DirecTV Admits Almost No One Wants To Pay $30 To Watch A Movie At Home
from the pricing,-duh dept
Back in April, when DirecTV officially announced its plan to let people see movies for $30 at home, we were not alone in suggesting the price was ridiculously high, and were somewhat shocked to see theaters complaining that they'd never be able to compete. Looks like our thoughts on the price turned out to be exactly right. As a few people have sent in, DirecTV has admitted that there's been very little uptake of the $30 movies, and flat out admits that the price is too high:The service is part of an attempt by studios to harness pay-TV as they seek new ways to sell movies and counter shrinking DVD sales. Few customers will purchase the premium rentals unless the quality of the movies improves and the price comes down, White said in an interview.Of course, the studios forced that price because they're petrified of pissing off the theater owners (who were already pissed off), because the big studios still think that the "movie business" is defined solely and completely by how well a film does in the theaters on its opening weekend. The theater owners, at the same time, don't want to have to compete and actually improve the quality of their service -- so they whine and complain any time the studios do anything to make accessing content outside of the theaters any easier.
�They�re priced too high for consumers,� White said. �We didn�t choose that price, but that�s where the studios forced us to be.�
The end result, then, is just a big question of why anyone bothered at all with this plan. It made no sense for anyone involved. If you're going to offer video on demand to consumers, offer them a reasonable product at a reasonable price or don't bother.
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: $30, movies, studios, video on demand
Companies: directv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why studios use theater results...
They can't evaluate a movie on profit or loss because movies from the big studios never make a profit.
I mean really... DUH! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why studios use theater results...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone say focus group?
Example from my own life: I have not bought a movie in over 18 years on any format. There are lot of reason why but mostly it comes down to I don't want to pay for something at a too high price that I may only watch a few times. But I did buy "Up" because I got a deal ($16) (2 year old son and he loved the movie) for all three formats. I got the DVD, the Blu-Ray and access to a Digital copy for that price.
The bargain I got was that we could watch on what we had (DVD), we got the option to watch on what we will have, and also got the option to transfer it to a portable player. (Although, later I found out it was limited.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
As you found, this means that it's so limited as to be almost useless. Of course, if you downloaded the film from an illicit source as a replacement, it would work perfectly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can anyone say focus group?
Only in the la-la-land of the movie studios can a digital copy "expire".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can anyone say focus group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
"Digital copy" is a coupon code that expires.
It's not like you've got a usable digital copy there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say focus group?
It's pretty trivial to make a non-limited digital copy from the DVD.
What limitations are you running into though, out of curiosity?
I also tend to think that the pricing on this VOD offering was not strictly a result of placating theater owners. I would bet that is actually the valuation they believe this service is worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
emphasis added
umm...Am I losing my mind or did that pronoun (he? he who?) come out of left field? I have no idea who the he is. Maybe 'it' if you want to talk about DirectTV as an entity...but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really lame comment. Nuf' Said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm glad I'm not the only one that have trouble reading things.
I have no idea if it is ADD, dysgraphia, dyslexia, heart attack sequels or something else but it just make me feel normal LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WELL HA!!!
now we see that you are all a bunch of freetarded goldfish rapists. Give it up the party is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a free market the producer does not dictate the price. It is not up to the producer to set a "fair price." The producer always has a price that they want or hope to get, but it is the consumers that get to decide what they are willing to pay for the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
i r phail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would not pay $30 to watch a first run movie on my TV. There are parts of the experience you get at the theater that cannot be replicated on a 50-60" flat screen.
I am sure the studios were thinking that "wow, for $30 you can invite a bunch of friends over and watch this movie. Hey thats a bargain because you would spend a lot more than that to see it at the theater".
What they fail to see is that the big screen is a different experience and by the time it hit's DVD, I can just rent it and invite friends over and watch it for $5 or less.
Now, I agree there is a certain segment of society that does not want to pay any price and would just prefer everything be free.
Studios need to recognize it is more about convenience than about a subset of folks that don't want to pay for a movie. I am happy to pay for content when it is content I want to watch.
I do prefer convenience though and therefore willing to pay for it. I pay my $15 monthly to get access to DVD/Blu Ray rentals and online streamed content. I occasionally go out to the movies with my wife. I don't torrent movies or other content.
There are few movies I would buy because there are only a handful of movies I would watch more than once.
Not everyone is a pirate, not everyone is trying to accumulate some massive movie library, not everyone expects everything for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's a very smart and reasonable business indeed.
Color me shocked with his conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the thinking was that you should pay more to be able to watch the movie on a smaller screen and not have to pay the $25 dollars you should for crap popcorn and flat soda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Their problem is after forcing their customers to wait 28 days for movies on netflix and redbox, they have made them complacent to wait the extra 30 days (when the normal pay per view price is offered). Once again, they screwed themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
:-( to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What people have to understand is that creators work very hard to make movies, it involves a lot of people and a lot of time, often over a year, and if you aren't prepared to pay 30 measly bucks to watch what it took over a thousand people to make, then you must think they are nothing better than slaves.
In many ways you consumertards are worse than the pirates, they at least make no bones about watching without paying at least in that moment of time, but paying "consumers" think that the pittance they hand over somehow covers their obligation to the people who sweated blood to make this entertainment for them.
What is six bucks or ten bucks or fifteen bucks from you worth to the thousands of people involved?
A kick in the teeth that's what it is.
Why oh why won't people learn to properly appreciate what the studios do for them.
The MPAA needs to start making instructive videos telling the peons exactly how much they get for the pennies they grudgingly pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No really, you don't have to pay for the employees, the cost of playing the movie at home is nearly zero (for them) so... $30? Really?
But as he said MAFIAA can always screw up a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The intent was to sell the showing at $30 at the end of the theater run but before the DVD / Blu-ray / Netflix etc. releases. The thought was that people would pay extra to see it sooner.
Still a bad idea though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does the $30 get you? You pay to see the movie a little bit sooner legally but that is all. You don't get value for the money.
I can actually believe that whoever it was who thought of this actually said to themselves "We'll compete with the free downloads of cams and screener rips by charging a ridiculously high fee for a one-time viewing!". I can believe it because these same people have done other bonehead maneuvers like this time and time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They need some remedial math classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many times do they have to fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many times do they have to fail?
Unfortunately they pay congress 1 billion, and congress turns around and passes some bill that gives them 10 billion. Hollywood then wastes 9 billion, and spends the 1 billion left on congress again. Cycle repeats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reaction of movie theaters shows once again that many people in the industry don't understand that people go to movies for the "going to a movie" experience. But in my weaker moments I do feel bad for theater owners who are stuck in the very small pricing zone between the exorbitant royalties they have to send to the studios and the amount that customers are willing to pay. It leaves them very little room to improve the movie-going experience that customers actually want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seemed like a good deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seemed like a good deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least they admitted the actual cause of the problem, unlike netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd pay half that
Also, I don't get why the studios bowed to the theatre owners. Don't the studios basically have the theatres over a barrel? No movies means no theatres. No theatres just means studios can get their revenue from elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd pay half that
The two most popular (and profitable) movie theaters in my city are not over the barrel by the studios, because neither of them show first run movies. What they do is show movies that have entered the second run, or from long ago in the back catalog. They consistently sell out their seats.
Oh, they also deliver beer, soda & snacks to your seat (you text them to order) and their seat are comfortable (1/3 of the seating is couches). And they're fun.
Nobody cares about them not having the first run movies. Even with new movies that people are "dying to see", I know a lot who wait for these theaters to show them because the experience is so much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe a little overpriced, but not by much
I actually would buy it to see a movie in my home for $20, or their magic $19.99, do that and I would jump on it.
Most people nowadays that can afford to go to movies have nice enough systems in their homes, and the popcorn and soda are cheaper and better tasting there too.
So, set the price at $19.99 and give some of that cut to movie theaters so they don't whine. problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A really bad bargain.
The BluRay will be better quality than anything coming from the cable company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Directv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Directv
Apparently it isn't too much because, as you admit, you are paying it.
"...it's obscene what they charge for TV."
If it's obscene, QUIT PAYING THEM.
/common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Officer Bologna(I laugh every time I hear his name, it must have been a wonderful childhood)
http://pastebin.com/nC4f5uca
[ 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 ]
Personally, I enjoy going to see action movies on the big screen, but comedies or dramas are perfectly suited for home viewing. I made the unfortunate mistake of going to see Hall Pass on the large screen and the hot tub scene might have scared me for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is simple as that, if they don't find a way to work it out, people will find alternatives legal or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly not
That means that people can either take it or leave it.
Cheapskates have been waiting for movies to get to HBO since the 70s.
Forget about Redbox or Netflix, this sort of stuff has been going on for much longer. "Waiting for a cheaper version" is nothing new by any stretch of the imagination.
It's been going on for at least 30 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's brilliant!
Meanwhile DirecTV got some free publicity. I'm ready to bet that more than one would be customer who was put off by the insane price-tag rented a cheaper movie instead. Add to this that they just shifted the full blame onto the moviestudios, and BAM: great marketing!
Now, the theaters might have been left out of the loop on this one, which is wrong, but they will probably realize that it wasn't a serious attempt anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]