Posted by Jaszmin on 10/18/05 09:07

I live in a small town. A friend of mine gave me a screener
of Titanic a week after it was released in theaters. That
screener was copied and copied in this little town. By the
time the vcr hit stores, the whole town had seen it repeatedly.

Mike Rice



On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:04:15 -0400, Allan
<Spamstillsucks@buffyandkantica22arebrianlamb.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:50:40 -0700, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>When movies were released on tape, they were either "priced for
>>rental" (typically around $99) or priced for sale (usually around
>>$39.) Nothing prevented the "Average Joe" from buying tapes priced
>>for rental, or renting tapes priced for sale.
>
>Well other than the $100 price tag.
>
>"Studio Pricing Policies
>
>Well, that briefly covers retailers, but how do studios come up with
>their prices in the first place? For that, a brief history lesson is
>in order.
>
>When DVD was first introduced and strategies put into place, it is
>very important to note that the format was initially intended as a
>sell-through format, i.e., that consumers would buy them exclusively,
>and not rent them. 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+, while popular titles tha seem like studios could
>charge big bucks for and still get away with (Jurassic Park, etc.),
>still priced cheaply at $19.95 or less?
>
>The answer is twofold. Let's face it, most movies you don't want to
>own. Think about all the movies you've seen and the ones you would
>actually buy. And distributors and studios know that video stores have
>to order at least one copy of a every new release, no matter how
>crappy it is. And, rental pattern tracking at video stores have
>conclusively proven that there is an initial "rental phase" for new
>titles within the first 1-3 months, when the title rents like crazy,
>and then suddenly it sits on the shelf collecting dust after the
>intial blitz of interest fades away. We all know perfectly well that
>the first thing we do when we go to the video store is head for the
>new release aisle (I think it is genetic).
>
>Anyway, over the years, the video business matured and created a
>initial 6-month period that that was earmarked for rental titles. They
>knew video stores had to order all the new films, so they charge high
>prices for the initial rental period, thereby ensuring a good return
>even on crap movies, and then after the rental rush cools off, they
>reduce the price for "sell-through" to encourage sales to consumers
>who still are interested enough in the film to own it. We've all see
>the posters at Suncoast or wherever proclaiming a title "Now Priced To
>Own!." Blockbuster has also made a killing on all those
>previously-viewed titles, where the sell off the tons of extra copies
>of "Scream 11' or whatever that aren't renting anymore. Conversely,
>bigger titles, like Jurassic Park, have such a high level of consumer
>interest for purchase (as do Disney animated titles, which children
>can watch over and over and over) that it makes more sense for the
>studios to skip the rental period and price directly for sell-through
>at the beginning. And a look at the sales charts bear this out...the
>recent VHS release of Titanic proved it was a monster in sales,
>racking up millions of units, but failed to reach the number one spot
>in rentals. Clearly, some titles are more suited to be priced for
>sell-through initially than rental, and vice versa.
>
>It is also an important side note that one of the prime reasons for
>the rental/sell-through market are the laws of this country in regards
>to the rental concept. The studios initially hated the idea of the
>videocassette, and hated even more the idea that retailers could rent
>their films over and over and the studios didn't get a cut of all
>those profits. So why didn't they sue? Well, they did, and they lost
>(so did video game manufacturers). To help get some of that revenue
>back was a further incentive for the rental pricing structure, so at
>least the studios would get some additional revenue return during the
>initial rental phase of a title's life span, which was better than
>nothing.
>
>It is definitely arguable that the consumer loses out in this. 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. But, we do love
>the ability to rent without having to own, and the studios do have a
>valid point...why shouldn't they get a cut of the profits from the
>products they shed blood to produce?"
>
>http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/features/retail/pricing_primer.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"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]