Scorpion Releasing to Limit Blu-Ray Titles (1 Viewer)

[schan1269]

The limited model is hardly new.

Ferrari's "halo" cars have always been built with the mindset of...

"Build one less than the market will bear."

 

[Jari K]

It's not a new business model but if that's a "norm" in the future, then It makes me a bit sad.

 

[ROclockCK]

I see it as simply a more rationalized market: catering to those who truly want to own a title because it means something to them as both a fan and collector, vs. those who *might* buy it if it's cheap enough...*might* stream if it's available even cheaper...or *might* just YouTube it if they're simply curious and bored.

The ubiquity of the 'Net has created this false sense of wider interest in movies which have always been cult draws in terms of the raw numbers...although a "must have" "day one" new release to the passionate few, unfortunately a "shrug-inducer" to almost everyone else unless they happen to stumble across it on TCM. I know this painfully well from my own niche interest in once A-list, now obscure pictures from the 50s 'Scope widescreen era.

The inescapable reality here is simply the '800 pound gorilla no longer in the room': We now live in a post-DVD world without tens of thousands of Blockbuster disc rentals to cushion revenue expectations...which once allowed labels more wiggle-room on the numbers stamped. The delivery of each title must now be right-sized from the get-go for the actual numbers of fans and collectors willing to shell out hard cash to own them...not mayyybe...if...when...eventually...someday...

This cagey protection of bottom line is certainly not confined to the cult indie labels either. Just last week, I ordered the Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil Blu-rays from Universal, both 'Limited Editions'...signalling an admission by the studio that "Yes, there certainly is a dedicated market for these classics on Blu-ray, but No, it is not as wide and deep as many fans want to believe." So if you want this stuff in packaged media form, specifically on Blu-ray, they're now telling you right up front, "Hey, prioritize...this baby might not be around for very long. We have bigger home media fish to fry."

It's our choice. Comes down to how much a title truly means to you...

 

[bluelaughaminute]

This may take us back to the days of Laserdisc when home videos could be quite a costly investment rather than the cheap throwaway product its become since dvd took off .
Plus side is that collectors can return to being part of an elite group enjoying high quality movie presentations leaving the peasants unwilling to pay more than $15 to watch their dvd's.

 

[ROclockCK]

...or stream...or download...which is what is naturally happening in service of folks with a more casual interest in such niche titles. That rental mindset hasn't gone away...it's simply being expressed digitally these days...via unboxed.

Ownership was a hallmark of the Laserdisc format. It was also a major component of DVD. With Blu-ray though, we're back to that core market for whom packaged ownership always trumps the convenience of 'good enough'.

That's not "elitist", merely "realistic."

 

[jcroy]

The ubiquity of the 'Net has created this false sense of wider interest in movies which have always been cult draws in terms of the raw numbers...although a "must have" "day one" new release to the passionate few, unfortunately a "shrug-inducer" to almost everyone else unless they happen to stumble across it on TCM. I know this painfully well from my own niche interest in once A-list, now obscure pictures from the 50s 'Scope widescreen era.

This seems to happen in many other niches online (unrelated to movies), with the online "echo chamber" effect on dedicated message boards.

The companies supplying physical product to such niches, most likely know very well not to take seriously the "echo chamber" chatter on such dedicated message boards. (ie. A relatively small hardcore "fanboy" base with a very tiny or almost non-existent customer base in the general population).

 

[jcroy]

once A-list, now obscure pictures from the 50s 'Scope widescreen era.

Stuff like this is unfortunate, but not surprising at all.

In general, very little pop culture lasts in the spotlight for many generations, whether movies, music, fads, etc ... (Short of something like the Beatles, etc ...).

I wouldn't be surprised at all if current college freshman students don't "get" many of the pop culture references that their professors make.

 

[ROclockCK]

This seems to happen in many other niches online (unrelated to movies), with the online "echo chamber" effect on dedicated message boards.

The companies supplying physical product to such niches, most likely know very well not to take seriously the "echo chamber" chatter on such dedicated message boards. (ie. A relatively small hardcore "fanboy" base with a very tiny or almost non-existent customer base in the general population).

This happened a lot during the early life of the 'Net, with studios often misinterpreting what you call an "echo chamber effect" as the mere 'tip of the iceberg' in terms of wider market interest in a particular title.

More often than not though, in the hard light of subsequent sales, that vocal 'tip', turned out to be almost the entire 'floe'.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

...or stream...or download...which is what is naturally happening in service of folks with a more casual interest in such niche titles. That rental mindset hasn't gone away...it's simply being expressed digitally these days...via unboxed.

Ownership was a hallmark of the Laserdisc format. It was also a major component of DVD. With Blu-ray though, we're back to that core market for whom packaged ownership always trumps the convenience of 'good enough'.

That's not "elitist", merely "realistic."

I can see streaming or downloading being a viable alternative to rental but for collectors who purchase films nothing less than a physical product is usually good enough - mainly because the quality is so much better .
Certainly here in the UK , streaming and downloading via tv on demand services or the PS Store don't even come close to Bluray quality.
Another problem is that the prices being charged even for rental downloads is about double what it should be and its usually cheaper to buy a physical disc than it is to download it to keep

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can see streaming or downloading being a viable alternative to rental but for collectors who purchase films nothing less than a physical product is usually good enough - mainly because the quality is so much better .
Certainly here in the UK , streaming and downloading via tv on demand services or the PS Store don't even come close to Bluray quality.
Another problem is that the prices being charged even for rental downloads is about double what it should be and its usually cheaper to buy a physical disc than it is to download it to keep

That might be the case with some titles, but it's not always true with other titles.

 

[jcroy]

I can see streaming or downloading being a viable alternative to rental but for collectors who purchase films nothing less than a physical product is usually good enough - mainly because the quality is so much better .
Certainly here in the UK , streaming and downloading via tv on demand services or the PS Store don't even come close to Bluray quality.

Unfortunately these days there exists new titles where the streaming/download or satellite/cable tv versions are much better in quality than the versions released on optical discs. This is largely the case for recent and current tv shows which do not release a bluray version, and are only released on dvd.

If such bluray versions existed, I would certainly be buying them. But with only a dvd version released and no bluray, it becomes a toss-up between watching a higher quality stream/download/cable/satellite/ota version or the inferior quality dvd version.


For example, long running tv shows like: Law & Order SVU, Criminal Minds, NCIS, etc ... have not been released on bluray at all in region A.

Other long running tv shows like: CSI, NCIS: Los Angeles, Grey's Anatomy, etc ... had a season (or two) released on bluray, but then stopped releasing any further seasons on bluray. (Mostly blurays released back around 2008-2010).

 

[bruceames]

But does limited edition marketing boost sales, or just make people buy sooner? Are there really people out there who are saying to themselves "I wouldn't normally buy this movie on Blu-ray, but since it's going to sell out soon, I will now!" Is that what people are arguing in this thread?

The answer to all of the above of course is "Yes". It's the collector's mindset and is prevalent in everything collectible. You should be thanking them because they help drive sales which often lead to a "Yes" decision on whether a title in question is worth a forthcoming release.

Of course, you were probably only joking because I know you read TT threads and know what sold-out TT titles (and other labels) can sell for on ebay.

 

[Persianimmortal]

The answer to all of the above of course is "Yes". It's the collector's mindset and is prevalent in everything collectible. You should be thanking them because they help drive sales which often lead to a "Yes" decision on whether a title in question is worth a forthcoming release.

Of course, you were probably only joking because I know you read TT threads and know what sold-out TT titles (and other labels) can sell for on ebay.

I wasn't joking, and of course I can see that you're still pushing that anti-TT barrow.

There may be a very small proportion of people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to buy something they otherwise do not want, simply because it is "limited edition". But the vast majority of people buy something only if they have some desire to obtain that good or service. For example, they could release a limited edition My Little Pony set, and I wouldn't buy it, or take it even if it were offered to me for free.

In the case of scalpers, they are simply middle men who sell at a higher price. The end purchaser still needs to be someone who wants a particular product. There would be little point in a scalper buying a dozen copies of TT's Fright Night before it sold out, if they couldn't then find a dozen people who actually want to buy that title, particularly at inflated prices.

In other words, the net effect of any extra or "artificial" demand generated by the limited edition model is still likely to be close to zero.

 

[ROclockCK]

It's also important to remember that this phenomenon of the unbranded 'Limited' edition occurs with many other labels too...both small and large.

Off the top, you have Reds (Paramount), which has been gone for at least 3 years, with no signs of coming back. Ditto for The Phantom. Ditto for Hounddog (Empire/Hanover). And although you can still import a U.K. Blu-ray of Room With a View (Warner Brothers), rotsa ruck trying to find the Region A edition from 2007. Heck, now 6 years after release and 4 years after sellout, Breaker Morant (Image) still hasn't been reissued either. So I suspect many of these early Blu-rays, circa 2007-2009, were very modest 'testing-the-waters' runs...not specifically promoted as 'Limited', but nevertheless not produced in large numbers or widely distributed either. I mean, I never saw more than 1 or 2 Blu-rays of any of those titles on retail shelves before they totally vanished.

So the focus on cottage labels like Twilight Time and now Scorpion, as well as majors like Universal who are at being least honest about promoting their niche catalogue runs as 'Limited' is likely to widen going forward...they just happened to be the first companies openly willing to 'call a spade...a small shovel'.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Absolutely, which is what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned "managing customer expectations". A limited edition of X number of units should simply be looked at as a form of full disclosure, providing consumers with greater transparency. For example, we've recently learned that WB's House of Wax BD seems to have sold out, and any remaining copies are now selling at higher prices from third party sellers. Since consumers had no idea how limited supply was, they may have missed out while waiting for discounting, and will now have to wait for who knows how long to see if/when the next batch will be released, and at what price.

Most of the angst seems to be from people who believe that in the absence of a limited edition model, more copies and thus lower prices would be a natural result. The problem with this is that with Blu-ray at least, in the absence of a limited edition model, no copies at all would be the more natural result in many instances.

 

[bruceames]

I wasn't joking, and of course I can see that you're still pushing that anti-TT barrow.

There may be a very small proportion of people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to buy something they otherwise do not want, simply because it is "limited edition". But the vast majority of people buy something only if they have some desire to obtain that good or service. For example, they could release a limited edition My Little Pony set, and I wouldn't buy it, or take it even if it were offered to me for free.

In the case of scalpers, they are simply middle men who sell at a higher price. The end purchaser still needs to be someone who wants a particular product. There would be little point in a scalper buying a dozen copies of TT's Fright Night before it sold out, if they couldn't then find a dozen people who actually want to buy that title, particularly at inflated prices.

In other words, the net effect of any extra or "artificial" demand generated by the limited edition model is still likely to be close to zero.

Ok, if you think so.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I'm open to any evidence that proves otherwise.

Your sole evidence thus far has been the fact that some limited edition copies sell for very high prices on ebay. This doesn't indicate additional demand. Common sense tells us that the person buying that expensive copy from an ebay seller/scalper isn't buying it just because it's a limited edition, they're buying it because they want the movie, they missed out on buying it more cheaply, so now they're willing to cough up more dough to secure a copy. Even if the buyer is someone who wants to then sell it again for even more money later, the end purchaser at some point is someone who wants the movie badly enough to pay for it. Unless you believe that it's common practice for someone to drop $500 on a copy of a movie like Fright Night, just so they can say they have a limited edition, with no interest in the movie itself. Or to put it another way: they wouldn't have bought it if it were abundant and for sale at $10 a copy at Walmart, but they will now that it's $500 and a limited edition?

All the limited edition model really does is minimize risk for the seller, hasten sales, and increase prices once the original stock is exhausted and third party sellers/scalpers start selling their copies. In some ways, this is an understandable correction in a market (catalog Blu-rays) that reached an unsustainably low price point. The pendulum has swung in the other direction. Buyers who were once accustomed to holding off on purchases until a disc inevitably reached $5 now don't have the same luxury - get in quick or miss out. Hardly ideal I grant you, but eminently more viable for the industry as a whole.

 

[McCrutchy]

There may be a very small proportion of people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to buy something they otherwise do not want, simply because it is "limited edition". But the vast majority of people buy something only if they have some desire to obtain that good or service. For example, they could release a limited edition My Little Pony set, and I wouldn't buy it, or take it even if it were offered to me for free.

In the case of scalpers, they are simply middle men who sell at a higher price. The end purchaser still needs to be someone who wants a particular product. There would be little point in a scalper buying a dozen copies of TT's Fright Night before it sold out, if they couldn't then find a dozen people who actually want to buy that title, particularly at inflated prices.

In other words, the net effect of any extra or "artificial" demand generated by the limited edition model is still likely to be close to zero.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The demand for certain titles is absolutely artificially inflated by using the limited edition model, and while the TT sell outs prove it, this isn't simply limited to them.

This is of course because there are many people, who would buy something, but for any number of reasons, do not wish to buy it immediately. With items that are not limited, the buyer has a reasonable expectation that the item they wish to buy later will be available at the time they wish to buy it. However, with limited editions, the buyer often cannot have this expectation, and so their demand becomes as immediate as others.

As for scalpers, they are still contributing to the demand, and the company clearly doesn't care how copies are sold or to whom, as long as copies are sold, and (to be profitable) sold within a given timeframe. Regardless of what the net effect is for the items themselves (that each one will eventually end up with a buyer who desires it), the net effect for the company is that they have produced a certain amount, sold it, and turned a profit, often more quickly (and in some cases, far more quickly) than they would have without using limited edition branding.

Look at other limited editions, like SteelBooks, DigiBooks, and the like. For example, a Japanese BD SteelBook version of Rush sold out in about three days (over three months prior to release), advertised as limited to 4,000 copies. And this despite being almost twice as expensive as the amaray version:

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00JJ290EM

Of course, some Limited Editions are technically in-name only, and these will continue to be around for quite a while. The US editions of Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil certainly will. And House of Wax--I am unclear on if/why this is limited--can be purchased from any number of retailers internationally, as it is the exact same disc worldwide.

Having said that, there is no doubt that, under proper conditions, limited edition branding absolutely provides an extra incentive for people who would not otherwise buy a Blu-ray, or anything else for that matter.

 

[TravisR]

Of course, some Limited Editions are technically in-name only, and these will continue to be around for quite a while. The US editions of Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil certainly will.

Yeah, I'm assuming the only thing that's actually limited with those two movies is the box/slipcase and the pictures. Once they run out of those, they'll just switch over to the same disc in a standard Blu-ray case.

 

[Persianimmortal]

This doesn't make any sense to me. The demand for certain titles is absolutely artificially inflated by using the limited edition model, and while the TT sell outs prove it, this isn't simply limited to them.

This is of course because there are many people, who would buy something, but for any number of reasons, do not wish to buy it immediately. With items that are not limited, the buyer has a reasonable expectation that the item they wish to buy later will be available at the time they wish to buy it. However, with limited editions, the buyer often cannot have this expectation, and so their demand becomes as immediate as others.

As for scalpers, they are still contributing to the demand, and the company clearly doesn't care how copies are sold or to whom, as long as copies are sold, and (to be profitable) sold within a given timeframe. Regardless of what the net effect is for the items themselves (that each one will eventually end up with a buyer who desires it), the net effect for the company is that they have produced a certain amount, sold it, and turned a profit, often more quickly (and in some cases, far more quickly) than they would have without using limited edition branding.

Look at other limited editions, like SteelBooks, DigiBooks, and the like. For example, a Japanese BD SteelBook version of Rush sold out in about three days (over three months prior to release), advertised as limited to 4,000 copies. And this despite being almost twice as expensive as the amaray version:

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00JJ290EM

Of course, some Limited Editions are technically in-name only, and these will continue to be around for quite a while. The US editions of Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil certainly will. And House of Wax--I am unclear on if/why this is limited--can be purchased from any number of retailers internationally, as it is the exact same disc worldwide.

Having said that, there is no doubt that, under proper conditions, limited edition branding absolutely provides an extra incentive for people who would not otherwise buy a Blu-ray, or anything else for that matter.

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 ).