Posted by Jaszmin on 10/18/05 09:21

All this proves is that in America you can sell anything.
We're keeping the world afloat buying all their worthless
crap. I measure people tho by the kitsch they buy.

Mike Rice


On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:42:14 -0500, Jay@tmbg.org wrote:

>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

[Back to original message]