Posted by Biz on 01/11/06 06:50

Dont the rental companies potentially make better profits for business by
the lower non-rental pricing? Since they dont have to buy a 100 copies per
store for a popular title on relases day, but still get their couple dollars
or so per rental? Alot of people still rent the majoirty of their titles
like I do I would assume. I only buy certain marquee titles like Star Wars,
or Lord of the Rings, or other personal favorites...Except for the rampant
p2p downloading, which will only stop when people get some morals, the model
seems to work really well for the rest of us.....

"Joseph S. Powell, III" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:wP0xf.3898$5g1.3005@fe02.lga...
> Back in the day, when this Newsgroup was still fairly new and Norm Wilner
> was the "DVD Guru", there were some people who "stood up" and argued that
> DVD's need Rental Pricing, that is, the policy that a movie released on a
> format, should be priced very high for the first few months (around
> $60-$70.00) so that the "video rental stores" could make their bucks; if
you
> wanted to have the DVD right away, fine, but you would pay the high
premium,
> wheras if you waited a few months, it'd be $20-$25.00 or so.
> I argued then that it was a bad idea, and that most DVD afficianados
> preferred their DVD's with the cheap price right from the get-go.
> Is there one single person reading this who think Rental Pricing is the
way
> to go for DVD's?
>
>

[Back to original message]