Interesting year end article from Home Media Magazine (1 Viewer)

[Towergrove]

They are not beholden to middlemen anymore so they can set the price at anything they want and you don't get a say, nor does Walmart.

Wont they have to lower the prices if they still want a market for their product in the future? Business 101 says if a product isnt selling at xx price then it needs to be lowered. They dont want to put themselves out of business and rental isn't cutting it for the studios.
But then again doesnt your favorite company, APPLE INC. place price restrictions on their products like iphones, pads, their itunes movie and music files and the like? I rarely see wiggle room on pricing from that company and they seem to be doing generally ok. Hmm more questions than answers I suppose.

 

[Towergrove]

Interesting from across the pond:
Fox Sees U.K. Digital Movie Sales Increase 280%

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment in 2014 saw stellar results in the United Kingdom from the rollout of digital sellthrough platforms such as BSkyB’s Sky Store “Buy and Keep” program.
Spurred by the releases of X-Men: Days of Future Past and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, digital movie purchases mushroomed 280% this year (versus 2013), while cumulative physical and digital business increased 36% in the most recent quarter compared to the same period last year.
Sky, which is owned by Fox Home Entertainment’s parent 21st Century Fox Inc., last spring launched the “buy and keep” service with a twist. Consumers get a DVD back-up of the movie purchase sent to them in the mail.
Sky is the largest U.K. pay-TV operator with more than 10 million subscribers. While digital distribution of entertainment is growing, consumer adoption and confidence with digital remains low. Including a DVD delivered in the mail with electronic purchases is seen as building consumer confidence, according to Nicola Bamford, Sky Store director.
Indeed, with X-Men: Days of Future Past, Fox scored its biggest ever selling digital title to date with 15% of total sales being Digital HD, up five times compared to a 2.9% increase for The Wolverine last year. Meanwhile, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has seen digital purchases account for 14% of the title’s retail revenue in its first four weeks of release (through Dec. 6).
The studio’s partnership with Sky Store has seen the retailer take a 50% market share of digital sales on the latest “Apes” installment – the highest to date on any Fox title, according to the studio.
“It’s clear from our results that the proliferation of digital platforms and devices in the UK has led to [consumers] becoming increasingly comfortable in accessing digital entertainment – and we have seen a step-change in our business,” Robert Price, UK managing director, TCFHE, said in a statement.
Bamford said the innovative of offering both a digital download of a movie and a DVD copy has been instrumental in developing consumers’ digital consumption habits. “We are breaking down the barriers to digital ownership in the UK,” she said. “We are proud that we have been able to quickly realize a healthy share of the Digital HD market … from our partnership with Fox.”

http://homemediamagazine.com/streaming/fox-sees-uk-digital-movie-sales-increase-280-34865

 

[Ejanss]

Wont they have to lower the prices if they still want a market for their product in the future? Business 101 says if a product isnt selling at xx price then it needs to be lowered.

Yep, that sure seems to be what they're doing, isn't it?
There's a difference between "Finding an ideal price point to reach the mainstream", and "Discovering you can't give the product away at your current prices with a set of dishes."

Sky, which is owned by Fox Home Entertainment’s parent 21st Century Fox Inc., last spring launched the “buy and keep” service with a twist. Consumers get a DVD back-up of the movie purchase sent to them in the mail.

Well, heavens, that IS a twist--
Y'see, over here, it's the other way 'round backwards: You buy the DVD and then get the digital movie for free...Oops, sorry, I meant, you buy the Blu-ray disk, and then get the digital movie.

But I suppose the popularity of the new system is just cultural for the UK viewers, who aren't as deeply into home-theater technology, don't trust the bright shining future of digital, and still want a backup. They're not like us, y'see.

 

[satam55]

Price is another problem with digital. You can buy tons of old DVD's for $5 at walmart, even blockbusters, but to buy the same movies on iTunes or vudu would cost between $10 and $15! Some are even more. They really need the drop the price for movies older than 3 years to about 7 to 9 dollars. They would really clean up that way.

Yep! This is a big problem.

 

[atfree]

atfree is it because the earlier generation doesnt have the money to buy goods like dvds? If you look at unemployment of young people getting out of high school its horrible right now in the USA. Ive read articles from the major newspapers that point this out but also mention that this will change as the economy and jobs market improves. Then the younger generation will begin buying automobiles, homes and other goods (or so the pundits say).Also while more people prefer to rent, a sell thru market still does and will continue to exist. One or the other may be smaller with the other larger as time goes on but both markets will exist and continue to be catered to.

As for younger gen not having money to buy physical media..... I don't think that is a big problem. They (young people) all seem to have enough funds to carry $500 iPhone's and $300 Beats headphones. I think its more a matter of priorities, convenience, and that physical media is considered old school. I think movies are considered disposable now.

 

[Towergrove]

As for younger gen not having money to buy physical media..... I don't think that is a big problem. They (young people) all seem to have enough funds to carry $500 iPhone's and $300 Beats headphones. I think its more a matter of priorities, convenience, and that physical media is considered old school. I think movies are considered disposable now.

But that generation is the same way about a lot of things right now. Home ownership vs rental, car purchasing vs not at all etc. Also starting to see smart phone leasing. To that generation a phone is a necessity not a luxury. Yes priorities are different but also there is far less $$ for that generation because of the jobs situation. Just have to look at the news to see that.

I dont think its across the board though either, for every younger person not buying physical stuff I can find one that does. It a money situation in some quarters IMO. I don't see the choice of rental or purchasing going away. Two markets will exist.

 

[schan1269]

When I talk to the younger generation at work....Digital is backwards..."We"(as in 40-ish) have DVD/BD and a kindle."They"(25-ish) have an ipod and a real, honest-to-God book.

 

[revgen]

Ever wonder why vinyl has been selling more recently?http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/07/07/vinyl-sales-up-38-percent-2014Younger folks are buying it. Many prefer the "vinyl sound" over their parents CD's.http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2014/01/record-revival-students-contribute-to-increase-in-vinyl-salesThis whole folktale about younger people not liking physical media is simply ridiculous.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Sony announced that they banked 15 million from 2 million rental and EST transactions of The Interview over the holiday. That's pretty amazing for digital. I figure about 360k of the transactions are purchases and the rest are rentals. This could lead studio's to release some independent films closer to their theatrical debuts.

 

[Ejanss]

Sony announced that they banked 15 million from 2 million rental and EST transactions of The Interview over the holiday. That's pretty amazing for digital. I figure about 360k of the transactions are purchases and the rest are rentals. This could lead studio's to release some interdependent films closer to their theatrical debuts.

IOW, it cashed in on the public's "forbidden" craze for access to something controversial, who felt they had to know what it was "about", which was pretty much how Passion of the Christ made all its danged money the first time.

(And are "interdependent" films different from the Magnet/Magnolia films that already hit Netflix two weeks after, or even before/during, their remaining arthouse engagements? We've already got way too many of those as it is, and it's strangling the life out of streaming subscription like weeds...No pun intended, in Interview's case.)

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

IOW, it cashed in on the public's "forbidden" craze for access to something controversial, who felt they had to know what it was "about", which was pretty much how Passion of the Christ made all its danged money the first time.

Passion of the Christ made the money that it made because it was flocked to by droves of Christians, repeatedly (I know of many repeat viewers,) and a number of non-Christians who were interested in the film, some for its controversy, and the quality of Gibson's work. To claim that it reaped its $370MM in the US from a curious public only interested in the controversy is absolutely absurd.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I don't how interdependent got in there, maybe it was a spell check error, but I meant independent. The studio's I was hoping would go digital are ones like Relativity, Weinstein, Anchor Bay, Vivendi Entertainment, and Image Entertainment,

 

[Ejanss]

Passion of the Christ made the money that it made because it was flocked to by droves of Christians, repeatedly (I know of many repeat viewers,) and a number of non-Christians who were interested in the film, some for its controversy, and the quality of Gibson's work. To claim that it reaped its $370MM in the US from a curious public only interested in the controversy is absolutely absurd.

You were there, YOU remember:Those middle-class suburban folk who weren't on the schoolbuses saying "I MUST see this film before I can render judgment on the controversy, especially since it'll probably be up for Best Picture next year!"

(I don't think anyone's expecting Jess and Seth to be up for Oscars this year on "martyr" headline-controversy association alone, but you never know what some naive middle-class folk will be news-browbeaten into believing...)

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Sony announced that they banked 15 million from 2 million rental and EST transactions of The Interview over the holiday. That's pretty amazing for digital. I figure about 360k of the transactions are purchases and the rest are rentals. This could lead studio's to release some independent films closer to their theatrical debuts.

I couldn't help but wonder when I read that if we won't look back on this episode 5 years from now as the time when the business changed. I've got to think with the competition this weekend that $15mil is about what it would have made anyway. $5.99 was a really a low price, too. There is definite room for price to grow, especially for a bigger ticket film...

 

[Ejanss]

I couldn't help but wonder when I read that if we won't look back on this episode 5 years from now as the time when the business changed. I've got to think with the competition this weekend that $15mil is about what it would have made anyway. $5.99 was a really a low price, too. There is definite room for price to grow, especially for a bigger ticket film...

For thirty--no, really, actually thirty-three years come next Feburary--the studios have been dreaming of how Neato it would be if we could "See movies at home the week they play at the theaters!"
It's caused two near-calamities trying to realize that lost quixotic dream, and here, only because of audiences wanting to get around a bit of studio "censorship" and the movie not playing theaters in its scheduled weekend to begin with, it's the closest thing to a success the major studios have gotten so far.

Only difference is, all those years, the studios thought it would be cable, satellite, and VOD that would bring This Week's Grosses into the home, because the Internet didn't exist yet. (Back in '82, it started with "Buy the VHS in the lobby!")
Once they think they're finally seeing their dream come true, they'll start trying to realize their other big dream: Making it an "event", charging "exclusive" $20-$50 prices for the privilege, and cooking that into the theatrical-gross numbers.
(Disney did it twenty-five years ago with t-shirts.)

 

[Towergrove]

For thirty--no, really, actually thirty-three years come next Feburary--the studios have been dreaming of how Neato it would be if we could "See movies at home the week they play at the theaters!"It's caused two near-calamities trying to realize that lost quixotic dream, and here, only because of audiences wanting to get around a bit of studio "censorship" and the movie not playing theaters in its scheduled weekend to begin with, it's the closest thing to a success the major studios have gotten so far. Only difference is, all those years, the studios thought it would be cable, satellite, and VOD that would bring This Week's Grosses into the home, because the Internet didn't exist yet. (Back in '82, it started with "Buy the VHS in the lobby!")Once they think they're finally seeing their dream come true, they'll start trying to realize their other big dream: Making it an "event", charging "exclusive" $20-$50 prices for the privilege, and cooking that into the theatrical-gross numbers.(Disney did it twenty-five years ago with t-shirts.)

Its a much different studio system today than we had in the 80s and most of the execs from that time have moved on. Sell thru is now a big part of the home viewinv equation as well as rental and I dont see that changing.

 

[Ejanss]

Its a much different studio system today than we had in the 80s and most of the execs from that time have moved on. Sell thru is now a big part of the home viewinv equation as well as rental and I dont see that changing.

"Moved on"??....Uh, wanna know what was the second time studios tried chasing their dream of the "home premiere" stunt, this time with more established cable/VOD?: Three years ago.
Tower Heist, anyone? Oh, you probably don't remember it happening, because studios backed down on their plan after--see if this sounds familiar--theater chains threatening to boycott the movie. If they had, we'd have been all over that lame Eddie Murphy comedy like ants on a sugar cube.

This has been the Unkillable Dream for studios, and if thirty-three years, the death of VHS, the decline of cable VOD, shrinking home-video windows, and the rise of streaming couldn't kill it, nothing can....It's in their DNA as studios, and they have plenty of ulterior motives that keep them dreaming about it.
Problem is, now, unlike Tower Heist, they don't have to worry anymore about "theater-chain boycotts", since they created enough exposure, and had enough market to get around the, quote, "dying" cineplexes, which the audience has already learned how to avoid. All they needed was an excuse for a major studio wide-release to duck the theaters, without ending up looking like a failed title that was demoted to direct-video, or the 'plex chains taking the high road and looking like the good guys.
The one chain that kept studios in check like a caged elephant is about to snap, and someone's about to go rogue and start trampling innocent bystanders...

 

[Patrick Donahue]

I'd happily pay a premium price to watch a new movie in my home on release day as long as it was a UV purchase and not a rental. If the studio system isn't what it used to be, then it's true the theater system isn't what it used to be, either.

 

[[email protected]]

I'd happily pay a premium price to watch a new movie in my home on release day as long as it was a UV purchase and not a rental. If the studio system isn't what it used to be, then it's true the theater system isn't what it used to be, either.

I would consider this too...