mpaa sounds off on piracy as conference (1 Viewer)

[MandyHan]

I just read this article where the MPAA is discussing piracy problems. I didnt realize that home movies were such a dominant part of their profits per year. Apparently home movies equates to 47%, whereas theater revenue is only 16 percent. I wouldnt have thought that home videos were three times as much. My question is, where is the other 37%?

Here's the article i was reading...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2031751,00.asp

 

[ThomasC]

I think the 37% consists of television broadcasts among other things.

 

[Eric_L]

It seems maybe they are starting to figure it out afterall. If copy protection works or becomes universal will that mean we can eliminate (or at least shorten or allow fast forward) the FBI/Interpol warnings?

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Apparently home movies equates to 47%, whereas theater revenue is only 16 percent.

I walked by a theatre the other day where they wanted $7.50 for an afternoon show. When I can wait a few months & buy the DVD for $10, why bother?

I'm surprised the theatres are doing as much business as they are.

 

[MarkHastings]

I wonder if 'profit' is the key to that math problem - Wouldn't gaining back invested money (in the movie) hinder theater profits more so than home video because when it's going to video, all of the investments have already been paid off?

 

[MandyHan]

So you're saying the remaining profits come from selling it to TV...such as HBO buying up a movie? I guess that makes sense

 

[MarkHastings]

I am just guessing here, but I would imagine that there is a lot more money to recover in a theatrical movie than in home video. When a movie gets to the home video stage, there is no more money to recover on the film, so from there on it would seem like the invested money (to produce it on video) is more profitable.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I think that is part of the reason. I think that also a theatrical release is generally required to ensure healthy video sales. Take the phrase 'straight to video'. It doesn't exactly encourage you to buy the product, does it?

I guess a direct analogy is hardcover book sales (I can speak with some experience of this, having had several books published). Unless it's a blockbuster, the hardcover rarely makes much (if any) money. However, unless the book is issued in hardcover, it won't be taken seriously when it comes into paperback. Generally the critics won't review straight to paperback books (and thus generate publicity). [The really weird thing is that the cost of producing a hardcover book is not significantly more than a paperback - it's the economies of scale induced by larger print runs of paperbacks that lower their costs.]

I think I'm also correct in saying that a hefty part of the profits for cinemas (sorry, my American chums, I of course mean movie theaters) is not from the films but from the drinks, snacks, etc, in the same way that many heavy metal bands make minimal profits from concert tickets but make mountains of money from T-shirt sales.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Cinemas make very little money from ticket sales because 60-90% of the money goes to the distributor (though the split changes week-to-week, favoring the cinema more the longer a film plays). The analogy doesn't really work, since the studio/distributor would represent the band and the cinema would be the arena, and the way the takings are provided is reversed.

Still, I suspect other ancillary/licensing money makes up a part of that remaining 38% or whatever - especially if the studio in question is Disney.

 

[MarkHastings]

That's a good point - kinda like Gas stations making most of their profits on snacks and drinks, rather than the actual gas.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Incidentally, Mark, I've been meaning to say it for some time - cool cockatiel. We've got two of them with the same colouring (one a good singer/mimic the other a complete psycho).