Posted by Allan on 09/02/05 21:02

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:38:40 GMT, Diane
<delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> wrote:

>> >Allan 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

Studio Pricing Policies

"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+"

"I know I have been frustrated in the past when I wanted to buy a VHS
title, but had to settle for renting it because it cost $100."








"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

[Back to original message]