|
|
Posted by Jay on 09/02/05 11:42
Allan <Spamstillsucks@buffyandkantica22arebrianlamb.net> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:20:12 GMT, Diane
><delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> then over time, the price
>>comes down, and the hoi polloi can afford them. (Remember, too, when a
>>lot of VHS releases were $99 or more!)
>
>$99 VHS were never ever meant for the "Average Joe" to own. That was
>the Price for Video Stores that that would Rent them out for a
>profit..
When VHS titles first came out, the $99 price tag was for *everyone*,
average joes included. The high price tag was part of the reason
rental stores became so popular. It was only after a few test titles
were released with lower price tags that the studios realized that they
could make *more* money by selling the tapes for *less*, since
exponentially more people bought them. It was only then that the
lower price point became standard after a suitable "rental window"
of higher-priced sales.
When DVD emerged, studios forewent the "rental window" pricing,
instead opting to sell them for a more reasonable price point from
the beginning. And despite some doomsayer's predictions, the
studios have never introduced the "rental window" for DVDs, due
to the overwhelming sales DVD experiences. Which brings me to
a possible reason for Blockbuster's troubles that nobody has
mentioned yet: namely that as it has become more likely for
someone to buy a movie they like when it's released, it has
become at least equally less likely for them to rent said title. And
without the rental window, there's less reason to "rent first, buy
later," as some did with VHS titles.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|