Good point. That could lead to disaster. I'm sure there are a lot of other variables like that that we don't think of when we assume that the studio is 'screwing' us over.
That's kind of what I mean by the studios are doing what they can for the consumer (along with the profit in mind). A lot of decisions boil down to "is this really worth it?".
Obviously a title, that doesn't get any restoration, means the studio thinks it's not worth the time and money, so I'm glad that they still decided to take a risk and release it instead of just slamming the door shut on the whole project from the get go.
I said this in a few other threads, but only having Season 1 of "Son of the Beach" is a whole lot better than no "Son of the Beach" at all.
I think $3,000 is still better than losing money and at least it will provide a week's lunch for some of the suits
But if these studios feel it's not worth it, then they ought to get rid of their titles and give them to a small company who'd be happy to make dimes instead of quarters. It's our TV and film heritage, and it needs to be preserved.
Just because All in the Family was extremely more popular than Son of the Beach was on tv, does that mean it translates into the same as far as DVD sales?
I would think SotB would do better (analysis wise) in the DVD market than AitF would, due to the type of consumer who buys DVD's...although I'm just guessing here and don't have real numbers to reference.Well, of course all seasons is the better of all 3 scenarios.
Hi David. I remember reading on a Twilight Zone message board a few months ago someone claiming that the season sets of the original Twilight Zone would include some new DVD extras, but that the source material used would be the same as the previous sets. I hope that was only a rumor, because after seeing the quality of the original Outer Limits DVD sets, I think fans of the Twilight Zone deserve the same re-mastering quality, don't you agree?
Well one way to look at this is that this is all very new. The studios have been caught completely by surprise by the TV on DVD boom. It just never occured to them that people will pay good money to see shows uncut and uncluttered by network bugs, crawls, etc. They have to catch up to the tidal wave. How this will play out I have no idea. We all have our shows that we want but I'm constantly surprised at what we are seeing on a daily basis. Two years ago when I bought my DVD recorders and I started transferring shows, I transferred things like Man From UNCLE, which I figured there was no way would ever be released on DVD. Now I'm not so sure. Combat? I started doing them off Encore figuring no way would it ever come out. But all 5 seasons are scheduled? Naked City? Who ever thought that would come? So at this point I have to say that more shows than I ever dreamed of are being released. Didn't MGM even mention My Mother the Car? So at this point I am willing to take a wait and see attitude. I couldn't care less about all of the new crap but I realize what the demographics are. Realistically, many of the one season or less forgotten shows that I would love to see from the 60s have no chance. But I think many of the 3,4,5 season shows which are not on the radar yet have possibilities. As fewer and fewer new shows get made that are worth a damn and as more and more of television is dominated by these "reality" shows, studios will have no choice but to consider some of their older product. Shows like The Untouchables, Get Smart, Batman, Odd Couple, That Girl, Beverly Hillbillies, Patty Duke Show, etc, I think are inevitable. Maybe not complete runs but certainly a season or three.
This is why the studios haven't really had any idea about the products they've been selling. The public does. Let's face it, the people that buy TV on DVD sets are mostly the people who are fans of these particular shows, not the "blind buyers" who have only heard about a show but have never seen it. Some of these sets cost a little too much for someone who has never seen a certain show to plunk down $50+ just to see if they might like it or not. Knowing this, shouldn't the studios be aware of what seasons were the best for each different title they plan to sell? Just as an example, most fans of the following shows will tell you that season 1 of The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and even Seinfeld weren't nearly as good as the seasons that followed. Knowing this, shouldn't the studios cut the public some slack if season 1 doesn't sell as well as they expect? Only a fool believes sales for season 2 of The Mary Tyler Moore Show would do as poorly as season 1 did. By the same token, I can almost guarantee that the reason season 1, 2 and 3 of Seinfeld will all be released on the same day is because the show wasn't nearly as good in the first season as it was later on. Maybe the studios already know this and they are afraid to release only season 1 (Even though season 1 had too few episodes to be released as a set alone). Hopefully this is a sign that the studios are becoming aware of interests in different shows, and maybe they'll know what seasons to expect big sales on.
That's one way to interpret this data. Another would be that the $50 SRP limits the audience to the fans who would, by and large, be buying complete runs, and thus the numbers that S1 did would hold true for S2+.
I don't have access to Fox's marketing research data, or their sales data for other shows where they could observe trends to get an idea how the market works in general. But I don't doubt that Fox is making this decisions based on sales trends they've actually observed, as opposed to the instinctive explanations you and I are just throwing out there without any numbers to back it up.
Even though I agree that later seasons (of most shows) would be more popular, I'm sure there's some market research that shows that if you don't release a show starting from season 1, that there may be confusion or angst as to the reasoning/decision on starting with (for example) season 4, which would lead to bad sales overall.
If that was true then no one would've bought the Dark Shadows DVDs. The first DVDs that came out was episode 210, which was almost 1 yr after the show originally started. If they follow the VHS sets path, after they finish with the complete run of the show (1,225 episodes total), then they should sell episodes 1-209. Since the most popular character was Barnabus Collins, and he didn't appear until episode 210, this was probably the reasoning. I wonder if there are any other examples of TV shows on DVD that started by releasing later seasons of the show first. I think at times it may be a smarter marketing decision to do so. It appears to be the case with Dark Shadows.
David, I know what you're saying, but isn't there also a limit to how much research someone can do? Meaning, to get more exact numbers would mean more $$ for research.
At what point does the $$ spent on research make a big difference on the fianl profit? After a certain point, it would seem that you have to spend a lot more on research than final sales.
i.e. If (for example) $10,000 worth of research tells you that a product will only make you a $90,000 profit, is it worth thowing more money into research to see if you can boost that profit another $10,000?
Again, this is more in reference to those already doing good research and doesn't include those who do "stupid" research, but I'd think there's a ceiling to how much you can research and still be cost-effective.
Definitely true. Unfortunately, how do you determine those 'times'? Market research (I believe) is based on trends. If you start releasing products starting with different seasons, there won't be any 'trends' to base future research on because no "standard" has been set. The studios need standards to base future decisions on. In the case of "Sark Shadows", that was a risk the studio was willing to make and was an isloated case (i.e. there must have been either a very strong case for it or they took a big leap of faith in the product). I don't think there are a lot of shows that can do the same.
Take the shows that started in B&W and then went to color...Who's to say that starting with the color seasons would sell better? Most of the market research is based on Season 1 being released first, so it's probably difficult for an analyst to approach a studio exec. and say "Let's release season 4 because everyone loves (insert reason here)" without any "real" numbers to back it up.