Redbox Caves To Warner Bros., Will Delay New Movie Releases From Kiosks
from the dumber-and-dumber dept
Some of the movie studios (admittedly, not all of them) have been on a braindead fight against Redbox -- despite the fact that Redbox had created a service that people liked and were paying for and that generated revenue for the movie industry. There are still ongoing lawsuits, but today came the news that Redbox caved to Warner Bros., on the most important point: delaying the availability of new release movies until 28 days after the release. Yes, this is the same deal that Warner Bros. convinced Netflix to agree to last month. Basically, Warner Bros. is telling people to either not rent its video or to download them from an unauthorized source.The whole thing makes no sense at all. Warner Bros. mistakenly thinks that if people can't rent a particular DVD in the first four weeks of release, they're more likely to shell out money to actually buy the DVD. This is Warner Bros. pretending that it can influence customer behavior by denying them what they want. That's a strategy that has never worked well. What this means is that at the moment when Warner Bros. actually puts some marketing effort behind the DVD release, that movie will not be available from the most popular rental options. And, the bizarre reasoning put forth by Netflix that this would benefit customers by improving inventory and availability of movies is not seen in reality. So rather than pissing off some customers because a movie is not available, you're now pissing off all customers by making the movie not be available on purpose, and then effectively massively increasing the amount of time they have to wait to see the movie? Does no one at Warner realize that a lot of those "customers" will simply decide to go see other movies or to download an unauthorized copy instead?
Based on Warner Bros., logic here, why release movies at all?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: delays, kiosks, movies, releases, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hehe, excellent point! If reducing availability of a movie will cause people to spend more money on it, then it follows that by simply not releasing movies people will offer infinity dollars to get their hands on them.
You might be up for a job at Warner Bros. Mike!
* Unnecessary extra comma removed from quote for your reading convenience ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PPSTREAM
On the homepage there is a big image of the most watched movie somthing to do with poncahontas and smurf's
Now they just have to make the other 150 thousands "free movie downloads" that google shows agree with those terms too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this new window make it a better movie?
I really hope they have partnered with a environmentally conscientious company like http://www.secondlifedisc.com/ to recycle all those unused, shiny Warner Discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for never releasing movies, that sounds like a great idea. Warner Bros. through infinite scarcity could whip up a frenzy of consumer anticipation by never releasing movies. Now that would be a captive audience...for someone else to sell their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The rest are lost to both the studios and, sadly, probably Redbox.
But... the whole point of this exercise is to force people to *buy* see-once movies? (walks off laughing like hell)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uninspiring film + extended waiting period = watch for free (if at all).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just steal the movies already
The movie distributors sure are doing a good job of making themselves look like assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
10 years+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 10 years+
In that case, the tape was released at very high prices (say $100) so that only people intending to make a profit from the purchase were able to buy. Later, the price was reduced so that regular people could afford to purchase for their own private use.
There was nothing that stopped people from buying early at the "rental price", and for very popular movies, it wasn't uncommon.
The reason the studios did this was because they understood the first-sale doctrine, and merely used natural economic forces to attempt to make a profit. Today, they have forgotten how to do this, and insist on strong-arming anyone (rental outlets, movie theaters, etc.) who dreams of making some money from using the studio's "hard work" in a perfectly legal way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You spelled "TAM logic" wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But I bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But I bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But I bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But I bet...
Based on their censorship policy, they're dead to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But I bet...
http://www.blockbusterexpress.com/dvd-machines
I've never seen one of these boxes in real life though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New agreement with Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New agreement with Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New agreement with Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Years back I read a book ...
There is also the simple fact that every media distribution company is doing everything they shouldnt be doing to try and win the battle (short term profits) and not the war (long term profits).
Its very scary when you think about it in those terms.
"When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength."
Funny if you think of the town being the a village of 1 billion people, and the army being 50,000 record company employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, there goes another good thing...
The movie studios behind deals such as this must be brain-dead to not figure this bit of economic madness out. It's stunts like this that end up causing people to go to file-sharing sites to download the movie. If the movie industry can't do anything smart, they should do nothing at all and leave everything as it is instead of making things worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No big deal...
I wonder if the industry has every surveyed people to find out if renters ever buy? I rent like crazy but never buy. Ok, I have a few movies, but very few. So it seems like there has to be many more like me which means you have two types of customers, renters & buyers. Seems they should be serving both types instead of trying to force only one type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No big deal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sale date/ release date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nah . . . come on?
this cant be true, they cant really be that disconnected from thier own consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb Ideas
Dumb Idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb Ideas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Just Don't Understand Your Thinking
It makes me believe that the writer has ZERO basic understanding of copyright and intellectual law. Netflix and Red Box DO NOT own the content. That means they have no leg to stand on in court. I mean really.....it won't hurt Netflix and Red Box to hold flix 28 days one bit because if the movie was that damd good the consumer would likely have seen it in a theatre.
In addition, the writer seems to have forgotten that the studios likely have contracts with the cable companies as well as distributors such as HBO. The studios charge HBO, SHO, Cin and others to carry those flix and allowing Netflix and Red Box to compete with HBO etc. means they don’t get back that higher premium they would get when HBO and/or your cable company charges you five bucks to watch a single just released flick on-demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Just Don't Understand Your Thinking
Copyright does not apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Just Don't Understand Your Thinking
Around here we look at other parts of the law too, not just copyright. We consider how consumer protection law, like the right of first sale, interacts with "IP". In this particular case, once Netflix or Redbox *buys* a *physical* disc, they can do any darn thing they want with the *physical* disc.
The points regarding cable broadcast are entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Search for the phrase "felony interference with a business model" for additional background information on this blog.
Thanks for coming, and we hope you'll stick around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you return a DVD to Redbox, you have to put the disk in the case with the barcode facing a certain way. Then you have to put the case in the machine facing a certain way. There are a maximum of four ways to put the DVD in the case and the case in the machine. I stood behind an Einstein who put the case in the slot SIX TIMES without success before I gave up and left.
If someone is standing in front of the Redbox, go someplace else. You will never get the chance to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Behind the Scenes
This could be viewed as unfair competition by the FCC but worth the try for the Studios.
As a sample HBO just Launched their own streaming service trying to compete with NetFlix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"....Will Delay New Movie Releases From Kiosks"
(1.) Bit-Torrent traffic will increase by leaps & bounds. And so will the ad revenue on those tracking websites. Which will help to make them stronger and more robust.
(2.) Application developers that sell DVD conversion & duplication software will see increased revenue.
(3.) Consumers will turn to friends, family and associates to obtain early copies of these releases.
Conclusion: The consumers will find another way. And win. Again. ;-))
So, the only real losers here are Warner, Netflix, and now RedBox. ;P Screw'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nuts!
This is going to curtial piracy and increase sales of the DVD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In case they are listening...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that's only because I don't care to torrent movies.
And yes, with David 100% - I can only think of maybe one or two movies in my entire life that I've bought without seeing first. So if I never see it, there's pretty much zero chance I'll buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nor is the entertainment industry getting cash from me on *their terms* a god given right either.
Actually the last 4 movies I bought were all made prior to 1995 anyway. Most of this 'junk' out now, I just can't stand.
I'm just glad they made SO MUCH stuff even prior to the mid-90's, there's so much to buy still..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when are you stupid people ever going to learn NO NOT WARNER ..YOU CUSTOMERS
You really think you have the power to control rights owners like you are so needed.
When are you people (customers) going to learn you’re just a minority of complainers and you think you run things?
Why do you think companies protect and control their copyrights?
Your comments are ignorant when you say things like 'how stupid warners are' like the little customer you are, doing your 9-5 or signing on the dole, but you know best?
You call them stupid and you act like you: the customer" is in control.
Wake up people your nothing but 1 customer and you are either going to play the game the company wants or your going to go else where and the 'company' is not crying about your 1 little payment
You are far smaller than your internet replies make you feel because there are millions of people who do follow what ever rules the owners of the products want to set so thinking your all that is for your own ego, because your not!
if you take that final choice of stealing others protected products than you’re not only a small insignificant, you’re also a thief.
Complain like you have power but you have nothing but $9.00 for the film and the big companies won't miss your tiny contribution or take your small minded advice on how your will just steal it from a torrent or go somewhere else. I can almost see them reading your stupid comments and laughing and telling jokes about how they need to get your personal sale
Oh dear did I burst your tiny bubble and now you realise all your stupid advice about how you know best is actually laughable. Look at yourself what do you really know and how do you have the inside track on the rights holders and they don't know what they are doing..please you make yourselves sound so stupid!
There problem is not little people like you who talk like you know something but actually don't.
The only problem to rights holders is the thieving community which is and always has been the traits of the lowest of low life and that’s a totally different thing to deal with than some over self important customers
Mark Ryder
http://www.ukunderground.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new release at store before rentals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies
Reply to your post of Feb 18, 2010.
Look Marky I don't care what the studios think about me.
I don't care if I'm one customer. It's all about me.
I want to watch a movie when I want. If it's available to rent, then I'll rent it, if not, then I'll steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner 28 day release
Over the years I watched the industry raise the price of VHS movies from $59.95 to $104.95 retail. I also (via trade mag info) found the outlandish attempts at high speed VHS replication that were tried. The real time replication was considered a major barrier to the industry. High speed replication, it seems, generated more problems than it solved.
The situation the studios are in is a direct side effect of digitization, something which was previewed by the audio industry. (DA) In order to get the DVD format established literally overnight, the studios had to work with the mass marketers, (WalMart, KMart,Target,etc) and they sold movies for $15 or less. These retail giants knew they were in the catbird seat and demanded that new releases be included before they would stock this new format. Overnight $104.95 VHS new releases were available as $19.95 DVD new releases.
What was accomplished by this DVD deal was to devalue new movie releases to 1/5. The side effect of this was the motivation to over saturate the market to make up the difference. This caused another problem addressed by ebay and amazon, cheap used movie dumps via used media brokers, which further stressed the value of a movie.
Another side effect of digitization high speed replication was it also allowed high speed/cheap piracy via recordable DVD and internet distribution. The logistics of DVD allowed for mail order sales and rental as well as viable vending machine operations. All these approaches involve the removal of the human labor factor as the premise for their marketing advantage. The result of thousand of jobs being lost in the video rental realm.
When all these new access came into play, the big box corporation found that it was beneficial for them to shrink their movie operations to the extent that alarmed the studios about the seriouly eroding physical presence and sales of new DVD releases. History of home video demonstrates that package entertainment(VHS,DVD) sales were noticeably more profitable than a electronic mediums. The current actions by MGM are not attempts (in my opinion) to prevent people from viewing movies, but rather to provide a release schedule to bolster their dangerously sagging DVD sales market.
In the early days of home video there was an orderly release schedule and equally orderly access to home entertainment which facilitated the market very well. Home entertainment had much more value. The digital age has injected mass confusion in this process, much of this confusion is illegal distribution.
I hope this confusion will be settled for the benefit of all, however I will admit to having no better answers than MGM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]