Hollywood Hunts for a New Cash Cow":

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/te...gy/13disc.html

It claims that since the growth in DVD sales is down to only 2% this year, Hollywood needs something new to bring in more revenue.

Having billions of dollars in revenue apparently isn't enough to make these people happy -- they want something with double-digit annual growth! So now DVDs are "yesterday's technology" as far as they're concerned.

But lovers of classic movies should get a big laugh out of one line in this article. It quotes "analysts," and only proves that analysts can be clueless at times. Here it is:

" ... With most movies ... now on DVD, studios are running out of new material to throw at consumers, analysts say."

Well, if you're only interested in movies from the past few years, I guess it's true. But if you think movies made prior to, say, 1990 matter at all, trust me that MOST movies are NOT on DVD. In fact, for movies made from 1930-65, I'd say less than 10% of them are.
Reply
post #2 of 28
6/15/06 at 2:59pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

The really funny thing is that before DVD came out, they didn't think it would do nearly as well as it did. I'm still trying to do my part to keep them in business, but I haven't been buying as many discs lately for the simple fact that I've already got several hundred that I haven't even watched ONCE yet, and if I keep buying them at the same rate I'll have even more unwatched discs plus no place to keep them!
Reply
post #3 of 28
6/15/06 at 3:33pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Having billions of dollars in revenue apparently isn't enough to make these people happy -- they want something with double-digit annual growth!
Yes. All business look for double-digit growth, not just Hollywood. And if they had been happy with their billions of dollars in revenue ten years ago, we wouldn't have DVDs today. (Applied properly, greed is good.)
Reply
post #4 of 28
6/15/06 at 5:40pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

The studios are just spoiled. They got a taste of huge DVD revenues from a few years ago, and now can't seem to take a drop in sales.
Did they expect the DVD craze to last forever?

They should count their blessings that VHS was replaced by a format that sold so well and continues to do well even if it doesnt compare to a few years ago.
Reply
post #5 of 28
6/15/06 at 8:26pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Studios are going to have to learn to market older films. You are probably never going to see the type of revenue dvd brought in. I just don't see average consumers rushing out to buy hi-def copies of movies the way they bought dvds.
Reply
post #6 of 28
6/15/06 at 9:06pm
Thread Starter 

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Colella
The studios are just spoiled. They got a taste of huge DVD revenues from a few years ago, and now can't seem to take a drop in sales.


But that's my point -- there hasn't been a drop in sales at all. In fact, this year is running 2% AHEAD of last year.

They're disgusted because the GROWTH isn't what it used to be.

Growth in sales isn't enough for them -- it has to be BIG growth. And although the case can be made that greed is good, saying a technology is dying because it isn't growing as rapidly as it used to strikes me as somewhat paradoxical. Why say "DVDs are dying" when sales are still increasing?!
Reply
post #7 of 28
6/15/06 at 9:27pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Colella
The studios are just spoiled. They got a taste of huge DVD revenues from a few years ago, and now can't seem to take a drop in sales.
Did they expect the DVD craze to last forever?

They should count their blessings that VHS was replaced by a format that sold so well and continues to do well even if it doesnt compare to a few years ago.


Well said.
Reply
post #8 of 28
6/16/06 at 8:08am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Growth in sales isn't enough for them -- it has to be BIG growth. And although the case can be made that greed is good, saying a technology is dying because it isn't growing as rapidly as it used to strikes me as somewhat paradoxical.

Especially when the BIG growth was fueled by it being a NEW technology, and it's slowing because it's become an old, established technology. Just about everyone who wants a DVD player has one now, so there aren't many new consumers entering the market. The only way for growth to go back up is for people to be able to afford more DVDs.
Reply
post #9 of 28
6/16/06 at 8:34am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

I think Hollywood should just call it a day and close up shop. They've made enough money.
Reply
post #10 of 28
6/16/06 at 11:09am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Speaking for myself, my DVD purchases have fallen way off this year because most of my "must-haves" are already in my collection. Most studios have pretty much burned through their "A-list" catalog releases.
Reply
post #11 of 28
6/16/06 at 11:19am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Remember the days when DVDs were new and Internet retailers were offering steep discounts?

I bought most DVDs in 1998-2000 for $5-10 each SHIPPED.

Those days are of course long over, and with market saturation, of course the growth in the DVD market is slowing.
Reply
post #12 of 28
6/16/06 at 1:56pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey C.
Speaking for myself, my DVD purchases have fallen way off this year because most of my "must-haves" are already in my collection. Most studios have pretty much burned through their "A-list" catalog releases.

I'm in the same boat, and I'd like to reduce my collection to 200 or so.

And I have no interest in upgrading to HiDef.

I've been through too many upgrades at the hands of the entertainment and computer industry.

The only product I would be interested in is DVD programs on demand. For example, someone who could package MY favorite music videos, or favorite episodes of a TV program, on a disk, at a fair price, could pry more money from me.
Reply
post #13 of 28
6/16/06 at 2:05pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
Having billions of dollars in revenue apparently isn't enough to make these people happy --

Hmm. Boys and girls, can you say, "O-i-l c-o-m-p-a-n-i-e-s"?
To say nothing of nearly every corporation in America owned by stockholders.
Reply
post #14 of 28
6/16/06 at 2:35pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Atkins
Remember the days when DVDs were new and Internet retailers were offering steep discounts?

I bought most DVDs in 1998-2000 for $5-10 each SHIPPED.

Those days are of course long over, and with market saturation, of course the growth in the DVD market is slowing.

Believe me, I remember those days well. However, a large part of my collection consists of the $5.50, $4.88, and $3.88 movies that Wal-Mart has been selling the past few years. I remember 3 DVDs for $1 and the like, but every few weeks there's a new batch of inexpensively priced movies at Wally World. I suspect they're one of the 200-pound gorillas in this room now.
Reply
post #15 of 28
6/17/06 at 10:26am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
Well, if you're only interested in movies from the past few years, I guess it's true. But if you think movies made prior to, say, 1990 matter at all, trust me that MOST movies are NOT on DVD.

As far as I'm concerned, almost all movies that matter were made looong before 1990...
Reply
post #16 of 28
6/17/06 at 10:49am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

My purchases have slowed over the last year or two. We buy a fraction of what we were buying as recently as 2003-2004. Now we have the bulk of what we want. My purchases are more selective. Instead of making an impulse buy to add some variety and choice to my collection, I end up thinking about how many I already have and how long I go between viewing some of them because of the sheer number. I have so many TV shows, I no longer will buy something not dedicated to a Must Have list.

The studios are kidding themselves if they think there might be additional huge growth in something like HD DVD. Many people consider their DVDs "good enough" and among even the more techy folks, re-purchasing entire collections owned on DVD isn't going to happen. I might replace a few things on HD or BR, but that would be a very small number indeed.
Reply
post #17 of 28
6/17/06 at 11:31am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

What the studios also have to understand is that many consumers (like me) are weighing further investment in their DVD collection v. new investment in HD-DVD technology. I can't afford to continue to buy DVDs like I did a few years ago if: a) the technology is only going to be fully supported for a little while longer, and; b) I may want to invest in the new technology anyway.
Reply
post #18 of 28
6/17/06 at 7:49pm
Thread Starter 

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars Vermundsberget
As far as I'm concerned, almost all movies that matter were made looong before 1990...

I just wanted to respond to this with, "I couldn't agree with you more!" In fact, I'd push it back to 1980 at least.
Reply
post #19 of 28
6/18/06 at 10:41am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I just wanted to respond to this with, "I couldn't agree with you more!" In fact, I'd push it back to 1980 at least.

And so could I.

If I don't include some Disney animation from recent years, I'd say only about 3% of the movies in my DVD collection are from 1980 and later.
Reply
post #20 of 28
6/18/06 at 12:13pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
I bought most DVDs in 1998-2000 for $5-10 each SHIPPED.

Those days are of course long over
Hmm, I just bought 4 DVDs for an average price of about 7 bucks SHIPPED, so I disagree.
Reply
post #21 of 28
6/18/06 at 12:27pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

I am still buying DVD's, but the ones I have watched and don't want to keep and been putting on eBay don't get much of a price now. I also sold a DVD player recently that sold lower than I expected. I think simply supply and demand is working. The suppy of DVD's exceded demand. Demand is probably down, but still strong with an over supply. Prices have gotten pretty soft for new and used.

Chris
Reply
post #22 of 28
6/19/06 at 8:47pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Only like movies pre 1990 or 1980??!! Do you take your Gertitol BEFORE or AFTER watching a movie? Do you take your teeth out to eat your popcorn while watching? LOL. JUST KIDDING!!!

Most of my collection is old as well. The Studio era was the best and the 1970s.
I do not plan on upgrading for sometime [2 to 4 years]. Even when I do I'll still keep my collection. I'll say it this way - - - -> How much of an improvement will HD dvd do to a film like Grand Hotel [1932], Bringing Up Baby 193?], or even The French Connection [shot grainy/documetery stle in 1971]?

Even Saving Private Ryqan has been dirtied to an extent in some areas and given a documentery look . How much good can films made in the 30s 40s or even 50s look? Not noticeble to me at least. I saw Citizen Kane on a movie screen and I have the DVD. Not much difference to my eyes. I'm not a pro at spotting glitches but "some little bit" of res improvement only gets a "who really cares" from me! Dvd will grow just not like a rocket.

Everything about Hollywood is "blockbuster" mentallity. Scared execs trying to keep the job long enough and good enough to get a production deal. What ex movie studio chief has not become a producer?! LOL.
Reply
post #23 of 28
6/20/06 at 1:20am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Matich
Only like movies pre 1990 or 1980??!! Do you take your Gertitol BEFORE or AFTER watching a movie? Do you take your teeth out to eat your popcorn while watching? LOL. JUST KIDDING!!!

Most of my collection is old as well. The Studio era was the best and the 1970s.
I do not plan on upgrading for sometime [2 to 4 years]. Even when I do I'll still keep my collection. I'll say it this way - - - -> How much of an improvement will HD dvd do to a film like Grand Hotel [1932], Bringing Up Baby 193?], or even The French Connection [shot grainy/documetery stle in 1971]?

It is entirely an individual preference and I believe DVD is good enough for most people. Some real improvement can be realized with HDTV when properly done, even for the old titles and deliberately grainy or artistic films.

Chris
Reply
post #24 of 28
6/20/06 at 3:05am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

..
Reply
post #25 of 28
6/20/06 at 4:50pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Matich
Only like movies pre 1990 or 1980??!! Do you take your Gertitol BEFORE or AFTER watching a movie? Do you take your teeth out to eat your popcorn while watching? LOL. JUST KIDDING!!!

I'm not particularly old (I'm 32) - I just prefer movies that are older than myself. I'm sure there are quite a few good ones from later years, bit sticking to classics is a policy that has worked very well for me.
Reply
post #26 of 28
6/21/06 at 5:40pm

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

Classic DVD collectors don't generally rent --- they buy. Amazon regularly indicates vintage titles among their top sellers.

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/
Reply
post #27 of 28
6/22/06 at 12:47am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

HOW ABOUT MAKING US BUY THE SAME DVDS, OVER AND OVER, BECAUSE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EDITION HAS ARRIVED !!!!!!!!!!!THE SPECIAL EDITION, THE ULTIMATE EDITION and on and on ..........
I WILL NOT BUY HD DVDS, I AM DONE !!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
post #28 of 28
6/24/06 at 10:34am

Re: NY Times Article on DVDs

For the entertainment industry the glass will forever be half empty. They fight every new technolgy tooth & nail. Then when they accidentally make money off it, it's not enough.

I think the 2nd post here is very telling, and not at all unusual. People suddenly realized that DVD's are not collectors items, that the next 'insert-movie-catchphrase edition' is always forthcoming. So why buy something you're not interested in watching right away when there will be a better edition out by the time you are? Usually for me though, by the time that better edition comes out I've either already seen the movie or lost interest.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD