|
|
Posted by Derek Janssen on 09/05/05 04:45
Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>>>>>>As I say.. the "Average Joe" never paid $100 for a VHS copy of a
>>>>>>movie.
>>
>>>>Well that's one person. Guess that proves it.
>>>
>>>You're one person.
>>>
>>>BTW, you not very subtly changed your assertion from expensive VHS was
>>>never meant to be sold to to it was never bought by.
>>>
>>>In either case, you're wrong.
>>
>>Say what you will.... most folks never paid $100 for a VHS movie...
>>
>>http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/features/retail/pricing_primer.htm
(Oh, we know they *were*, just saying that nobody who was aware bought
them. At least, new.)
>>"As we know with VHS, which has, until somewhat recently, mainly a
>>rental format, titles "priced for rental" cost considerably more than
>>a title "priced for sell through." Many consumers have been taken
>>aback when they inquire about purchasing a new VHS title only to find
>>it is priced at $89.95 or higher. Why are some obscure titles, which
>>seem like stuff no on would want, priced for rental at $90+"
>
> Actually Beta and VHS video tapes were quite expensive before any
> rentals started. When Magnetic Video leased 50 titles from Fox -
> being the first company to test to see if anyone would buy movies
> for home viewing - prices were from about $40 to $80.
Its rival company, Fotomat (yes, that one), was much more reasonable and
innovative, RENTING its titles for $15 a week, and selling for $75.
In fact, the studio breakthrough came in '84, when Paramount sold "Star
Trek II" at the "special Collector's Edition sale price" of $49.95.
(For a *tape*.)
Derek Janssen
djanss@charter.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|