|
|
Posted by Dale Houstman on 10/03/44 11:25
Diane wrote:
> In article <bl2112-AEDBA8.18340531082005@news.uswest.net>,
> Black Locust <bl2112@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You can make moronic
>>complaints about the little $1.25 restocking fee or the fact that they
>>auto-sale the DVD to your account, but the fact is, if you know how to
>>milk their system effeciently, you can basically rent a DVD from them
>>for about 40 days and only pay a total of $6.50 for it! Netflix(or any
>>of blockbuster's other competitors) can't even begin to touch a bargain
>>like that.
>
>
> What about the complaint that someone mentioned and I noticed when I
> went there -- they carry about a zillion copies of 5 movies that weren't
> that great when they came out and nothing else? I combed the store for
> an hour and couldn't find anything worth renting (and watching on
> computer, since I've not gotten a DVD player yet).
Blaming Netflix is akin to the recording industry blaming home copying
for their failures: it's vastly more complex. Certainly part of it is
the miserable selection with over-emphasis on - heh - blockbusters, and
a lack of education of the public on other options in viewing. For some,
the remembering to get the videos back on time (especially if the store
is a little driving distance away) is an issue also. What is partly
happening - from what I've read - is that more people are buying DVDs
outright, and also cable and satellite stations provide a wider
selection of entertainments than was possible a little while back. Also
- in general (despite government rah-rah to the contrary) people are
simply running out of money and jobs. Discretionary spending is becoming
a big problem, what with criminally low wages and higher gas prices. And
so on...
I always avoided Blockbuster for aesthetic reasons: I would rather not
watch films than have to drive to the cinematic equivalent of a Wal-Mart
store.
dmh
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|