Hats Off to The Digital Bits. (1 Viewer)

[Dave Scarpa]

For refusing to review anymore Universal Products until they change their Policy on not sending out review copies of their Disks ala Back to the Future. They also chastised them for selling Knowingly defective Disks.

Good Job Bill Hunt

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Oops I Meant Digital Bits.... Sorry Bill

But good job Anyhow...

 

[Andrew Bunk]

I second that.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm not sure why their refusal merits praise. What about the readers who want to know about the quality of the product? I'm not eager to promote Universal and I definitely won't pursue their products just to write about them. However, if I purchase something on my own - as I did with ET and BTTF - I'm going to review them because I feel I owe it to the readers.

It's too simplistic to totally boycott the studios who don't send screeners. Heck, movie critics still check out flicks that aren't screened for them in advance, and I'll still review Uni titles as appropriate. Their policy's idiotic, but I'm not simply going to ignore the desires of the readers - after all, without them I'd get NO screeners at all!

 

[Louis C]

I agree. A review boycott solves nothing. A review exposing poor product on the other hand says volumes.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

It's a safe bet.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

What about the readers who want to know about the quality of the product?

Not to be ironic here, but I'd say we've become painfully aware of the quality of Universal's product.

 

[Louis C]

Sorry Dave, I edited my last post to be kind to Uni, since they have offered quickly to fix the BTTF problem.

The review copy policy they have is still a bit suspect I agree.

 

[David Rogers]

I used to review for a "little" DVD website, and I understand the Bits' point here perfectly.

Universal is doing one step worse than what I used to observe. Back then, our site would receive screeners only of the catalog releases; mostly crap films only a few would be interested in. We never received any major releases for review. So all the site really did was plug the stuff the studio needed publicity on, and get shafted when the site could have gotten a little publicity for itself by reviewing a *popular* film/disc that would have attracted clicks and eyeballs.

Here, Universal is lowballing their discs and has been responsible for increasingly shoddy products.

One of their reactions has been to cut off reviews that would tip buyers off ahead of time. The BTTF fiasco spells it out clearly; they could have fixed the discs, but decided to make their sales window instead. Great move. Notice they sided for themselves, not consumers. Also, discs on sale 17Dec, yet the replacement for DEFECTIVE DISCS won't even go active until "sometime in February".

How can you defend them?

 

[Louis C]

How can you defend them?

David, did you mean this comment for me? If so, I am not defending Uni.

I think they screwed up.

I am guessing that they made a choice to limit production and marketing losses. I also think it would be naive to assume they did not factor the inevitable 'badwill' they generated from their customers by that decision.

If the average DVD buyer doesn't even care that they are buying a hacked up fullframe version, can you blame them for taking that into account, at least from a business standpoint?

I think the mistake was a lose-lose, and I think they took the least risky approach given the circumstances.

In any case, I am impressed Uni 'owned up to' it so quickly. I would be flaming them very harshly if they had sat on this through the whole Christmas shopping season.

Again, I do think their disc review copy policy is suspect.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

I think they owned up quickly because they were already caught months ago when the R2/R4 versions hit.

If no one knew, you think they would own up to it?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Why not review the BTTF discs anyways and make it known what is wrong with the defective versions?

Instead of plotting revenge on Universal, help out DVD buyers instead by WARNING them!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Why not review the BTTF discs anyways and make it known what is wrong with the defective versions?

Instead of plotting revenge on Universal, help out DVD buyers instead by WARNING them!

They've already warned buyers by posting news items about the situation. Why go through the bother of reviewing defective discs to make the same point?

DJ

 

[oscar_merkx]

Patrick

You have a point there about making people aware of Universal's fault that it is better to review a dvd so that people can make their own decision.

At the same time, they first bungled with ET and now also with BTTF.

There might also be a different reason why Universal is sending out the discs in feb 03, the company is owned by Vivendi and they are not really in such a financial state that the dollar comes first before consumer which is really rotten anyway

 

[Chris Beveridge]

I could see not reviewing their stuff if it was constantly screwed up. (In fact, that's a debate at my site right now, as I'm tired of buying discs that are continually screwed up from one company to review). But to not review because they don't send review copies?

Even if I get review copies from studios, and I get a fair amount, I still buy the same exact disc on street date that everyone else gets. The advantage to review discs is getting the word out early. But I still put my own money where my mouth is.

 

[Dharmesh C]

Universal sent out the BTTF review discs to Ron, right?

 

[Greg_Y]

Nevermind: I was wrong.

 

[Matthew_S]

I'm with Dave....and isn't it illegal to sell a defective anything? Why doesn't this apply to dvd's?

 

[Todd Hochard]

This may have the undesired effect of reducing readership at the Bits. After all, for loyal Bits readers, will you purposely NOT read any review, anywhere, of Universal product, as a show of solidarity? If you will, then that's opportunity lost for eyeballs on the Bits website.

Todd

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Let me bring you guys up to date here....
I did receive screener copies of Back To The
Future a month prior to its release, directly
from Universal.
I don't understand why.
When E.T. was about to be released, Universal
shunned the entire Internet community by not releasing
any screeners. Meanwhile, magazines and other print
publications were given advance copies.
I am sure most of you are aware of the noise I
made about this back in October. It was absolutely
absurd that Universal would treat the Internet
community as if they were some lower form of
intelligent life that should not benefit from
early reviews. What makes us any different than
magazines and other print media? In fact, more
people get their DVD news off the Internet first
than any other print publication.
After all the noise I made, there was no response
from Universal, that is, until a copy of the BTTF
set arrived at my door.
The only sites that I am aware received copies
were this forum and DVD FILE. I am not even sure
DVD FILE got theirs from Universal, as they usually
get their titles through other channels.
I don't understand why a site like The Digital
Bits would be shunned over a site like ours.
They are a renowned DVD news and review site with
a team of reviewers that do exceptional coverage.
I stand behind Bill Hunt's decision. Had it been
this forum that was denied an early copy to review
I would have decided to boycott Universal as well.